is ready to associate himself with his com-
patriots in the great work of legislation.
Mr Bradlaugh was a notable instance of a
man who, representing the most advanced
opinions, came in and dwelt among us, and
earned the respect of all by his constant
labours and the honest and independent
expression of his views.
There may be in each Parliament men
who come only to wreck and to obstruct.
But they are few in number and have no
influence. They disappear and are forgot-
ten. But the sentiment of the House as
an institution remains to - day much as it
was when I first entered it.
Many changes, of course, there have been.
Some may suggest that I am riding my own
108 HOUSE OF COMMONS, THEN AND NOW.
hobby if I hint that members are not quite
so willing as they were to burden them-
selves with the heavy work that falls on
members who sit on Committees — labours
which are not much appreciated out of
doors, and of which constituents know so
little. In old days the county members, the
chairmen of quarter sessions, the "great un-
paid," who did so much good and true work
throughout our rural districts, fell into harness
very easily and readily. Nowadays, with a
larger proportion of members whose time is
occupied with business or professional en-
g;ae;ements, it becomes more and more diffi-
cult to find men who will devote the hours
of midday to Committee work.
Costumes vary, of course, with members of
Parliament, as they do with undergraduates
at the University ; and the benches on both
sides are thronged with men who wear hats
and coats which would have shocked Speaker
Denison in 1860, and brought down on their
PRESS AND HOURS. 109
wearers his severe condemnation. White
ducks, on the other hand, have almost dis-
appeared ; yet the Duke of Wellington wore
them always in summer, and I have seen Mr
Secretary Peel standing at the table so at-
tired before the Georgian era had ended.
There is less rhetoric. Speakers are less
profound and less ornate. Yet Lord Pal-
merston, during all the time he was Prime
Minister, scarcely ever made a great speech.
What he said was addressed to the audience
and adapted to the occasion. Classical
quotations are out of date, and our ordinary
debates are dull and commonplace.
One really important change the House
has made is in the hours it keeps. When
I entered it there were no rules to regulate
its rising. The House was generally desirous
of finishing the business on the paper. But
we didn't sit very late, as a rule. About
twelve or half-past Mr Brotherton, M.P. for
Salford, used to get up and move the ad-
110 HOUSE OF COMMONS, THEN AND NOW.
journnient with a face beaming with good
nature. He did this so regularly that to-
wards midnight there were always calls
for "Brotherton! Brotherton ! " And very
generally Brotherton's appeal was responded
to. Lord Palmerston would express a hope
that the hon. member would not press his
motion : " There was just a little more
business to be done, and it would soon be
got through." And so it was, and in half
an hour or so the House had risen.
This brings to my recollection an amusing
incident, also in Lord Palmerston's leader-
ship. Mr Ewart, M.P. for Dumfries, brought
forward a motion as to the earlier rising of
the House. The House, he said with some
solemnity, ought to set an example to the
rest of the community. Palmerston, in
reply, said that the lion, gentleman told
them that the House should set an example
by not keeping late hours. But there might
be a difference of opinion as to what late
LORD PALMERSTON'S JOKE. Ill
hours were. He had a friend, for example,
who had an appointment with the Duke of
Wellington. His friend was what might be
called a late man. The Duke, as everybody
knew, was quite the reverse. The appoint-
ment was for eight o'clock in the morning.
He (Lord Palmerston) said to his friend,
•' How can you manage to keep it ? " " Oh,"
he replied, "it's the easiest thing in the
world. I shall take it the last thing before
going to bed." The twelve o'clock rule,
which has now become a standing order of
the House, has effected a great improvement
on the state of affairs which prevailed from
1880 to 1890.
VI.
FIVE SPEAKERS, 1839-1899
H
1839-1899.]
FIVE SPEAKERS.
115
VI.
FIVE SPEAKERS, 1839-1899.
SPEAKER SHAW-LEFEVEE, 1839-57 — SPEAKER DENISON, 1857-72 —
SPEAKER BRAND, 1872-83 — SPEAKER PEEL, 1883-95 — SPEAKER
GULLY, 1895.
My recollections of eleven Parliaments
since I became a member of the House
of Commons group themselves round the
Speakers under whom I have sat, and I may-
say something about them here.
Speaker Shaw-Lefevre .
1839-57
it Denison
1857-72
n Brand
1872-83
ii Peel .
