232

EFFORTS TO OBTAIN A MADRITT.

The Reformers were to be appeased, and the purity of the baronage to be secured, by a factitions and elusive majority.

Then the Bill was to be talked over clause by cause, and by the end of the summer so many boroughs would be rescued, such alterations made in shires, so complete a preservation of freemen and potwallopers effected, so many plebeians disappointed of their suffrage, that the Bill could be without loss of dignity passed by a thin House, and sent back to the Commons as a fair British compromise. For this fine political game it seems there were many active minds trained and equipped. It was a long vista of action and fame for such clever men as Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Ellenborough. They would show themselves to be the genuine English politicians. The intrusive Foxites and Canningites would sink back into their proper subordination.

Mr. Greville, a permanent officer of the Privy Council, one of the rare men who can mediate without intriguing, who can explain one man's views to another man without warping the opinion, went to and fro between Earl Grey's friends and the allied Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who persevered in trying to make a little temporary majority to carry the second reading. Of course the Ministers ceased from private attempts at persuasion such as had been made in the autumn. They asked from time to time how the negotiations were getting on, whether the bargainers could promise a sufficient group of converts, whether this or that concession about metropolitan boroughs or

ECCLESIASTICAL INFLUENCE.

203

double suffrages would satisfy them and the waverers. It was left to the two lords to settle with their allies from what sources the little majority was to be obtained. Mr. Greville for some time hoped that Dr. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, a divine selected according to custom on the score of his gentleness to preside over the English clergy, would lead a little troop of prelates into the camp of Reform. Perhaps he had been told of the Canterbury meeting at which it was proposed to turn the Cathedral into stables for cavalry. If the King had asked him to save the throne by voting either for or against the Radicals it would have been easier for him to make up his mind. As it was, he kept the three laymen in suspense, and had, apparently, the peace of the kingdom hanging on his decision; but the peacemakers ultimately had to do without him.

Of the other peers who were entreated to further the work of compromise none had, like the Archbishop, a following. No one had a following save the Duke of Wellington. He had lost influence three years earlier by surrendering to the Catholics, but he had recovered much of what was then lost. He was the only certain leader to whom Tories that valued their political footing could turn when in doubt.

The only person that seemed to hold out a flag for others to rally round was the Bishop of London ; his public spirit and straightforwardness delighted the Ministers. With him went nine bishops, one of whom, Dr. Sumner of Chester, was a writer of taste,

204

THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY.

a guileless and generous follower of primitive Christians, and a lifelong friend of the Church's peace.

When they were counting up their supporters the Whigs lamented the absence of an old man laid up with the gout in Guernsey. This was Lord de Saumarez, one of King William's peers. He had commanded a line-of-battle ship in the action of April 12, 1781, which saved Jamaica from the French when a victory was sorely needed and all the world was against England; he had, after a repulse at Algesiras, displayed the true Nelson elasticity, and turned failure into triumph. Fifty years after Rodney's action, thirty years after Algesiras, he was recommended for a title. King William remembered that he had commanded the Baltic fleet when some great ships were sent home at the wrong season, and were lost in the foggy shoals. It was owing to Earl Grey's entreaties that this mishap was forgiven, and the veteran permitted to set an English title on his proud Guernsey family. It was a pity that one whose honourable experience reached back to the days of Keppel and Rockingham could not come to help the good old cause.

The cause was, in the debate, somewhat damaged by the Earl of Shrewsbury. He was a Catholic, and his invective against the Church and State Establishment, which had been so recently altered in his favour, might be taken as a warning against any further relaxation of privilege. His earldom was of the middle ages. The Reformers prided themselves on the liberality of nearly all the peers whose titles dated from ages before Mr. Pitt's Ministry. Mr. Macaulay

VINDICATION OF PROTESTANT CLERGY. 205

argued that Reform was safe and respectable because the Cavendishes, the Russells, the Talbots were for it; and the head of the Talbots was the Earl of Shrewsbury. But, when a family has been kept out of the political career for many generations, it is no wonder if it betrays, when first let loose, some wildness. The tone of a man just enfranchised may jar on the ear. Such discontent as the Talbot uttered was probably seething in the hearts of many plebeians; and the safest plan was to give them the franchise and bid them back their sentiments with their votes.

The Bishop of Gloucester, a steady Anti-Reformer, struck hard at the Catholic earl in defending the Bench from his charge of abetting tyranny. He pointed out that the last tyrant they had known in England was James II.; that the example of resistance to him was set by Protestant bishops. He would not disparage the glory of the ancestors of the lay peers whom he was addressing. Some of them had ancestors who helped to expel the tyrant; but, had it not been for the Protestant clergy throughout the country, the efforts of those noblemen might have failed, and 'the House of Brunswick might have moved but little beyond a German principality.' Although the House of Brunswick did not come directly after James II., this vindication of the clergy was, in the main, truthful; and the Bishop's account of the actual Monarchy, as resting on the will of humble clergymen as well as great lords, was a valuable contribution to historical theory as well as a smart thrust in debate.

206

SHAM FIGHT IN DEBATE.

The debate, although it was complimented, according to custom, as being a finer performance than any corresponding House of Commons debate, must be regarded as a sham fight. Lord Grey's two speeches were deeds; they indicated his purpose; they were hardly endeavours after persuasion. He made a sufficient show of moderation and pliancy, without disguising his resolve. He reckoned on being allowed to lay the Bill, after the Easter holidays, before the Peers in Committee, that is, the Peers present in their chamber, without proxy voting. It was a nicely adjusted victory that was provided for him. One hundred and twenty-eight Lords voted in person for the Bill; one hundred and twenty-six against it. The proxies, which could not be used in the minute discussion of clauses, gave him a further majority of seven. He was in no hurry to follow up this success. It was on the twenty-third day after the division that he proceeded to try the sincerity of the waverers.

The Tories in the Upper House were under the great disadvantage of having no man sufficiently wise

1 Mr. Greville states that every arrangement was made for taking the King to the House of Lords to prorogue Parliament on Saturday, April 14, if the second reading were refused, and that on the Tuesday following the Peers would have appeared in the Gazette. This statement is not in keeping with the adjacent entries in his journal. The transactions of May 17 show that even then the King had never seen, much less approved of, any list of men that were to have peerages offered them. Until better proof is adduced, it is reasonable to believe that if beaten on April 14, Earl Grey would have had to go through the same process as he actually went through in May.

2 Lord Grey's private secretary, Mr. Charles Wood, had calculated, a few days before the division on this majority, of nine in all. Mr. Greville, nine days before the division, reckoned on a majority not below six nor above eighteen.