journals of the House the resolu. tions which embodied the appropriation clause, and inquired whether it was Lord John Russell's intention to bring forward a measure which would involve the principle contained in those resolutions?

Lord John Russell, in reply, after enumerating the various attempts made by ministers, during the last four years, to effect a settlement of the Irish Tithe question, proceeded to say, that he did not think it wise, whether with reference to the interests of legislation, or to the respect due to the different branches of the legisla ture, or to the interests of the parties concerned, that this fruitless contest should be prolonged. It was, therefore, the wish of her Majesty's government to place the question on a ground altogether new," which, he hoped, might be considered "worthy to form the

basis of an adjustment, and prevent the ill consequences of perpetuat ing the conflicting views entertained on this exciting subject." His lordship concluded by reading ten resolutions as the ground-work of the intended measure.

In his reply to this appeal, Sir Robert Peel stated, that he, for one, entertained a strong wish that it might be possible to come to a settlement with respect to the Irish Corporations Bill, and the bill relating to the Irish church; but he said he felt himself bound to declare, what, indeed, he had always declared upon this question, that security for the Irish church must be an essential condition of any such settlement.

It will be seen how far ministers were enabled to take advantage of this concession on the part of their opponent, and, at the same time, to satisfy the important requisition which accompanied it."

they never mustered in the House of Commons, on any division, more than one hundred members. On the 12th of May, 1838, a public dinner was given to Sir Robert Peel, at Merchant Taylors Hall, by 313 Conservative members of the House of Commons, of whom actually 300 were present at the entertainment. "A body of gentlemen, who," in the words of the Marquess of Chandos, the chairman, being perhaps the most influential in the country, and being united heart and hand in support of his right honourable friend, and anxious to evince their sense of his public conduct, had invited him, as their guest, to receive publicly, at their hands, the full, unanimous, and enthusiastic approbation of his conduct in Parliament and elsewhere."

The speech delivered by Sir Robert, upon this occasion, is entitled to attention, as containing a luminous exposition of his policy in opposition "My object," said he, for some years past, has been to lay the foundations of a great party, which, existing in the House of Commons, and deriving its strength from the popular will, should diminish the risk and deaden the shock of collisions between the two deliberative branches of the legislature." Having dwelt upon the peril to which the Reform agitation had exposed the institutions of the country-having pronounced a panegyric upon the Duke of Wellington," that man who is not without ambition, but without its alloys," and having adverted to the accession of Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham to his party, as an" union not the result of conferences, not the offspring of nego. tiations, but originally brought about by the force of circumstances,

and afterwards cemented by mutual co-operation, by reciprocal confidence and respect." The right hon. baronet continued in the following terms:-"Thus has this party been brought into existence, and we have this day fresh evidence of the strength it has acquired. It has been submitted twice to the test of public opinion. Twice has a dissolution taken place under circumstances calculated to determine whether this party has or has not the public confidence. One dissolution took place when it was in power, the other when power was in the hands of its opponents. On the first dissolution, in 1835, when I was at the head of the government of the country, the Conservative numbers were suddenly swollen from about 150 to more than double that number. I believe we divided, on the nomi. nation of Speaker, 306 members. But it was then said, You owe success to the possession of power: wait till another dissolution takes place wait till your opponents exercise those functions of government which you discharged when Parliament was assembled in 1835, and be prepared for a reduction in your numbers more rapid and striking than their increase.' Well, to that second test we have at length been submitted. The dissolution took place in the course of the last year with every circumstance calculated to be favourable to those in power. There was the accession of a youthful and beloved queen-there was one universal feeling of personal loyalty and attachment towards the sovereign ascending the throne, with every thing to prepossess in her favour. There was a lavish use of her Majesty's name for the purpose of influencing the elections. There

was a curious coincidence-a hap. py, a fortunate one, for the Government-of despatches approving of the conduct of public officers printed and circulated on the eve of a general election. There was no fastidious delicacy in the choice of candidates; for the hustings of Westminster exhibited a secretary of state voting in favour of one who had defended insurrection in Canada, and warmly advocated the cause of the Canadian revolt; and yet, notwithstanding this combination of favourable circumstances -the accession of her Majesty, the prodigal use of her name, the absence of all squeamish scruples in the selection of candidates still the result of the general election exhibited our numbers unbroken; for, as we voted 306, having had all the advantages of dissolution during the tenure of government, the names attached to the invitation of this day, comprising 313 members of the House of Commons, will, I think, sufficiently demonstrate that, notwithstanding the adverse predictions to the contrary, the public confidence has not permitted our numbers to be reduced in consequence of the second dissolution."