1883-95
M Gully
1895
Of Speaker Lefevre I have vivid and most
charming recollections. He was my country
116 FIVE SPEAKERS. [1839-
neighbour, residing at Heckfield in Hamp-
shire, a few miles from my home, and we
used to have long talks about the inner life
of the House of Commons. No subject
delighted him more. He had been called
to the Chair in 1839 by the action of the
independent members. Goulburn was the
nominee of the Opposition, and the Govern-
ment of Lord Melbourne was believed to
favour the candidature of Spring-Rice ; but
Lefevre carried the day.
He was a very strong Speaker. We owe
to him greatly the continuance of the
authority which still surrounds his suc-
cessors. When he came to the Chair the
discipline of the House was relaxed, and
there was a great want of decorum. Cock-
crowing and other disorderly interruptions
had been not uncommon. Lefevre changed
all that. He was a splendid man physically,
and looked every inch the jitart. He en-
forced the old rule which required members
SPEAKER SHAW-LEFEVRE.
1899.] LEFEVRE AND DENISON. 117
attending the Speaker's dinners to appear
in full dress, and thus revived the dignity
which rightly appertains to Mr Speaker,
as well when he occupies the Chair as in
his social relations with members elsewhere.
He was a very popular Speaker. Person-
ally, he was a delightful man, dignified
and courteous ; and it was always a treat
to spend a few hours with Lord Eversley
in his library at Heckfield, looking on those
terrace gardens which were laid out with
exquisite taste and kept up in perfect order.
Speaker Denison succeeded to a House
that had reached smoother water ; order was
respected, and his authority was acknow-
ledged and loyally accepted. Mr Evelyn
Denison had a fine appearance. In natural
ability, certainly, he was second to none.
He belonged to a most distinguished family.
He maintained, in all respects, the dignity
of the Chair.
If Lefevre and Denison were distinguished
]18 FIVE SPEAKERS. [1839-
for their commanding presence, Sir Henry
Brand was not equally fortunate, but he
ingratiated himself with the House by his
suavity. He held the reins with a light
hand, and sometimes, perhaps, hesitated too
long before taking the initiative ; yet his
memory will ever be held in honour for his
assertion of the prerogative of the Chair on
a notable occasion. That was the coup
d'etat, so called, of January 1881, when on
his own authority he put the question and
stopped a debate which had been prolonged
for nearly two days.
After Speaker Brand came Speaker Peel,
who is to be regarded as one of the most
able, one of the strongest, men who ever
filled the Chair. He had great dignity
and a magnificent presence. Whenever
anything occurred which called forth his
righteous indignation, he awed and im-
pressed the House by his solemn and
emphatic utterances. I have a profound
SPEAKER BRAND.
Ct ,.
ft?0
A
1899.] MR GULLY. 119
admiration for Speaker Peel. I proposed
him for re-election in January 1886. In
March 1895 I proposed Sir Matthew W.
Ridley as his successor, and in August 1895
proposed Mr Gully, the present Speaker,
for re-election. That is surely a unique
record. It is unnecessary for me to say
how excellent a Speaker Mr Gully is. His
unanimous re-election in 1895 was a strong
tribute to his great capacity, and every
year which has since passed has only added
to the respect which all entertain for him.
The House at large rejoices to know that
in him they have found a worthy successor
to the great men who have occupied the
Chair in past times.
VII.
IN THE HOUSE, 1857-1859
1857-1859.] IN THE HOUSE. 123
VII.
IN THE HOUSE, 1857-1859.
PALMERSTON IN THE ASCENDANT — DEBATES ON THE DIVORCE ACT —
SIR RICHARD BETHELL AND MR GLADSTONE — THE CONSPIRACY BILL
— LORD DERBY'S GOVERNMENT — JUDGE ADVOCATE-GENERAL — THE
DIFFICULTIES OF TAKING OFFICE — SWORN OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
— INDIA BILLS — A VOTE OF CENSURE DEBATE— DISRAELI AND
GLADSTONE — A WHITEBAIT DINNER — CHERBOURG — WINDSOR —
LORD PALMERSTON AGAIN PRIME MINISTER.
I take up the thread of my reminiscences
of the House of Commons where I left off
at the end of the elections after the China
Dissolution in 1857. The new Parliament
met on April 30. The star of Palmerston
was in the ascendant. Bright and Cobden
were conspicuous by their absence. Sir
Stafford Northcote, retiring from Dudley,
had been unsuccessful in securing the suf-
124 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
frages of North Devon. Lord Cavendish,
afterwards Lord Hartington, now Duke of
Devonshire, and Lord Althorp, now Earl
Spencer, made their first appearance, and
were welcomed as representatives of historic
names and Whig traditions. Mr Evelyn
Denison was chosen Speaker.
