RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS AND POOR LAW REFORM.
The year 1833, so fruitful in legislation, may be said to have witnessed
the birth of a religious movement which has profoundly affected the
character of the national Church. The neo-catholic revival, which
afterwards took its popular name from Pusey but drew its chief
inspiration from Newman, was in a great degree the outcome of the reform
act and a reaction against the more than Erastian tendencies of the
reformed parliament. In the early part of the century, as we have seen,
personal and practical religion was mainly represented by the
evangelical or low Church party, which did admirable service in the
cause of philanthropy, as well as in reclaiming the masses from
heathenism. The high Church party was comparatively inactive, but
co-operated with its rival in opposition to catholic emancipation. The
clergy, as a body, were hostile to reform, and the bishops incurred the
fiercest obloquy by voting against the first reform bill, which had
unfortunately been rejected by a majority exactly corresponding with the
number of their votes.[117] The democratic outcry against the Church
became louder and louder, as the evils of nepotism, pluralism, and
sinecurism were exposed to public criticism, and a growing disposition
was shown to deal with Church endowments both in England and in Ireland,
if not as the property of the state, yet as under its paramount control.
[Pageheading: _THE TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT._]
The recent infusion of Irish Roman catholics into the house of commons,
following that of Scotch presbyterians a century earlier, rendered it
less and less fit, in the opinion of high Churchmen, to legislate for
the Church of England, and every concession to religious liberty shocked
them as a step towards "National Apostasy". This was, in fact, the
impressive title of a sermon preached by John Keble, in July, 1833,
before the university of Oxford. From this sermon Newman himself dated
the origin of the Oxford or "Tractarian" movement, but its inward source
lay deeper. Having lost all confidence in the state and even in the
Anglican hierarchy as a creature of the state, a section of the clergy
had already been looking about for another basis of authority, and had
found it in theories of apostolical succession and Church organisation.
The university of Oxford was a natural centre for such a reaction, and
it was set on foot with the deliberate purpose of defending the Church
and the Christianity of England against the anti-catholic aggressions of
the dominant liberalism. It was not puritanism but liberal secularism
which Newman always denounced as the arch-enemy of the catholic faith.
For, as Wesley's sympathies were originally with high Church doctrines,
so Newman's sympathies were originally with evangelical doctrines, nor
were they ever entirely stifled by his ultimate secession to the Roman
Church.
The later development of this movement, which had its cradle in the
common room of Oriel College, belongs rather to ecclesiastical history,
and to the reign of Queen Victoria. But from the first it rallied a
considerable body of support. Many who were not influenced by the
movement, shared its earlier aspirations. Shortly after the formation of
an association, under Newman and Keble's auspices, seven or eight
thousand of the clergy signed an address to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, insisting upon the necessity of restoring Church discipline,
maintaining Church principles, and checking the progress of
latitudinarianism. A large section of the laity ranged themselves on the
side of the revival, and meetings were held throughout England. The king
himself volunteered a declaration of his strong affection for the
national Church now militant, and prepared to assert itself, not merely
as a true branch of the catholic Church, but as a co-ordinate power with
the state. In the autumn of 1833, Newman and one of his colleagues
launched the first of that series of tracts from which his followers
derived the familiar name of Tractarians. From that day he was their
recognised leader, yet he claimed no allegiance and issued no commands.
He felt himself, not the creator of a new party, but a loyal son of the
old Church, at last awakened from her lethargy. The spell which he
exercised over so many young minds was due to a personal influence of
which he was almost unconscious, but which spread from the pulpit of St.
Mary's Church and his college rooms at Oriel over a great part of the
university and the Church. It was broken some years later, when he gave
up the _via media_ which he had so long been advocating, accepted the
logical consequences of his own teaching, and reproached others for not
discovering that Anglicanism was but a pale and deformed counterfeit of
the primitive Christianity represented, in its purity, by the Church of
Rome.
