IN THE HOUSE.
On November 20, 1837, the young Queen opened her first Parliament in
person. The day was brilliant with sunshine, the crowds from Buckingham
Palace to the House were immense, the House of Lords was crammed with
Peers and the gallery with Peeresses, who occupied every seat, and
even ‘rushed’ the reporters’ gallery, three reporters only having been
fortunate enough to take their places before the rush.[3]
[3] I am indebted for the whole of this chapter to _Random
Recollections of the Lords and Commons_, 1838.
[Illustration: THE ‘NEW’ HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, FROM THE RIVER
(First stone laid 1840. Sir Charles Barry, architect)]
When Her Majesty arrived and had taken her place, there was the rush
from the Lower House.
‘Her Majesty having taken the oath against Popery, which she did in a
slow, serious, and audible manner, proceeded to read the Royal Speech;
and a specimen of more tasteful and effective elocution it has never
been my fortune to hear. Her voice is clear, and her enunciation
distinct in no ordinary degree. Her utterance is timed with admirable
judgment to the ear: it is the happy medium between too slow and too
rapid. Nothing could be more accurate than her pronunciation; while
the musical intonations of her voice imparted a peculiar charm to
the other attributes of her elocution. The most perfect stillness
reigned through the place while Her Majesty was reading her Speech.
Not a breath was to be heard: had a person, unblessed with the
power of vision, been suddenly taken within hearing of Her Majesty,
while she was reading her Speech, he might have remained some time
under the impression that there was no one present but herself. Her
self-possession was the theme of universal admiration.
[Illustration: Lyndhurst
-LORD LYNDHURST-]
‘In person Her Majesty is considerably below the average height. Her
figure is good; rather inclined, as far as one could judge from seeing
her in her robes of state, to the slender form. Every one who has seen
her must have been struck with her singularly fine bust. Her complexion
is clear, and has all the indications of excellent health about it. Her
features are small, and partake a good deal of the Grecian cast. Her
face, without being strikingly handsome, is remarkably pleasant, and is
indicative of a mild and amiable disposition.’
[Illustration: LORD MELBOURNE]
In the House of Lords the most prominent figures were, I suppose, those
of Lord Brougham and the Duke of Wellington. The debates in the Upper
House, enlivened by the former, and by Lords Melbourne, Lyndhurst, and
others, were lively and animated, compared with the languor of the
modern House. The Duke of Rutland, the Marquis of Bute, the Marquis
of Camden (who paid back into the Treasury every year the salary he
received as Teller of the Exchequer), the Earls of Stanhope, Devon,
Falmouth, Lords Strangford, Rolls, Alvanley, and Redesdale were the
leaders of the Conservatives. The Marquis of Sligo, the Marquis of
Northampton, the Earls of Rosebery, Gosford, Minto, Shrewsbury, and
Lichfield, Lords Lynedoch and Portman were the leaders of the Liberals.
With the exceptions of Wellington, Brougham, Melbourne, and Redesdale,
it is melancholy to consider that these illustrious names are nothing
more than names, and convey no associations to the present generation.
[Illustration: Wm. Cobbett.
-WILLIAM COBBETT-]
Among the members of the Lower House were many more who have left
behind them memories which are not likely to be soon forgotten. Sir
Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Thomas Macaulay, Cobbett, Lord John
Russell, Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Lord Palmerston, Sir Francis Burdett,
Hume, Roebuck, O’Connell, Lytton Bulwer, Benjamin D’Israeli, and last
sole survivor, William Ewart Gladstone, were all in the Parliaments
immediately before or immediately after the Queen’s Accession.
[Illustration: THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY]
If you would like to know how these men impressed their contemporaries,
read the following extracts from Grant’s ‘Random Recollections.’