There was no great thirst for legislation.
The Eoyal Speech at the close of the session,
indeed, spoke of the many Acts of great
importance which had been passed, but there
was only one great legislative enactment on
which the Government could congratulate
itself, — the Act establishing a Divorce Court.
The bill was introduced in the Lords. It
came on in the Commons for second reading
on July 30, and became the law of the land
on August 28. It did not raise any party
question, and the issue was never doubtful.
Mr Gladstone and Mr Disraeli were united
in opposition, while Mr Walpole and Mr
Henley were divided, the former supporting,
1859.] SIR RICHARD BETHELL. 125
the latter opposing, the bill. But the pro-
ceedings in Committee were very animated.
We had a succession of single combats in
the Homeric style between the Attorney-
General, Sir Richard Bethell, and Mr Glad-
stone, which were only equalled in briskness
by those of 1866 between Mr Lowe and Mr
Gladstone about the Trojan Horse. The
Attorney-General speaking at the end of
the Treasury Bench and Mr Gladstone at
the corner seat on the second bench below
the gangway were in close contact, and the
latter was described by the former as " boil-
ing over with arguments," and " his eloquence
exuding from every pore." The Attorney-
General was supercilious and amusing, while
Mr Gladstone gave us a striking illustration
of unflinching courage in fighting a lost
battle, of his wonderful power of debate,
and of his intense and earnest religious
conviction. In vain he complained that the
bill was pushed forward with unprecedented
126 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
levity. In the Upper House the Duke of
Norfolk, as representative of the Koman
Communion, had offered his determined
opposition. But the Lords Spiritual as a
body, with the exception of Bishop Wilber-
force, were less vigilant in their criticism
than might have been expected with regard
to a bill that proposed changes of such vast
importance in the law of Church and State.
April 30, 1857.
It is an uncommon pleasant thing for oneself
personally to find you are a member of a new
House, but the exhibition on our benches forms a
painful contrast to what it was two months since.
The affair [election of Speaker] has been very flat ;
nothing could be more meagre than Lord Harry
Vane and Thornely, but what our new Speaker
said was in good taste and with a good manner.
There was a mistake as to the hour of the House
meeting, and in consequence Dizzy was not there,
but it fell to Walpole's lot to join with Palmer-
ston in congratulations. We meet to-morrow at
2. As they swear by counties, and Durham stands
well up in the alphabet, I hope to swear before 4.
1859.] SESSION OF '57. 127
We had a very pleasant party at the Gladstones'
last night, and very Conservative on the whole.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir G. Corne-
wall Lewis) was among the guests.
May 7, 1857.
Such a contrast between May 7 and February 2.
Then all seemed to forebode storm ; now, every-
thing betokens calm. A most meagre speech with
nothing in it. Dodson good in language, but very
heavy ; a most injudicious seconder from Buchanan
the new M.P. for Glasgow — so violent an attack on
the old Parliament about the China vote that it
called up General Thompson, the M.P. for Brad-
ford, though he was not in Parliament, and not a
party to the vote. Lord Kobert Grosvenor pro-
tested also, and asked about Pteform in Parliament.
The question was being put when Pam rose, pro-
mised the subject should have the anxious and
serious consideration of the Cabinet, and that he
would bring in a measure for next session. Eoe-
buck pinned him to his promise, and the House
went home at 6 p.m. Not a single syllable from
any member of the Opposition. Many significant
changes. S. Herbert gone above the gangway,
and so severed from Graham and Gladstone and
enlisted as a Palmerstonian. The strangest of all,
128 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
Sir E. Dering, one of our men, the man who gave
notice of motion to reject Lord J. Russell's "Reform
Bill in 1854, planted at the back of Pam when he
promises a Reform Bill for 1858 ! The most sud-
den change I have seen. Beresford Hope sits on
the Ministerial side also.
July 17, 1857.
We had a very lively night for a dull House
yesterday, but the Government carried it all their
own way. I voted with them ; indeed I made up
my mind to do so early, and I was exceedingly glad
when I found Walpole and Dizzy doing the same.
They both spoke very well. The Peelites were as
eccentric as usual. There was a great meeting of
the party, at which it was resolved by 2 to 1 to
oppose the Government ! The 2 did so — Graham
and Gladstone — the 1 went away. Gladstone
spoke well but not wisely. Graham had been dis-
tinguishing himself in the morning by taking the
lead of a large party of Radical members at a
meeting on the Jew Bill.