Looking back at this movement across an interval of seventy years, we
may well feel astonished that it satisfied the aspirations of
inquisitive minds in contact with the ideas of their own times. For this
was the age of Benthamism in social philosophy and "German neology" in
biblical criticism. Though national education was in its infancy, a new
desire for knowledge, and even a free-thinking spirit, was permeating
the middle classes, and had gained a hold among the more intelligent of
the artisans. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,
established by Brougham, circulated a mass of instructive and
stimulating literature at a cheap rate; popular magazines and
cyclopædias were multiplying yearly; and the British Association, which
held its first meeting at Oxford in 1832, brought the results of natural
science within the reach of thousands and tens of thousands incapable of
scientific research. The _Bridgwater Treatises_, which belong to the
reign of William IV., are evidence of a widespread anxiety to reconcile
the claims and conclusions of science with those of the received
theology. Thoughtful and religious laymen in the higher ranks of society
were earnestly seeking a reason for the faith that was in them, and
pondering over fundamental problems like the personality of God, the
divinity of Christ, the reality of supernatural agency, and the awful
mystery of the future life. Yet the tractarians passed lightly over all
these problems, to exercise themselves and others with disputations on
points which to most laymen of their time appeared comparatively
trivial.
[Pageheading: _THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH._]
To them Church authority was supreme, and every catholic dogma a
self-evident truth. What engrossed their reason and consciences was the
discussion of questions affecting Church authority, for example, whether
the Anglican Church possessed the true note of catholicity or was in a
state of schism, whether its position in Christendom was not on a par
with that of the monophysite heretics, whether its articles could be
brought into conformity with the Roman catholic doctrines expressly
condemned by them, or whether its alliance with Lutheranism in the
appointment of a bishop for Jerusalem did not amount to ecclesiastical
suicide. Their message, unlike that of the early Christian or methodist
preachers, was for the priestly order, and not for the masses of the
people; their appeals were addressed _ad clerum_ not _ad populum_; still
less were they suited to influence scientific intellects. But their
propaganda was carried on by men of intense earnestness and holy lives,
few in number but strong in well-organised combination, and they carried
with them for a time many to whom any "movement" seemed better than
lifeless "high and dry" conformity. Herein consisted the secret of their
early success. Their subsequent failure was inevitable when they were
fairly confronted with protestant sentiment and with the independent
spirit of the age. How their aims were taken up and partially realised
in a new form by new leaders and through new methods, is an inquiry
which must be reserved for a later chapter in the history of the English
Church.
The strange religious movement which resulted in the foundation of the
so-called Catholic Apostolic Church was of somewhat earlier date, and
its author had already been disavowed as a minister by the presbyterian
Church before the _Tracts for the Times_ began to startle the religious
world. The most brilliant part of Edward Irving's career falls within
the reign of George IV., when his chapel in London was crowded by the
fashionable world, and even attended occasionally by statesmen like
Canning. According to all contemporary testimony he was among the most
remarkable of modern preachers, and his visionary speculations in the
field of biblical prophecy failed to repel hearers attracted by his
wonderful religious enthusiasm. Compared with the adherents of the
methodist or of the neo-catholic revival, his followers were a mere
handful, and his name would scarcely merit a place in history but for
the impression which he made upon men of high ability and position. What
brought him into discredit with his own communion and with the public
was his introduction into his services of fanatics professing the gift
of speaking with "unknown tongues". These extravagances led to his
deposition in 1832, and probably hastened his early death in 1834. But
his creed did not die with him, and a small body of earnest believers
has carried on into the twentieth century a definite tradition of the
gospel which he taught.
Far deeper and more lasting in its effects was the change wrought in
current ideas by the almost unseen but steady advance of science in all
its branches. During this epoch perhaps the most formidable enemy of
orthodoxy was the rising study of geology, challenging, as it did, the
traditional theories of creation. The discoveries of astronomy--the law
of gravitation, the rotation of the earth, its place in the solar
system, and, above all, the infinite compass of the universe--were in
themselves of a nature to revolutionise theological beliefs more
radically than any conclusions respecting the antiquity of the earth.
But it may be doubted whether it was so in fact; at all events,
theologians had slowly learned to harmonise their doctrines with the
conception of immeasurable space, when they were suddenly required to
admit the conception of immeasurable time, and staggered under the blow.
The pioneers of English geology were careful to avoid shocking religious
opinion, and Buckland devotes a chapter of his famous _Treatise on
Geology_ to showing "the consistency of geological discoveries with
sacred history". His explanation is that an undefined interval may have
elapsed after the creation of the heaven and the earth "in the
beginning" as recorded in the first verse of Genesis; and he rejects as
opposed to geological evidence "the derivation of existing systems of
organic life, by an eternal succession, from preceding individuals of
the same species, or by gradual transmutation of one species into
another". But speculations of this order were utterly ignored by such
religious leaders as Newman and Irving, whose spiritual fervour, however
apostolical in its influence on the hearts of their disciples, was
confined within the narrowest circle of intellectual interests.