‘Mr. Thomas Macaulay, the late member for Leeds, and now a member of
Council in India, could boast of a brilliant, if not a very long
Parliamentary career. He was one of those men who at once raised
himself to the first rank in the Senate. His maiden speech electrified
the House, and called forth the highest compliments to the speaker from
men of all parties. He was careful to preserve the laurels he had thus
so easily and suddenly won. He was a man of shrewd mind, and knew that
if he spoke often, the probability was he would not speak so well;
and that consequently there could be no more likely means of lowering
him from the elevated station to which he had raised himself, than
frequently addressing the House.
[Illustration: LORD PALMERSTON]
[Illustration: BURDETT, HUME, AND O’CONNELL
(From a Drawing by HB.)]
‘His speeches were always most carefully studied, and committed
to memory, exactly as he delivered them, beforehand. He bestowed
a world of labour on their preparation; and, certainly, never was
labour bestowed to more purpose. In every sentence you saw the man of
genius--the profound scholar--the deep thinker--the close and powerful
reasoner. You scarcely knew which most to admire--the beauty of his
ideas, or of the language in which they were clothed.’
‘Lord John Russell is one of the worst speakers in the House, and
but for his excellent private character, his family connections,
and his consequent influence in the political world, would not be
tolerated. There are many far better speakers, who, notwithstanding
their innumerable efforts to catch the Speaker’s eye in the course of
important debates, hardly ever succeed; or, if they do, are generally
put down by the clamour of honourable members. His voice is weak and
his enunciation very imperfect. He speaks in general in so low a tone
as to be inaudible to more than one-half of the House. His style is
often in bad taste, and he stammers and stutters at every fourth or
fifth sentence. When he is audible he is always clear; there is no
mistaking his meaning. Generally his speeches are feeble in matter as
well as manner; but on some great occasions I have known him make very
able speeches, more distinguished, however, for the clear and forcible
way in which he put the arguments which would most naturally suggest
themselves to a reflecting mind, than for any striking or comprehensive
views of the subject.’
[Illustration: J Russell
-LORD JOHN RUSSELL-]
‘Of Lord Palmerston, Foreign Secretary, and member for Tiverton, I have
but little to say. The situation he fills in the Cabinet gives him
a certain degree of prominence in the eyes of the country, which
he certainly does not possess in Parliament. His talents are by no
means of a high order. He is very irregular in his attendance on his
Parliamentary duties, and, when in the House, is by no means active
in defence either of his principles or his friends. Scarcely anything
calls him up except a regular attack on himself, or on the way in which
the department of the public service with which he is entrusted is
administered.
‘In person, Lord Palmerston is tall and handsome. His face is round,
and is of a darkish hue. His hair is black, and always exhibits proofs
of the skill and attention of the _perruquier_. His clothes are in the
extreme of fashion. He is very vain of his personal appearance, and
is generally supposed to devote more of his time in sacrificing to
the Graces than is consistent with the duties of a person who has so
much to do with the destinies of Europe. Hence it is that the “Times”
newspaper has fastened on him the _sobriquet_ of Cupid.’
‘Mr. O’Connell is a man of the highest order of genius. There is not
a member in the House who, in this respect, can for a moment be put
in comparison with him. You see the greatness of his genius in almost
every sentence he utters. There are others--Sir Robert Peel, for
example--who have much more tact and greater dexterity in debate; but
in point of genius none approach to him. It ever and anon bursts forth
with a brilliancy and effect which are quite overwhelming. You have not
well recovered from the overpowering surprise and admiration caused
by one of his brilliant effusions, when another flashes upon you and
produces the same effect. You have no time, nor are you in a condition,
to weigh the force of his arguments; you are taken captive wherever the
speaker chooses to lead you from beginning to end.’