©
Parliament was called together again on
December 3, and passed a bill to indemnify
the Bank of England for having issued notes
in excess of the amount authorised by the
1859.] THE INDIAN MUTINY. 129
Act of 1844. It then adjourned until
February 4, 1858.
The Indian Mutiny and the account of the
enormities committed at Delhi and Cawnpore
had painfully absorbed the minds of all
during the autumn, and our Indian Empire
seemed shaken to its very foundations. The
affairs of India, therefore, occupied the most
prominent place in the Koyal Speech ; the
attention of Parliament being next called to
the laws which regulated the representation
of the people. But meanwhile another
matter arose which demanded the prompt
action of the British Government, and
produced an unexpected result by its con-
sequences on the Ministry of Lord Palmer-
ston. In the middle of January, Europe
was shocked by the startling intelligence
of the attempt to assassinate the Emperor
Napoleon. Some of the conspirators had
lived under the shelter of our laws, and
had abused the asylum which England
I
130 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
offered to political refugees by going forth
from our shores to take part in these
atrocious acts. Irritation sprang up be-
tween the two countries. The French
colonels addressed the Emperor, denouncing
the English nation. Count Walewski made
a communication to the English Govern-
ment. On February 9 Lord Palmerston
introduced a bill to amend the law relating
to conspiracy to murder, which Disraeli and
the Tories supported. Leave was given to
introduce it by a large majority — Ayes 299,
Noes 99. The second reading came on on
the 19th. Mr Milner Gibson moved a reso-
lution from the Government side of the
House expressing regret that the Govern-
ment, before introducing the bill, " had not
felt it to be their duty to make some reply
to the important despatch received from the
French Government, dated Paris, January
20, 1858."
This amendment received the support of
1859.] MILNER GIBSON'S AMENDMENT. 131
Mr Disraeli and of Mr Gladstone, and of
the majority of our party. Mr Henley said
that the resolution was " true as Gospel :
how could any man vote against it ? " In
my view, Lord Palmerston was right in
condemning; it as an " insidious amendment."
It was unsound, if not unprecedented, in-
tended to destroy the bill, and to defeat
by a side-wind the decision of the House
on the previous stage. The House carried
Mr Milner Gibson's amendment, and so
destroyed the bill by a majority of 19, —
Ayes 215, Noes 234. I voted in the
minority with Lord Palmerston. After a
lapse of forty years I see no reason what-
ever for regretting my vote, and I should
be prepared to do again, after deliberation,
what I then had to do on the spur of the
moment.
[The events of this month and the fall
of Lord Palmerston's Government are de-
132 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
scribed in more detail in the following
letters : — ]
Feb. 4, 1858.
As far as I can collect, we are going to have an
anxious session. The Refugee question has become
most serious. Lord Cowley came over from Paris
on Tuesday, by the desire, it is said, of the Emperor,
to represent to our Government the feelings of the
French army, and that if something be not done,
his Government cannot control them. H. Liddell,
who has just come from Paris, tells me all the
officers refused at first to go to Lord Cowley's
ball in honour of the wedding [of the Princess
Eoyal], and only went in obedience to the Em-
peror's express orders. They then wanted not to
wear the Victoria medals, and that also was done
at last by order. We shall therefore have first
and foremost an Alien Bill of some sort. I sus-
pect the India Bill is to dwindle to very little.
Lord John and Lord Grey are said to be against
Lord Palmerston ; and Macaulay, who has been
created a peer since last session, is talked of as
likely to make his first speech in the Lords for
the East India Company, and against the Govern-
ment. It follows, then, that, forced to bring in
an unpopular Alien Bill, and to drop their medi-
1859.] THE CONSPIRACY BILL. 133
tated Indian measure, they must try a Eadical
Keform Bill instead of a moderate one, and this
is just the course such a reckless gamester as
Pam is likely to adopt. A pretty prospect, is
it not ?
Feb. 9.
We had wrangling up to one o'clock on the vote
of thanks to the army in India. Dizzy and Pak-
ington objecting to Lord Canning being included,
fortunately common - sense and generous feeling
were better represented by Walpole and Henley,
or the whole party would have been discredited.