[Pageheading: _POOR LAW._]
The great event of parliamentary history in 1834, and the crowning
achievement of the first reformed parliament, was the enactment of the
"new poor law," as it was long called. No measure of modern times so
well represents the triumph of reason over prejudice; none has been so
carefully based on thorough inquiry and the deliberate acceptance of
sound principles; none has so fully stood the conclusive test of
experience. It is not too much to say that it was essentially a product
of the reform period, and could scarcely have been carried either many
years earlier or many years later. In the dark age which followed the
great war, contempt for political economy, coupled with a weak sentiment
of humanity, would have made it impossible for a far-sighted treatment
of national pauperism and distress to obtain a fair hearing. After the
introduction of household suffrage, and the growth of socialism, any
resolute attempt to diminish the charge upon ratepayers for the
immediate relief but ultimate degradation of the struggling masses would
have met with the most desperate resistance from the new democracy. The
philosophical whigs and radicals, trained in the school of Bentham, and
untainted as yet by a false philanthropy, found themselves in possession
of an opportunity which might never have recurred. They deserved the
gratitude of posterity by using it wisely and courageously.
The irregular development of the poor laws, from the act of Elizabeth
down to that of 1834, belongs to economic rather than to general
history. It is enough to say here that in later years, and especially
since the system of allowances adopted by the Berkshire magistrates at
Speenhamland in 1795 had become general, the original policy of
relieving only the destitute and helpless, and compelling able-bodied
men to earn their own living, had been entirely obscured by the
intrusion of other ideas. The result was admirably described in the
report of a commission, appointed in 1832, with the most comprehensive
powers of investigation and recommendation. The commissioners were the
Bishops of London (Blomfield) and Chester (Sumner), Sturges Bourne,
Edwin Chadwick, and four others less known, but well versed in the
questions to be considered. A summary of the information collected by
them, ranging over the whole field of poor-law management, was published
in February, 1834. It astounded the benighted public of that day, and it
still remains on record as a wonderful revelation of ruinous official
infatuation on the largest possible scale. The evil system was found to
be almost universal, but the worst examples of it were furnished by the
southern counties of England. There, an actual premium was set upon
improvidence, if not on vice, by the wholesale practice of giving
out-door relief in aid of wages, and in proportion to the number of
children in the family, legitimate or illegitimate. The excuse was that
it was better to eke out scanty earnings by doles than to break up
households, and bring all their inmates into the workhouse. The
inevitable effect of such action was that wages fell as doles increased,
that paupers so pensioned were preferred by the farmers to independent
labourers because their labour was cheaper, and that independent
labourers, failing to get work except at wages forced down to a minimum,
were constantly falling into the ranks of pauperism.
Had some theorists of a later generation witnessed the social order then
prevailing in country districts, they would have found several of their
favourite objects practically attained. There was no competition between
the working people; old and young, skilled and unskilled hands, the
industrious and the idle, were held worthy of equal reward, the actual
allowance to each being measured by his need and not by the value of his
work; while the parochial authorities, figuring as an earthly
providence, exercised a benevolent superintendence over the welfare and
liberty of every day-labourer in the village community. The fruits of
that superintendence were the decline of a race of freemen into a race
of slaves, unconscious of their slavery, and the gradual ruin of the
landlords and farmers upon whom the maintenance of these slaves
depended.[118]
[Pageheading: _NEW POOR LAW._]
The evidence laid before the commissioners not only showed how
intolerable the evil had become in many counties, but also how purely
artificial it was. While the aggregate amount of the poor rate had risen
to more than eight millions and a half, while some parishes were going
out of cultivation and in others the rates exceeded the rental, there
were certain oases in the desert of agricultural distress where
comparative prosperity still reigned. These were villages in which an
enlightened squire or parson had set himself to strike at the root of
pauperism, and to initiate local reforms in the poor-law system. It was
clearly found that, where out-door relief was abolished or rigorously
limited, where no allowances were made in aid of wages, and where a
manly self-reliance was encouraged instead of a servile mendicity, wages
rose, honest industry revived, and the whole character of the village
population was improved. Fortified by these successful experiments, the
commissioners took a firm stand on the vital distinction, previously
ignored, between poverty and pauperism. They did not shrink from
recommending that, after a certain date, "the workhouse test" should be
enforced against all able-bodied applicants for relief, except in the
form of medical attendance, and even that women should be compelled to
support their illegitimate children. They also advised a liberal change
in the complicated and oppressive system of "parish settlement," whereby
the free circulation of labour was constricted. They further proposed a
very large reform in the administrative machinery of the poor laws, by
the formation of parishes into unions, the concentration of workhouses,
the separation of the sexes in workhouses, and, above all, the creation
of a central poor-law board, to consist of three commissioners, and to
control the whole system about to be transformed.