na

The right hon. baronet then entered upon a sort of apology for the extreme forbearance which had distinguished his course of opposition to the Government. "The possession of strength, the demonstration of power," said he, turally brings with it some slight inconvenience. There is impatience in some quarters, that, seeing the strength we possess, it is not called into more frequent action.". "But we must bear in mind, that the particular course which an opposition should take, must partly depend upon the principles they

maintain. Our more impatient friends in the country must recollect, that our very name almost implies a contradiction; we are a conservative opposition; we adopt the principles which used to be said to prevail in an administration; we not only adopt the principles of a government, but we perform many of its functions; and it must be borne in mind that we cannot, in conformity with our opinions, take that latitude of action which might befit an opposition acting on precisely contrary principles. An opposition which professed to think the ancient institutions of this country a grievance, which considered English society a mass of abuse, has a double ground of opposition against a government; it has, first, the ground of personal dissatisfaction with the course taken by government, censuring and disapproving of the acts of government, together with no indisposition to inflame popular discontent against the institutions of the country. But we must bear in mind that our duty prescribed to us by our principles is to maintain the ancient institutions of the land. We have no desire to exalt the authority of the House of Commons above the prerogative of the Crown; we have no desire to undermine the privileges of the House of Lords; on the contrary, it is our duty to defend them. The field of opposition occupied by those who seek to reduce and cripple our establishments is denied to us, because we wish to see the naval and military establishments of the country maintained in proper vigour and efficiency. It is not for us to inflame popular discontent by the exaggeration of public abuses. Nor can we lend the Crown our arm to shake or curtail the liberties of the

people. And therefore, in estimating the course we have adopted, those who feel some impatience with our apparent indifference and passiveness, should always recollect that the principles maintained by an Opposition do impose some practical restraint on the conduct they must pursue.

"I said," continued Sir Robert, "that we maintain the principles and perform some of the functions of a government. I will prove this to be the case; that the position of the Administration and Government is inverted-that we hold the principles generally said to belong to Government, repudiating those which are powerful instruments when wielded by Opposition. Now, I want to convince you, that we have also been exercising some of the practical functions of a government so far as the legislature is concerned. I will select three main questions, with out going through the great number of divisions in which, without the aid of the Conservative party, her Majesty's government must frequently have had to lament the smallness of their numbers in competition with their Radical allies. I will take three questions -one connected with the religious establishments of the country, another connected with an important branch of domestic industry and internal commerce, and the third connected with the foundations of civil government, and the maintenance of the constitution of the House of Commons. The first question to which I refer merely as a specimen-for there are hundreds of others--the first I relect is the motion made in the year 1837 for excluding the bishops from the House of Lords" for relieving them," I believe it was called,

"from the performance of their legislative duties in Parliament.” That motion was manfully resisted, as far as speeches went, by her Majesty's ministers; it was resisted also by ourselves; but coming to the division, the ayes in favour of excluding the bishops were 92, the noes 197; the adherents of the government mustering only 50, whilst the Conservatives numbered 147. That is the first proof I give that I am not overstating our strength and influence, when I say that we do execute some of the important functions of government. The second question involved the repeal of the corn-laws. On that occasion (in 1838) the ayes were 95, the noes, 300; but 226 of the 300 were Conservatives, the Whigs only mustering 74, being, in fact, in a minority of 21.* The last question to which I would refer, also in the present session, is the vote by ballot. Don't let it be said that I am overrating the importance of that question. The vote by ballot was declared by the minister of the Crown in the House of Commons to be not only important in itself, but as involving mighty changes in the representa tive constitution of this country. It was resisted on that groundnot merely on the abstract objection to the ballot, but because it was interwoven necessarily with other and more important consequences. There voted for the ballot 198; against it 315: 254 being Conservatives, and only 61, composed of those who, acknowledging the minister as their leader, supported him in the objections he had taken to the adoption of that measure."

* Chapter ix. post.