1834.]

THE BUDGET-PROROGATION.

347

to the opinion that taxes upon knowledge were amongst the most objectionable. The repeal of the house-tax was an unstatesmanlike deference to popular clamour. The far more objectionable tax upon windows was allowed to remain. Legislators had a glimmering of light as to the impolicy of that taxation which interfered with the processes of industry. Mr. Poulett Thomson, President of the Board of Trade, admitted that the relief to be experienced from the reduction of the house-tax, or any other direct tax, was little in comparison to that which would have been derived from the reduction of the taxes on glass, paper, and cotton. Yet, as the house-tax had been a cause of general and loud complaint, it was right to take it off. Sir Robert Peel was not sure that those who clamoured most suffered most; the removal of the house-tax was merely a bonus to the landlord; the removal of the glass-tax would be a bonus to every class of the community. Before the prorogation the Irish Tithe Bill was carried in the Commons, not as proposed by the government, but with an amendment moved by Mr. O'Connell, which provided that two-fifths of the amount of tithes should be at once struck off, and the remaining three-fifths paid to the clergy by the landlord. The Peers wholly threw out the Tithe Bill four days before the prorogation of Parliament; and O'Connell went home to his congenial work of exciting the people to violent resistance. Parliament was prorogued on the 15th of August. Whilst, during the vacation, Mr. O'Connell was publishing letters to lord Duncannon, in which he declared that "Ireland had nothing to expect from the Whigs but insolent contempt, and malignant and treacherous hostility," some of the leaders of the Reform movement were damaging the Whigs more materially by painfully exhibiting the worst symptom of the weakness of the government, the hostile jealousy of two who had once formed the great strength of the Cabinet. Looking back upon the journalism of this period, it is difficult to arrive at an impartial estimate of the merits or defects of the two chief combatants who entered the lists at the "free and gentle passage of arms" of Edinburgh, at the banquet to lord Grey on the 15th of September. For some months lord Brougham had been a mark for the attacks of the ultra-liberal press. Harmless exhibitions of that vanity which occasionally peeped out through his real greatness had brought down upon the Chancellor a measure of indignation which is generally reserved for political crimes. In a tour through Scotland he made some oratorical displays, in which the reticence of the cautious statesman was abandoned in the excitement of popular applause. At Inverness, the Chancellor, in telling the burgesses that during four years he had experienced from his Majesty only one series of gracious condescension, confidence, and favour, added words. which were tossed about throughout the kingdom as "argument for a week, laughter for a month, and a good jest for ever." "To find that the king lived in the hearts of his loyal subjects in the ancient and important capital of the Highlands, as it had afforded him (lord Brougham) only pure and unmixed satisfaction, would, he was confident, be so received by his Majesty, when he (lord B.) told him, as he would do by that night's post, of the gratifying circumstance." * At the Grey banquet, earl Grey, in replying to his health, acknowledged the compliment of this great banquet in very dig* From "Inverness Courier," quoted in Fonblanque's "England under Seven Administrations," vol. iii. p. 99.

348

THE GREY BANQUET AT EDINBURGH.

[1834.

nified and touching words: "This most gratifying of all honours is not paid. to a minister newly raised to power, in the vigour of his age, with a long career of active and useful services before him, and holding out an expec tation to others of official benefits, not yet conferred: No, gentlemen, this proud mark of distinction has been given to a minister who has descended, I will not say has fallen, from power, whose official life has ended, whose long parliamentary career is hastening to a final close,-to one when the balance has been struck between his promises and his performances; to one when the past is before his country for its judgment; and the future, as far as he is concerned, presents no object either for hope or for fear." Lord Brougham, in replying to the toast of the Lord Chancellor and his Majesty's other ministers, proclaimed the differences that existed between two classes of Reformers, the hasty spirits who hurrying into the wished-for harbour by the nearest channel, and, not inquiring whether there was a compass on board, would run their vessel into the breakers, and the more moderate, who would better provide for the safety of the voyage. "I wholly respect," he said, "the good intentions of these men, but when they ask me to sail in their vessel, I must insist on staying on shore." Lord Durham had his opportunity of reply: "My noble and learned friend (lord Brougham) has been pleased to give some advice, which I have no doubt he deems very sound, to some classes of persons,-I know none such,-who evince too strong a desire to get rid of ancient abuses, and fretful impatience in awaiting the remedies of them. Now I frankly confess that I am one of those persons who see with regret every hour which passes over the existence of recognized and unreformed abuses." The dispute was not yet ended. At a meeting at Salisbury, lord Brougham made some strong remarks upon lord Durham. At another meeting at Glasgow, lord Durham said that the Chancellor had been pleased to challenge him to meet him in the House of Lords. "I fear him not; I will meet him there."