A bill framed upon these lines, and remedying some minor abuses, was
introduced by Althorp on April 17, having been foreshadowed in the
speech from the throne, and carefully matured by the cabinet. So wide
and deep was the conviction of the necessity for some radical treatment
of an intolerable evil that party spirit was quelled for a while, and
the bill met with a very favourable reception, especially as its
operation was limited to five years. It passed the second reading by a
majority of 299 to 20 on May 9, notwithstanding a violent protest from
De Lacy Evans, an ultra-radical, who had displaced Hobhouse at
Westminster. The keynote of the radical agitation which followed was
given by his declaration that "the cessation of out-door relief would
lead to a revolution in the country," and by Cobbett's denunciation of
the "poor man robbery bill". The _Times_ newspaper, already a great
political force, took up the same cry, and had not Peel, with admirable
public spirit, thrown his weight into the scale of sound economy, a
formidable coalition between extremists on both sides might have been
organised. He stood firm, however; radicals like Grote declined to
barter principle for popularity, and the bill emerged almost unscathed
from committee in the house of commons. It passed its third reading on
July 2 by a majority of 157 to 50. Peel's example was followed by
Wellington in the house of lords, and Brougham delivered one of his most
powerful speeches in support of the measure. With some modification of
the bastardy clauses and other slighter amendments it was carried by a
large majority, and received the royal assent on August 4.
No other piece of legislation, except the repeal of the corn laws, has
done so much to rescue the working classes of Great Britain from the
misery entailed by twenty years of war. Its effect in reducing the rates
was immediate; its effect in raising the character of the agricultural
poor was not very long deferred. Happily for them, though not for the
farmers, bread was cheap for two years after it came into force. Still,
the sudden cessation of doles and pensions in aid of wages could not but
work great hardship to individuals in thousands of rural parishes, and
there was perhaps too little disposition on the part of the
commissioners to allow any temporary relaxation of the system. The
rigorous enforcement of the workhouse test, and the harsh management of
workhouses, continued for years to shock the charitable sensibilities of
the public, and actually produced some local riots. When the price of
bread rose the clamour naturally increased, and petitions multiplied
until a committee was appointed in 1837 to review the operation of the
act. In the end the committee found, as might have been expected, that,
however painful the state of transition, the change had permanently
improved the condition of the poor in England.
[Pageheading: _QUESTION OF APPROPRIATION._]
While the bill was still in the house of commons the ministry which
framed it was torn by dissensions; before it came on for its second
reading in the lords Grey had ceased to be premier. The disruption of
his government had been foreseen for months, but it was directly caused
by hopeless discord on Irish policy. Anglesey had been forced by
ill-health to resign the vice-royalty, and the Marquis Wellesley, who
succeeded him, was more acceptable to Irish nationalists. But the king's
speech at the opening of the session contained a stern condemnation of
the repeal movement. O'Connell at once declared war, and the angry
feelings of his followers were inflamed by a personal and public quarrel
between Althorp and Sheil. Another incident, in itself trivial,
disclosed the discord prevailing in the cabinet on Irish affairs, and,
though O'Connell was defeated on a motion against the union by a
crushing majority of 523 to 38, the disturbed state of Ireland continued
to distract the ministerial councils. The ingenious devices of Stanley
and Littleton for solving the insoluble Irish tithe question had proved
almost abortive; the government officials employed to collect tithe were
almost as powerless to do so as the old tithe-proctors, and a new
proposal to convert tithe into a land tax was naturally ridiculed by
O'Connell as delusive. He made a speech so conciliatory in its tone as
to startle the house, but no words, however smooth, could now conjure
away the irreconcilable difference of purpose between those who regarded
Church property as sacred and those who regarded it not only as at the
disposal of the state, but as hitherto unjustly monopolised by a single
religious communion. It was reserved for Lord John Russell to "upset the
coach" by openly declaring his adhesion to "appropriation," in the sense
of diverting to other objects, secular or otherwise, such revenues of
the established Church as were not strictly required for the benefit of
its own members. After this act of mutiny against the collective
authority of the cabinet Grey's ministry was doomed.