[Illustration: DANIEL O’CONNELL]
[Illustration: O’CONNELL TAKING THE OATHS IN THE HOUSE
(From a Drawing by ‘Phiz’ in ‘Sketches in London’)]
‘One of the most extraordinary attributes in Mr. O’Connell’s oratory
is the ease and facility with which he can make a transition from one
topic to another. “From grave to gay, from lively to severe,” never
costs him an effort. He seems, indeed, to be himself insensible of the
transition. I have seen him begin his speech by alluding to topics
of an affecting nature, in such a manner as to excite the deepest
sympathy towards the sufferers in the mind of the most unfeeling
person present. I have seen, in other words--I speak with regard to
particular instances--the tear literally glistening in the eyes of men
altogether unused to the melting mood, and in a moment afterwards, by
a transition from the grave to the humorous, I have seen the whole
audience convulsed with laughter. On the other hand, I have often heard
him commence his speech in a strain of most exquisite humour, and, by
a sudden transition to deep pathos, produce the stillness of death
in a place in which, but one moment before, the air was rent with
shouts of laughter. His mastery over the passions is the most perfect I
ever witnessed, and his oratory tells with the same effect whether he
addresses the “first assembly of gentlemen in the world,” or the ragged
and ignorant rabble of Dublin.’
‘The most distinguished literary man in the House is Mr. E. L. Bulwer,
member for Lincoln, and author of “Pelham,” “Eugene Aram,” &c. He does
not speak often. When he does, his speeches are not only previously
turned over with great care in his mind, but are written out at full
length, and committed carefully to memory. He is a great patron of
the tailor, and he is always dressed in the extreme of fashion. His
manner of speaking is very affected: the management of his voice is
especially so. But for this he would be a pleasant speaker. His voice,
though weak, is agreeable, and he speaks with considerable fluency. His
speeches are usually argumentative. You see at once that he is a person
of great intellectual acquirements.’
[Illustration: E L Bulwer
-EDWARD LYTTON BULWER-]
‘Mr. D’Israeli, the member for Maidstone, is perhaps the best known
among the new members who have made their _débuts_. As stated in my
“Sketches in London,” his own private friends looked forward to his
introduction into the House of Commons as a circumstance which would
be immediately followed by his obtaining for himself an oratorical
reputation equal to that enjoyed by the most popular speakers in that
assembly. They thought he would produce an extraordinary sensation,
both in the House and in the country, by the power and splendour of his
eloquence. But the result differed from the anticipation.
‘When he rose, which he did immediately after Mr. O’Connell had
concluded his speech, all eyes were fixed on him, and all ears were
open to listen to his eloquence; but before he had proceeded far, he
furnished a striking illustration of the hazard that attends on highly
wrought expectations. After the first few minutes he met with every
possible manifestation of opposition and ridicule from the Ministerial
benches, and was, on the other hand, cheered in the loudest and most
earnest manner by his Tory friends; and it is particularly deserving
of mention, that even Sir Robert Peel, who very rarely cheers any
honourable gentleman, not even the most able and accomplished speakers
of his own party, greeted Mr. D’Israeli’s speech with a prodigality of
applause which must have been severely trying to the worthy baronet’s
lungs.
‘At one time, in consequence of the extraordinary interruptions he met
with, Mr. D’Israeli intimated his willingness to resume his seat, if
the House wished him to do so. He proceeded, however, for a short time
longer, but was still assailed by groans and under-growls in all their
varieties; the uproar, indeed, often became so great as completely to
drown his voice.
‘At last, losing all temper, which until now he had preserved in a
wonderful manner, he paused in the midst of a sentence, and, looking
the Liberals indignantly in the face, raised his hands, and, opening
his mouth as wide as its dimensions would permit, said, in remarkably
loud and almost terrific tones--“Though I sit down now, _the time will
come when you will hear me_.” Mr. D’Israeli then sat down amidst the
loudest uproar.
‘The exhibition altogether was a most extraordinary one. Mr.
