Page images


and whoever may be chosen must be at their disposal. My name has been used by the Committee, of which you are chairman, without interference on my part, and I accept the consequences, whatever they may be. It would be unjust and ungenerous to those who have made such disinterested exertions on my behalf were I to withdraw my name now; but, so far as positive action on my own part is concerned, it must be directed to my re-election at Leominster. If the University seat should eventually be offered to me, I could not, of course, hesitate one moment as to its acceptance. No other constituency can confer so great an honour, and I at least should never undervalue the distinction.Believe me, yours very truly, "GATHORNE HARDY."

Incredulity as to our success was general, in the House and in the country. Mr Gladstone's seat had been assailed so often in vain, that it had come to be taken for granted that it was impregnable. We, on the other hand, were confident of victory, else we should not have pushed matters so far. Nothing was further from our thoughts than a merely worrying opposition. With that we should have had

nothing to do, although by most people it was assumed, I think, that we had nothing more to hope for. But every week had brought us the names of men who previously had been Gladstonians, and of recruits among the younger members of the University. We were confident of of winning, therefore, and said so; but the figures upon which that confidence was based were kept a profound secret. They were known to four men only,-two in London (of whom I was one) and two in Oxford. As time

went on the greatest interest began to be shown in endeavouring to ascertain the number of promises on either side, but we were never to be drawn by the fishing questions with which we were pressed. I found that our figures were always underestimated. Before going down to meet my own constituents at Durham, where I was returned unopposed on July 11, I showed our figures to Mr Disraeli, who was surprised and gratified exceedingly. He had shared in the general incredulity. Our estimate showed a majority of 180 for Mr Hardy, and the poll corroborated it exactly.

The chairman of Mr Hardy's Oxford Committee was Archdeacon Clerke, which led Bishop Wilberforce to say of the opposition, "They plough with my heifer." Thereupon Dean Mansel wrote the following witty lines:

"When the versatile Bishop of Oxford's famed city

Cast his eyes on the chairman of Hardy's Committee,

Said Samuel, from Samson the meta

phor taken,

They plough with my heifer, that is,

my Archdeacon.'

But when Samuel himself leaves his

friends in the lurch

To vote with the foes of the State and the Church,

It proves without doubt and the spectacle shocks oneThat Dissenters can plough with Episcopal Oxon."

The poll opened on Thursday the 13th July, and lasted until the 18th, the intervening Sunday excepted. On the first day of the poll, about 5 P.M., the Bishop of Oxford came into the theatre booted and spurred,

House of Commons would be so foolish as to pass such а Resolution.”

The next day, the 14th, Dr Jacobson, Regius Professor of Divinity, afterwards Bishop of Chester, chairman of Mr Gladstone's committee, came to me and said that five Peers had recorded their votes for Mr Gladstone, and proposed that we should poll the same number, when after that no more Peers should vote. I thanked him very cordially, and replied that I was infinitely obliged, but I was quite aware of the fact. They had brought Church and State to bear against us, the bishop of the diocese voting in person, and the stepson of the Prime Minister, Earl Cowper, sending in his voting-paper on the first day. But, I added, all these votes were illegal, and in the event of a scrutiny would be struck off, and, besides, I was confident of winning, and should only do so by legal votes, and that, as far as I was concerned, no Peers would vote, though there were some who wished to do so.

about to ride to Cuddesden and I never thought any future Palace. The Vice-Chancellor leant forward, and in a low voice said, "You must vote in your academicals, you know.” This occasioned a little merriment; and on the Bishop's return Mr Granville Somerset, who was acting as a kind of legal adviser for Mr Hardy, called his lordship's attention to the resolution of the House of Commons that no Peer should take part in the election of a member of the Commons' House, and asked him if he had considered it. He said he had. Sir Robert Phillimore, who appeared for Mr Gladstone, asked if it was not held that that resolution did not apply to elections by members of Convocation. The Bishop smiled, but did not commit himself to any answer, and immediately said, "Samuel Wilberforce, Oriel. I vote for Mr Gladstone," and the vote was recorded. Some years afterwards there was an election during a session of Parliament for a member of the University of Cambridge, and the names of two bishops appeared on the committee of one of the candidates. A question was asked about it in the House of Commons, and both names were withdrawn. I called the attention of the Bishop of Oxford to this incident, and said that the prelates of the sister university had followed a bad example set them at Oxford in 1865. The Bishop, with his usual readiness, replied, "Not at all. The cases are not the same. When I voted there was no Parliament and no Resolution in existence,

The voting went on steadily for five days. The majority mounted up gradually from 34 on the first day to 70 on the second. On the third, the 15th, a large influx of Gladstonians appeared, and by mid-day our majority was gone for a time. But I had a reserve of votingpapers in Oxford, which I at once induced those members of Convocation who held them to put in, and so Mr Hardy was left on the Saturday night with a majority of 100. On Tuesday

[blocks in formation]

At this point, where I near the close, in the death of Lord Palmerston, of a great parliamentary period, I would add a word respecting the great leaders and prominent members in it with whom I was in contact, leaving for the future any comments about Mr Disraeli, Mr Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr Hardy, and others.