Its ruin was consummated by a motion of Henry Ward, member for St.
Albans, which expressly affirmed the right of the state to regulate the
distribution of Church property and the expediency of reducing the Irish
establishment. This motion was supposed to have been instigated by
Durham, who had never been loyal to his colleagues. The government was
notoriously divided upon it; Brougham suggested a commission of inquiry,
by way of compromise; other ministerialists were in favour of meeting
the difficulty by moving the previous question. Peel was prepared to
support the conservative section of the government, and deprecated in
strong terms "all manoeuvring, all coquetting with radicals" in order
to snatch a temporary party triumph.[119]
Ward's resolution was introduced on May 27, 1834, and seconded by Grote,
but Althorp, instead of replying, announced the receipt of sudden news
so important that he induced the house to adjourn the debate. This news
was the resignation of Stanley, Graham, Richmond, and Ripon, whose views
on appropriation, as afterwards appeared, were shared by Lansdowne and
Spring Rice. The ministry was reconstructed by the accession of Lord
Conyngham as postmaster-general, without a seat in the cabinet, and of
Lord Auckland, son of Sidmouth's colleague, as first lord of the
admiralty, by the appointment of Carlisle (already in the cabinet) to be
lord privy seal, and the substitution of Spring Rice for Stanley at the
colonial office. Edward Ellice, the secretary at war, was included in
the cabinet, and James Abercromby, afterwards Lord Dunfermline, a son of
the famous general, Sir Ralph Abercromby, became master of the mint with
a seat in the cabinet. Poulett Thomson became president of the board of
trade, and minor offices were assigned to Francis Baring, and other whig
recruits. Grey himself, sick of nominal power, was dissuaded with
difficulty from retiring; Althorp, conscious of failing authority, was
retained in his post only by a high sense of duty. Unfortunately, he was
very soon entangled by his colleague Littleton in something like an
intrigue with O'Connell, which precipitated the final resignation of
Grey together with his own temporary secession.
The details of this affair may be passed over in a few words. What is
clear is that Brougham and Littleton, without the knowledge of Grey, had
persuaded Lord Wellesley, as viceroy of Ireland, not to insist on a
renewal of the coercion act in its full severity, and especially to
sanction an abandonment of clauses suppressing public meetings. Having
obtained Wellesley's consent behind the backs of Grey and the rest of
the cabinet, Littleton with the cognisance of Althorp, proceeded to
bargain with O'Connell for an abatement, at least, of his opposition to
all coercion. The cabinet as a body declined to ratify any such
agreement, O'Connell denounced Littleton as having played a trick upon
him, and Althorp, disdaining to advocate provisions which he was almost
pledged in honour to drop, resigned his office and the leadership of the
commons. Grey, who could not have remained in office without the support
of Althorp's great popularity in the commons, at once resolved to follow
his example, and on July 9 took leave of political life in a dignified
and pathetic speech. As for Ward's motion, the original cause of Grey's
desertion by Stanley and his subsequent fall, it had been rejected by an
enormous majority in favour of "the previous question" before Althorp's
disappearance from his old position. Meanwhile Stanley availed himself
of his liberty to make one of his most dashing but least prudent
speeches, and permanently compromised his reputation for
statesmanship.[120]
[Pageheading: _MELBOURNE PRIME MINISTER._]
No other whig possessed the prestige derived by Grey from nearly fifty
years of consistent public service. Althorp commanded an extraordinary
degree of confidence in the house of commons and the country, but his
intellectual capacity was not of the highest order, and many expected
that Peel might receive a summons from the king, whose sympathy with the
whigs, never very deep, had given place to mistrust. His choice,
however, fell upon Melbourne, whom he desired, if possible, to form a
coalition with Peel, Wellington, and Stanley against the radicals. But
neither Melbourne nor Peel would accept such a coalition, and they both
showed their wisdom in declining it. The king then empowered Melbourne
to patch up the whig ministry. In deference to a requisition signed by
liberals of all sections, Althorp was induced to withdraw his
resignation, and resumed his leadership in the commons with no apparent
diminution of popularity. Duncannon, who was created a peer, succeeded
Melbourne at the home office; Lord Mulgrave, son of the first earl,
became lord privy seal in place of Carlisle; and Hobhouse entered the
cabinet as first commissioner of woods and forests. The rest of the
session was mainly spent in discussing the budget and the two Irish
questions which for so many years were the curse of English politics. A
surplus of two millions enabled Althorp to propitiate an importunate
class of taxpayers by repealing the house tax.
It would have been more statesmanlike to repeal the window tax or reduce
indirect taxation, but relief was given, as usual, to those who raised
the loudest clamour, and the vindication of sound finance was reserved
for a conservative administration. A second and milder Irish coercion
bill was carried by a large majority, with the fatal proviso, which has
marred the effect of so many later measures, that it should continue in
operation for a year only. A far more serious conflict arose on the new
Irish tithe bill. A complicated plan had been proposed whereby
four-fifths of the tithe would have been ostensibly secured to the
church by conversion into a rent-charge, the remaining fifth being
sacrificed for the sake of peace and security. O'Connell succeeded in
inducing the house of commons to adopt a counter-plan, of a very
sweeping nature, whereby two-fifths of the existing tithe would have
been abandoned, and the tithe owner partly compensated out of the
revenues of suppressed bishoprics, aided by a state grant. The bill thus
amended was rejected by a majority of 189 to 122 in the house of lords.
Peel still cherished the idea of settling the question by a system of
voluntary commutation, but, after the peremptory action of the lords, no
compromise was likely to be acceptable, and there is some ground for the
opinion that in that division the Irish Church establishment received
its death-blow.
On August 15 parliament was prorogued, and the belief of Peel in the
stability of the government may be inferred from the fact that he left
England for Italy on October 14. During the vacation, however, two
incidents occurred, trivial in themselves, but pregnant with important
consequences. One of these was Brougham's triumphant progress through
Scotland, where he was enthusiastically received as the saviour of his
country, and assumed the air of one who not only kept the king's
conscience but controlled the royal will. The story of this famous tour
exhibits alike the greatness of his powers and the littleness of his
character.[121] The homage paid to him was not undeserved, for he was
assuredly the foremost gladiator of the whig party, and had given proofs
of more varied ability than any living politician or lawyer. But the
dignified eloquence of which he was capable on rare occasions was here
submerged in a flood of egotistical rhetoric, which carried him away so
far that he assumed a political independence which his colleagues deeply
resented, and even spoke of the king in a tone of patronage. Having
lowered himself in public opinion by these speeches, especially at
Inverness and Aberdeen, he attended a banquet in honour of Grey at
Edinburgh, where he provoked a passage at arms with Durham. The press,
and especially the _Times_ newspaper, which had formerly loaded him with
extravagant praises, now turned against him, and ridiculed him as a
political mountebank. But his worst enemy was the king. William IV.'s
ill-concealed impatience of whig dictation had at last been quickened
into disgust by this and other sources of irritation, when the sudden
death of Althorp's father, Earl Spencer, on November 10, gave him an
opportunity which he eagerly seized.
[Pageheading: _DESTRUCTION OF HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT._]
By a strange fatality, this event almost coincided with the destruction
by fire of the houses of parliament on October 16. This calamity was the
result of a carelessness, which it is easy to condemn after the event on
the part of some subordinate officials and the workmen employed by them.
Down to 1826, accounts had been kept at the exchequer by means of wooden
tallies, which were stored in what was called the tally-room of the
exchequer. This room was required in order to provide temporary
accommodation for the court of bankruptcy, and an order was given to
destroy the tallies. The officials charged with the task decided to burn
them in the stoves of the house of lords, and the work of burning began
at half-past six in the morning of October 16. The work, hazardous in
any case, was conducted by the workmen with a rapidity that their orders
did not justify; the flues used for warming the house were overheated,
and though the burning of the tallies was completed between four and
five, the woodwork near the flues must have smouldered till it burst
into flame about half-past six in the evening. In less than half an hour
the house of lords was a mass of fire. About eight a change in the wind
threw the flames upon the house of commons. That house was almost
completely destroyed. The walls of the house of lords and of the painted
chamber remained standing, while the house of lords library, the
parliament offices, and Westminster Hall escaped. The king offered the
parliament the use of Buckingham Palace, but it was found possible to
fit up the house of lords for the commons and the painted chamber for
the lords. When the legislature reassembled on February 9, 1835, a
conservative ministry was in office, though not, indeed, in power.
It is difficult for a later age to understand why the accession of
Althorp to a peerage should have afforded even a plausible reason for a
change of ministry. The position which Althorp held in the house of
commons is puzzling to a later generation.[122] It is well known that
Gladstone recorded the very highest estimate of his public services. Yet
he was not only no orator but scarcely in the second order of speakers,
he made no pretence of far-sighted statesmanship, he was not a
successful financier, and he made several blunders which must have
damaged the authority of any other man. The influence which he obtained
in leading the unreformed as well as the reformed house of commons was
entirely due to his character for straightforward honesty, perhaps
enhanced by his social rank, and his reputation for possessing all the
virtues of a country gentleman. The national preference for amateurs
over professionals in politics, no less than in other fields of energy,
found an admirable representative in him, and he was all the more
popular as a political leader because it was believed that he had no
desire to be a political leader at all. At all events, he inspired
confidence in all, and it was no mere whim of the king which treated his
removal from the commons to the lords as an irreparable loss to
Melbourne's administration.
[Pageheading: _MELBOURNE'S RESIGNATION._]
It is often stated that "without a word of preparation" the king got rid
of his whig ministers on November 14, 1834, and it must be admitted that
he afterwards took credit to himself for their dismissal as his own
personal act. But this view is not altogether borne out by contemporary
evidence. A published letter, of the 12th, from Melbourne to the king
shows that, as premier, he took the initiative in representing that,
whereas "the government in its present form was mainly founded upon the
personal weight and influence possessed by Earl Spencer in the house of
commons," it was for the king to consider whether, as "that foundation
is now withdrawn," a change of ministry was expedient.[123] It also
appears from a letter placed by the king in Melbourne's hands that a
"very confidential conversation" took place between them at Brighton, in
consequence of which the king resolved to send for Wellington.[124] In
the course of this conversation Melbourne informed the king that, in the
opinion of the cabinet, Lord John Russell should be selected for the
leadership of the house of commons. The king, incensed by Lord John's
action on the Irish Church question, would not hear of this arrangement,
especially as he thought Lord John "otherwise unequal to the task," and
disparaged the claims of other possible candidates.[125] He also
strongly resented the recent conduct of Brougham. In the end, he parted
kindly and courteously from Melbourne, who actually undertook to convey
the king's summons to Wellington. Another memorandum by the king, of the
same date, proves that a fear of further encroachments on the church was
really uppermost in his mind, and that he anticipated, not without
reason, "a schism in the cabinet" on this very subject.[126]
Wellington acted with his customary promptitude, and with his customary
obedience to what he regarded as a call of public duty. A certain degree
of mistrust had existed between him and Peel, arising, in part, out of
circumstances preceding the duke's election to the chancellorship of
Oxford University. This suspension of cordiality had now passed away,
and Wellington strongly urged the king to entrust Peel, then at Rome,
with the formation of a new government. Hudson, afterwards known as Sir
James Hudson, delivered the despatch recalling him on the night of the
25th. Peel started from Rome on the 26th and, travelling with a speed
then considered marvellous, reached Dover within twelve days on the
night of December 8. He was in London on the 9th, and, without
consulting any one else, immediately placed his services at the king's
disposal. In the meantime, Wellington had stepped into the gap, and
actually held all the secretaryships of state in his own hands, pending
the arrival of Peel.
The king had been encouraged to hustle his ministers unceremoniously out
of office by a paragraph which appeared in the _Times_ of November 15.
On the previous evening Brougham had been informed by Melbourne in
confidence that the king had accepted his suggestion of resignation, and
he carried the news to the _Times_, which, without giving Brougham's
name, published his message in his own words. It stated that the king
had turned out the ministry, and ended with the words: "The queen has
done it all". After this the king was determined to be done with his
ministers as quickly as possible. It is certain that neither Wellington
nor Peel wished to be thought responsible for their dismissal, the
propriety of which they both secretly doubted. The king, however, had
acted within his strict rights, and the outgoing ministers, as a whole,
were not ill pleased to be relieved from the burdens of office.
Peel, though by no means hopeful of ultimate success, endeavoured to
construct a cabinet on a comprehensive basis. He first obtained the
king's "ready assent" to his inviting the co-operation of Stanley, who
had succeeded to the courtesy title of Lord Stanley, and Sir James
Graham. These overtures were declined in friendly terms, and both
promised independent support. But Stanley explicitly declared that, in
his judgment, "the sudden conversion of long political opposition into
the most intimate alliance would shock public opinion, would be ruinous
to his own character," and would rather injure than strengthen the new
government.[127] After this failure, Peel felt his task well-nigh
hopeless, and though he spared no effort to procure an infusion of fresh
blood, he complained that after all "it would be only the duke's old
cabinet".[128] There was, in fact, no man of known ability in it, except
himself, the Duke of Wellington (as secretary for foreign affairs), and
Lyndhurst, the chancellor; for the capacity of Aberdeen, who had been
foreign secretary under Wellington, and who now became secretary for war
and the colonies, and Ellenborough, who returned to the board of
control, had not yet been generally recognised. Peel himself became
first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; Goulburn was
home secretary, Rosslyn lord president, and Wharncliffe lord privy seal.
Earl de Grey, elder brother of the Earl of Ripon, was made first lord of
the admiralty, Murray became master-general of the ordnance, Alexander
Baring president of the board of trade and master of the mint, Herries
secretary at war, and Sir Edward Knatchbull paymaster of the forces. It
was fully understood that a conservative government, even purged of
ultra-tory elements, could not face the first reformed house of commons,
and the dissolution which took place at the end of the year had been
regarded by all as inevitable.
[Pageheading: _THE TAMWORTH MANIFESTO._]
In anticipation of this event, Peel issued an address to his
constituents which became celebrated as the "Tamworth manifesto". It is
somewhat cumbrous in style, but it embodies with sufficient clearness
the new conservative policy of which Peel was the real author and
henceforth the leading exponent. It opens with an appeal to his own
previous conduct in parliament, as showing that, while he was no
apostate from old constitutional principles, neither was he "a defender
of abuses," nor the enemy of "judicious reforms". In proof of this, he
cites his action in regard to the currency and various amendments of the
law; to which he might have added his adoption of catholic emancipation.
He then declares, absolutely and without reserve, that he accepts the
reform act as "a final and irrevocable settlement of a great
constitutional question," which no friend to peace and the welfare of
the country would seek, either directly or indirectly, to disturb. He
approves of making "a careful review of institutions, civil and
ecclesiastical, undertaken in a friendly temper," with a view to "the
correction of proved abuses, and the redress of real grievances," and
that "without mere superstitious reverence for ancient usages". He lays
stress on his recorded assent to the principle of corporation reform,
the substitution of a treasury grant for Church rates, the relief of
dissenters from various civil disabilities (but not from university
tests), the restriction of pensions (saving vested interests), the
redistribution of Church revenues and the commutation of tithes, but so
that no ecclesiastical property be diverted to secular uses. After these
specific pledges, the Tamworth manifesto concludes with more general
professions of a progressive conservatism equally removed from what are
now called "advanced radicalism" and "tory democracy".[129] It was, of
course, too liberal for the followers of Eldon, and was ridiculed as
colourless by extreme reformers, but its effect on the country was
great, and it did much to win popular confidence for the new ministry.
If such a policy must be called opportunism, it was opportunism in its
best form; and opportunism in its best form, under the conditions of
party government, is not far removed from political wisdom.
FOOTNOTES:
[117] If all the bishops present had not merely abstained, but actually
voted in favour of the measure, it would have been carried by one vote.
[118] Sir George Nicholls, _History of the English Poor Law_, vol. ii.,
see especially pp. 242, 243.
[119] Peel to Goulburn (May 25, 1834), Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii.,
244.
[120] Hatherton, _Memoir_; Creevey, _Memoirs_, ii., 285-88.
[121] See Campbell's _Lives of the Chancellors_, viii., 446-57.
[122] Compare Walpole, _History of England_, iii., 478.
[123] _Lord Melbourne's Papers_, p. 220.
[124] _Ibid._, pp. 222, 223.
[125] Stockmar, _Memoirs_ (English translation), i., 330.
[126] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 235.
[127] Stanley to Peel (Dec. 11, 1834), Peel's _Memoirs_, ii., 39, 40.
[128] Croker to Mrs. Croker, _Croker Papers_, ii., 219.
[129] Peel, _Memoirs_, ii., 58-67.