D’Israeli’s appearance and manner were very singular. His dress also
was peculiar; it had much of a theatrical aspect. His black hair was
long and flowing, and he had a most ample crop of it. His gesture
was abundant; he often appeared as if trying with what celerity he
could move his body from one side to another, and throw his hands out
and draw them in again. At other times he flourished one hand before
his face, and then the other. His voice, too, is of a very unusual
kind: it is powerful, and had every justice done to it in the way
of exercise; but there is something peculiar in it which I am at a
loss to characterise. His utterance was rapid, and he never seemed
at a loss for words. On the whole, and notwithstanding the result of
his first attempt, I am convinced he is a man who possesses many of
the requisites of a good debater. That he is a man of great literary
talent, few will dispute.’
Lastly, here is a contemporary judgment on Gladstone. The italics are
my own.
[Illustration: B D’Israeli
-BENJAMIN D’ISRAELI-]
‘Mr. Gladstone, the member for Newark, is one of the most rising young
men on the Tory side of the House. His party expect great things from
him; and certainly, when it is remembered that his age is only
twenty-five, the success of the Parliamentary efforts he has already
made justifies their expectations. He is well informed on most of
the subjects which usually occupy the attention of the Legislature,
and he is happy in turning his information to a good account. He is
ready, on all occasions which he deems fitting ones, _with a speech
in favour of the policy advocated by the party with whom he acts_.
His extemporaneous resources are ample. Few men in the House can
improvisate better. It does not appear to cost him an effort to speak.
He is a man of very considerable talent, but _has nothing approaching
to genius_. His abilities are much more the result of an excellent
education, and of mature study, than of any prodigality on the part of
Nature in the distribution of mental gifts. _I have no idea that he
will ever acquire the reputation of a great statesman._ His views are
not sufficiently profound or enlarged for that; his celebrity in the
House of Commons _will chiefly depend on his readiness and dexterity
as a debater, in conjunction with the excellence of his elocution_,
and the gracefulness of his manner when speaking. His style is
polished, but has no appearance of the effect of previous preparation.
He displays considerable acuteness in replying to an opponent; he is
quick in his perception of anything vulnerable in the speech to which
he replies, and happy in laying the weak point bare to the gaze of the
House. He now and then indulges in sarcasm, which is, in most cases,
very felicitous. _He is plausible even when most in error._ When it
suits himself or his party, he can apply himself with the strictest
closeness to the real point at issue; _when to evade that point is
deemed most politic, no man can wander from it more widely_.
‘_The ablest speech he ever made in the House_, and by far the ablest
on the same side of the question, was when _opposing_, on the 30th of
March last, Sir George Strickland’s _motion for the abolition of the
negro apprenticeship system_ on the 1st of August next. Mr. Gladstone,
I should here observe, is himself an extensive West India planter.
‘Mr. Gladstone’s appearance and manners are much in his favour. He is
a fine-looking man. He is about the usual height, and of good figure.
His countenance is mild and pleasant, and has a highly intellectual
expression. His eyes are clear and quick. His eyebrows are dark and
rather prominent. There is not a dandy in the House but envies what
Truefitt would call his ‘fine head of jet-black hair.’ It is always
carefully parted from the crown downwards to his brow, where it
is tastefully shaded. His features are small and regular, and his
complexion must be a very unworthy witness, if he does not possess an
abundant stock of health.’
So the ghost of the first Victorian Parliament vanishes. All are gone
except Mr. Gladstone himself. Whether the contemporary judgment has
proved well founded or not, is for the reader to determine. For my own
part, I confess that my opinion of the author of ‘Random Recollections’
was greatly advanced when I had read this judgment on the members. We
who do not sit in the galleries, and are not members, lose the enormous
advantage of actually seeing the speakers and hearing the debates. The
reported speech is not the real speech; the written letter remains; but
the fire of the orator flames and burns, and passes away. Those know
not Gladstone who have never seen him and heard him speak.
And as for that old man eloquent, when he closes his eyes in the House
where he has fought so long, the voices around him may well fall
unheeded on his ear, while a vision of the past shows him once more
Peel and Stanley, Lord John and Palmerston, O’Connell and Roebuck, and,
adversary worthiest of all, the man whom the House at his first attempt
hooted down and refused to hear--the great and illustrious Dizzy.