There were two most unexpected events which deranged the completion of these hostile purposes. First, the two peers could not meet on the old battle-ground. The Houses of Parliament were destroyed by fire on the 16th of October. It was between six and seven o'clock on that evening, that flames were seen bursting forth from the roof of the House of Lords, in that part of the building opposite to Henry the Seventh's Chapel, and in the corner next Westminster Hall. By nine o'clock all the apartments of that portion of the parliament buildings, including the Painted Chamber and the Library, were in flames, and the whole interior was in a few hours destroyed. The fire extended to the House of Commons, first destroying the large offices of the House, and next seizing upon the Chapel of St. Stephen. When all the interior fittings were destroyed, this building, which had been famous as the seat of English legislation from the time of Edward the Sixth, was a mere shell. It had stood in its strength and beauty like a rock amidst the sea of fire, and had arrested the force which had till then gone on conquering and overthrowing. The Speaker's official residence was also partially destroyed. There was one time when the destruction of Westminster Hall seemed almost inevitable. To those who mixed amongst the crowd in Palace Yard, and knew

* "Annual Register for 1834," p. 142.

1834.]

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT DESTROYED BY FIRE.

349

that the antiquities of a nation are amongst its best possessions, it was truly gratifying to witness the intense anxiety of all classes of people to preserve this building, associated with so many grand historical scenes. "Save the Hall!" "Save the Hall!" was the universal cry. There was a more efficient interposition than the destruction of the House of Lords to the purpose of the two peers to enter the lists where the Mowbray and Bolingbroke of modern times were to decide their quarrel.

"The king has thrown his warder down."

William the Fourth, without a word of preparation, intimated to lord Melbourne, on the 14th of November, that his ministry was at an end.

CHAPTER XX.

The King's dismissal of the Melbourne Ministry-Sir Robert Peel's Narrative of his appointment to the Premiership-The Peel Administration formed-Parliament dissolvedThe Tamworth Manifesto-Strong Parliamentary Opposition-Mr. Abercromby elected Speaker London University Charter-Irish Church-Repeated defeats of Ministers -Resignation of Sir Robert Peel-Lord Melbourne's New Ministry-Exclusion of Lord Brougham-His Resolutions on the subject of Education-Reform of Municipal Corporations-Report of the Commission of Inquiry-Conflict between the two Houses-The Bill passed-Departing glories of Municipal Pomp.

MUCH that was obscure in the circumstances connected with the extraordinary act of the King in the removal of his ministers has been brought to light in the "Memoirs by Sir Robert Peel." In his "Memorandum as to my appointment to the office of First Lord of the Treasury in 1834, and to the administration over which I presided," he says: "The time will come when these records will be interesting, and may throw a light on the history of the period which they embrace." Sir Robert states that he left England for Italy on the 14th of October, 1834, little foreseeing the probability of his sudden recall, and having had no communication previously to his departure with the duke of Wellington, or any other person, respecting the position and prospects of the administration which existed at the time when he quitted England. He treats with contempt the report that there had been some previous concert or understanding with the king in contemplation of events that took place in November. Sir Robert Peel was in Rome when a letter reached him from the king, dated November the 15th, in which his Majesty says, that having had a most satisfactory and confidential communication with the duke of Wellington on the formation of a new government, he called upon sir Robert Peel to return without loss of time to England, to put himself at the head of the administration. The messenger at the same time brought a letter from the duke of Wellington, pressing his immediate return home, and announcing that his grace held for the present the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Secretary of State for the Home Department, till Sir Robert should return. The copy of a letter from the king to lord Melbourne was enclosed by the duke, in which the ostensible ground for the dismissal of lord Melbourne is, that lord Althorp, by the death of his father, having been removed to the House of Peers, the general weight