At one time it seemed like a division, when I
should decidedly have voted against Dizzy. Then
came the Conspiracy Bill, and the House is in
such a state of absurd excitement. It is a disgrace
to our law that the act of stealing a pennyworth
of faggots should be a higher offence than con-
spiracy to murder, and the blot, being hit, ought
to be mended. Lord John kept very quiet, but it
is said he is ready to go against Pam. If he does,
he must be prepared to ride into office on the
British lion declaring war against France. I don't
like Walewski's letter, and I don't like the whole
aspect of business ; especially when I recollect the
institution in August last of the medal of St Helena
134 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
for the old soldiers. But this is not the moment
for a quarrel, if we can prevent it. The debate is
adjourned.
Feb. 10.
We divided this morning at one o'clock — 299 to
99 — a large majority for Palmerston. Johnny has
made a mess of it again, having made a dull but
violent speech, and carried few people with him.
There are rather less than 30 Conservatives
amongst the 99. Dizzy made an excellent speech,
very effective and very statesmanlike; altogether
the debate was more creditable to the dignity and
character of the House than that of Monday.
Feb. 19.
It is a strange House of Commons and a most
unstatesmanlike body ! I wonder how it will com-
port itself when it has to face a French invasion ?
for I shall be wonderfully astonished if we can
keep the peace between this and August. I think
even Louis Napoleon himself is plotting war, and
that day by day, and step by step, we are beinu
goaded, or driven, or are "drifting" (or whatever
you like to call it), into it.
Feb. 22.
We have had the shortest possible announce-
ment from Pam to - night, and have adjourned
1859.] A DERBYITE GOVERNMENT. 135
till Friday. All that is known is that Gladstone
at present declines to join. He will not come
alone, and the others will not come with him —
another instance of the curious way in which the
Peelites are always marring everything. We shall
therefore have a Derbyite Government " pure and
simple" as in 1852. It may last until February
next if it is lucky, but qucere? I have had plenty
of congratulations and plenty of jokes ; the rumour
[that he was to be Under-Secretary for the Home
Department] is only in the ' Times,' but it is copied
into all the evening papers. Dolly (Lord Adolphus
Vane) is in very good humour, and joined in con-
gratulations. No one is in any heart about the
matter except the lawyers who may get judgeships
during the next six months. Every one else regards
it as a rash and perilous experiment.
The result of the vote was to put an
end to Lord Palmerston's Government. I
had the honour of holding a post in the
Ministry of Lord Derby which succeeded
it. The manner of my coming into office
was somewhat remarkable. The critical
division took place on the Friday. I
136 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
went out of town on the Saturday, be-
lieving that my prospects of holding office,
if I ever had any, were at an end. I
noticed with some amazement my name ap-
pearing in Monday's ' Times ' among the
conjectural appointments — as Under Sec-
retary for the Home Office. I was at the
House of Commons through the • week, and
on Friday the 26th I heard all the writs
moved. The Government was practically
completed. On Friday night I left town
again, and did not return until the fol-
lowing Wednesday, when on going into
the Carlton I met Disraeli on the steps.
He said to me, "Have you answered Lord
Derby's letter yet?" "What letter?" I
replied; and then he said, "There is a
high post for you, and you will be sworn
of the Privy Council. You will have to
be re-elected ; Lord Derby is waiting for
a reply." I said that I had not got the
letter, — had not heard of any. On going
1859.] OFFER OF OFFICE. 137
into the Club and asking the hall -porter
if there were any letters for me, he pulled
out of the pigeon-hole Lord Derby's com-
munication marked "Private and Immedi-
ate," with Lord Derby's name on the en-
velope. It seems almost incredible that
this could have happened at the Carlton,
during a Ministerial crisis, — but so it was.
I opened the letter, which ran as follows : —
St James's Square, Feb. 26, 1858.
Dear Sir, — The Government appointments being
now nearly complete, may I request that you
will do me the favour of calling here at as
early an hour to-morrow between 10 and 1 as
may suit your convenience. I have reserved an
appointment which I am enabled to offer to
your acceptance, which I think might not be
unacceptable to you, and for which you are par-
ticularly well qualified. I ought to add that
the acceptance will involve the necessity of
vacating your seat for Durham, which, however,
if your acceptance of office be locally approved,
can hardly raise any difficulty. — I am, dear sir,
yours faithfully, Derby.
138 IN THE HOUSE. [1857-
I went to St James's Square instantly,
saw Lord Derby, told him that I had that
moment only received his letter, and found
that the post was that of Judge Advocate-
General. I said that I did not feel I had
any claim to the appointment, — I had voted
against the party the other night. But
he replied that that did not matter — it
was not a party question ; and would I
accept the appointment ? I replied, " Yes,
certainly." As to the seat, I believed that