Lord John Russell deserves most honourable mention as a Leader of the House. There was a calm and statesmanlike demeanour which commanded respect, and his reply in summing up the arguments after a long debate was a masterly performance. From his earliest days he had accepted the tradition that the universe was made for the Whigs. Mr Disraeli well said that the character of Lord John Russell was a proud possession of the House of Commons. Lord Lytton said of him with some exaggeration:

"How form'd to lead, if not too proud to please,

have mentioned a little incident which occurred when I met him at Windsor in 1858. I much appreciated his ready and cordial greeting and his kindly manner, the more remarkable as coming from one who was neither a political leader nor a personal friend. I always found him the same. Of Lord Palmerston it is superfluous to speak. He was naturally joyous, genial, and obliging. There was no hauteur in his manner to a young member who wanted to approach him. He led the House with signal success, except during the short period from May 1857 to March 1858, when he seemed somewhat intoxicated with his popularity after the China Dissolution. From 1859 to 1865 he was supreme and unquestioned. He was a ready debater, but not a great speaker. He rose to the occasion most when he had to repel the personal attacks made upon him as Foreign Secretary in 1850, when he spoke from sunset to sunrise. He knew his audience, and he knew how to conciliate it. But I do not think he made a single great speech in the ten years of his ascendancy from 1855 to 1865

Other well known figures arise before me while dwelling on these reminiscences. There was no one for whom I had a greater admiration than Sir George Cornewall Lewis, no one for whose memory I have a profounder respect. His was the very highest class of intellect. He was always informed to the full on every I subject on which he spoke.

His fame will fire you, but his manners freeze."

My experience was the reverse. He was most courteous and accessible in the House.

Wise, thoughtful, and judicious, the shrewdest of judges, had a high opinion of his political talents, and it was acknowledged by all that he developed great capacity for public life during his short tenure, without any previous experience, of the post of Secretary of State. When he went to the Colonial Office he at once impressed the permanent officials. I asked Herman Merivale, Permanent Under - Secretary for the Colonies, a remarkable man himself and a severe critic, how he liked his new chief. His eyes brightened, and he replied in tones of enlightened admiration, "Oh, he is a splendid fellow!"

his speeches, which I listened to with unfailing attention, were full of matter and cogent argument. There have been smarter debaters and more brilliant rhetoricians in our generation; but to my mind he was as able and sound a statesman as any who have served the Queen during her long reign. Had he lived, and had the nation ever come to appreciate his high qualities and his consummate judgment, he must have exercised a great and moderating influence on the Liberal party, in spite of Mr Gladstone's predominance in it. And he might have filled a place in the estimation of the public which had been left vacant since the death of Sir Robert Peel. No man certainly more entirely deserved compliment which Mr Gladstone paid him when he described him as

"justissimus unus Qui fuit in Teucris, et servantissimus æqui."

When the news arrived of his death one day after an Easter recess, the House adjourned as a mark of respect. Cardwell remarked to me at the time: "Ah, well, he wouldn't take any exercise. He used to say, 'I've heard of many men dying of hard riding, but never any of hard reading.

[ocr errors]

Another notable figure in the House was Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, who, if he had gone into official life earlier, would assuredly have taken a great place as an administrator as well as a debater. Disraeli,

There are many others on both sides not to be forgotten. General Peel, with whom I was brought into close contact in 1858, and again in 1866, when he was War Minister and I was Judge Advocate, was intellectually not far behind his illustrious brother the great Prime Minister (as I have heard Lord Derby say), vigorous alike in mind and body, with a ready smile and a joyous laugh. I shall never forget a short speech which he made in 1864, when Denmark was beset with her foes, and the House felt rather ashamed that we kept aloof. He sat down, exclaiming, "We are rebuked of our neighbours, we are laughed to scorn and had in derision of them that are round about us," and never did I hear more uproarious cheers greet the peroration of any brilliant 'orator. Again, there were Sir James Grahamso nearly first-class that none understood why he did not occupy that position-of a commanding

presence, a successful administrator, and a powerful debater; Sir George Grey and Mr Sidney Herbert-statesmen of the highest integrity, and as much beloved in private life as they were honoured as most capable public servants; Mr Walpole, who seemed to have inherited much of the stately dignity and the classic style which adorned the oratory of the eighteenth century; Mr Henley, supreme at Quarter Sessions, placed at the Board of Trade, and making his mark there at once, the most acute critic of the language of any bill in Committee that any draftsman ever had to dread; Sir John Pakington, and Colonel Wilson Patten.

was dissolved. The writs were returnable in August, on the 15th of which month the new Parliament was prorogued till November 1. Lord Palmerston died in October, and was buried in Westminster Abbey on Friday, October 27. There were points of contrast and points of resemblance between that funeral and the funeral of Mr Gladstone in May 1898. Mr Gladstone died in the midst of a session. There was a resolution that the House should attend, and we walked in procession with the Speaker at our head to the Abbey. In 1865 we were a new Parliament— gathered together I know not how-in a time of prorogation. I need not dwell on the un- We had never looked one anadorned eloquence of Mr Cobden other in the face, we had no or the magnificent utterances of Speaker, we had not taken Mr Bright. The speeches of our oaths or seats; Mr Denison the latter, notably two during was there, the Speaker of the the Crimean war, in December Parliament of 1859, but then 1854 and January 1855, have only a Member of Parliament left a profound impression on and a Privy Councillor. We me as the grandest I ever heard occupied the South Transept, as in Parliament. And already we did in 1898, and the place there are strong indications that of sepulture was also in the the verdict of posterity on the North Transept, where so many policy which those statesmen illustrious statesmen of whom maintained with so much pluck England is proud repose. It and upheld with such perse- was an impressive scene. All verance in 1854 and 1855, will deplored the loss which the not be the same as their con- country had sustained, and temporaries expressed with so every individual had a kindly much passion at the polls in feeling for the memory of one 1857. who was so well known and so On July 6, 1865, Parliament universally beloved.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »