Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

stipulated only that Mr Whitbread, who had for many years been the leading Liberal member on the Committee, and who had also sent in his resignation, should continue to serve. This was satisfactorily arranged, and I find in a letter from my father, through the ordinary channels of parliamentary communication, the following:

"Now that I am assured of the co

operation of my valued colleague Mr Whitbread, I feel I ought at once to say that I will place my services at the disposal of the House. And may I add, in all sincerity, that gratitude for the support which Mr Gladstone has always given to the

Committee of Selection constitutes a

further reason why I should comply with your request."

[ocr errors]

I have been much helped in this account of my father's committees by friends and colleagues who served with him. Perhaps I may be allowed, in summing up this record of more than twenty-five years' unostentatious work in the public service, to quote the resolution passed unanimously by the Committee, on the motion of a Liberal seconded by a Conservative :

"During that long period of time it has been largely due to the genial tact, personal character, and unwearying attention of the chairman that the delicate and difficult duties intrusted to the Committee of Selection have been carried out without friction or division, and to the general satisfaction of the House."

This resolution was passed on my father's resignation of the office after my mother's death, in February 1899; and I can only add that the proposal to place by private subscription some memorial to him, in recognition of his services, in the Committee-room where he had presided so long- a proposal unique, I believe, in the annals of Parliament in the case of a private member-is as gratifying to his family as it would have been unlooked for by himself.

[ocr errors]

He

The continual "Irish rows,' and systematic obstruction, from 1880 to 1882, were very distressing to my father. felt that they did an injury to the dignity of the whole House, and that it, and not merely the Irish party, suffered by them. He was constant in his attendance, and took his full share of the prolonged sittings, being present for many hours of the memorable forty-one hours' sitting from January 31 to February 2, 1881, and again at that of February 3, when the Irish members were susHe depended in a body. scribes the latter sitting thus:—

"Feb. 4, 1881.-It was an extraordinary scene. I was there all through, and am none the worse.

I bolted a bit of beef and swallowed a pint of claret whilst some of the Irish were being carried off, and I heard all Gladstone's admirable speech. I stuck to the Government all through, and voted with Walpole against Northcote. He ought never to have divided. Gladstone yielded 3 points out of 4, and it was ungracious to challenge the small difference that remained."

Lord Beaconsfield died on

April 19, 1881, and my father attended the funeral at Hughenden.

"April 27, 1881. We reached High Wycombe at 1.20. I walked up to the church. At 2.30 the doors were opened, and I was one of the first to be admitted: a very large number of seats-perhaps 130—were reserved for the Royalties, Dukes, mourners, and principal friends, and

some of the servants. All was done very reverently, and I think all seemed to display a great deal of real feeling. Coningsby Disraeli is an interesting boy,-more like Beaconsfield than his own father. He and

Ralph Disraeli followed the body; then Rowton and Barrington, the Executors, Prince of Wales, Duke of Connaught and Prince Leopold, Ambassadors, Dukes, Peers, Barts., and M.P.'s. We left by the special, and were at Paddington at 6.5.

After the death of Gordon in January 1885, the Opposition proposed to move a vote of censure on Mr Gladstone's Government, and my father wrote on February 18

"I believe they have screwed their courage up at last to move a Vote of Censure. I, who am usually the most moderate and cautious, find myself on this occasion one of the most pugnacious, and I have had to sustain the fainting spirits of some on the front bench. I maintain that all the traditions and usages of political life demand a direct vote, and that the Duke, or Sir Robert Peel, or Lord Beaconsfield, would have done it, and they must take the consequences, and Salisbury must come in and make the best of it if we beat them-but we shan't. I find myself in complete accord with Sir R. Peel and with Jersey, and Jersey is the most moderate man and voted for the Franchise Bill."

There was a meeting at the Carlton, and a resolution drawn up by Sir Stafford Northcote was moved on February 23. On that date he wrote:

"Our meeting yesterday at the Carlton was not very full, nor was it much to the purpose. A good Northcote's Resolution, which is not deal of steam was let off against happily framed; but of course every one votes for it. We had a disgrace(on an amendment to the Address ful scene altogether at the House moved by W. O'Brien). Most of our men behaved badly by walking out, and some voted with the Irish; alto

gether 26 of us voted with the Government and the Speaker, and 25 trial of the clôture, and completely voted against them. It was the first illustrated what I said in 1882, that Gladstone had drawn his Resolution in such a complicated way that no Government would be safe in trying 200 of their own men in the House. the clôture except when they had They were over 40 (there were 20 Irish, 1 Rad. and 25 Conservatives), a majority of 200 was required, and the Government had only 182, so that they were nearly beaten; and had the Irish recollected that under the

peculiar circumstances the question had to be put twice and taken a second division, I am not sure that some of our men would not have walked out to embarrass the Government.1 It was most annoying to the Speaker, who suggested the motion entirely in the interests of the House and without any suggestion from the Government, and he told me afterwards that he should have resigned if the motion had failed. John Manners stood to his guns and voted; but most of our men walked away. Nothing is known about the division. I expect the Irish will abstain. They say they would vote with us if they could turn out the Government. But of that there

1 In explanation of this it should be added that, by the Standing Orders, if the minority were over 40, it required at least 200 to carry the clôture. In this case the minority were 46, the Government had only 182 of their own men, and had to depend on the Conservative Opposition to furnish the balance required to make up 200.

seems no prospect. I suppose Goschen's speech will give us a few votes, but I expect the Ministerial majority to be twenty at least."

It was fourteen only.

on

Mr Gladstone's Government came to an end in June 1885, and Lord Salisbury took office. The dissolution and general election on the new franchise took place in the autumn, and in January 1886 the Conservative Government had to meet a hostile majority in the new House. The House met January 12, and it was a peculiar gratification to my father to be asked to propose the reelection of Mr Speaker Peel. Besides his great admiration for him as Speaker, he had a special regard for him as "the son of Sir Robert and the godson of the Duke," and anxious that his speech proposing him should be worthy of the occasion and of the man. After making it he wrote

was most

a

"Jan. 12, 1882.-If I may judge by the compliments, admirable,' 'first-rate,' &c., from all quarters, I should say that the speech was success. Of course I forgot some things and used some wrong words, and I made one funny slip which made people laugh. The Speaker sent to me, and asked me to call him 'member for Warwick and Leamington.' I meant, as usual, all through to call him Mr Peel, but I brought it in once and made a slip, ‘Warwick and Liverpool'! My voice was quite strong. The Speaker thanked me very much, and I should think at least a hundred men have spoken to me about the speech."

“Jan. 13.—The compliments commenced in the House, re-echoed in the lobbies, and were continued in the Carlton, so I think the family quartette have reason to be proud of the joint production! The front Opposition bench presented large

gaps, although Goschen has returned to the fold and Playfair also. The Old Man looked bright and confident, Hartington glum and rather cross. I have accompanied Mr Speaker Elect in his small bob-wig to the Lords, and Halsbury has told us that her Majesty approves. Bright for some reason did not go. The Speaker has settled the Bradlaugh business admirably. There is much confusion in swearing. I am sworn. May followed up my blunder in a worse way, for he actually introduced me to the Speaker as 'member for the University of Cambridge'!'

A few days later my father dined with the Speaker, and met Mr and Mrs Gladstone.

"Jan. 28. The dinner at the Speaker's was interesting and amusing. I took Mrs Gladstone in to dinner, and played three rubbers against the Speaker and the Sergeantat-Arms, with the G.O.M. himself as my partner. He was wonderfully cordial and pleasant. I thanked him before dinner for the valuable aid he had given me the day before in the House, and he praised the work of our Committee. He said he had sat in Cabinet with sixty men, and seemed in great spirits. We had bad luck one deal I had only one trump and Gladstone none. However, the upshot was only three points against us, as we won one of the rubbers."

The Parliament elected in 1885 was a body from which my father anticipated evil results only, and he was greatly relieved by the dissolution in June 1886, after the rejection of Mr Gladstone's Home Rule Bill. He often expressed his fears as to the revolutionary spirit and the want of reverence for authority shown on several occasions, and he was thankful that the question of Home Rule absorbed all the time and attention of the House, to the entire exclusion of other matters,

After the general election in July 1886 there was a great meeting of the party at the Carlton Club, which he attended.

July 27.-You may like to hear what passed at the Carlton. Salisbury made an excellent speech, and

to

consulted the members of the House of Commons in particular as whether we should meet in August, wind up Supply, and then begin afresh in January, or whether we should begin in October he preferring the former course. Then Carnarvon spoke, expressing his thanks to Lord Salisbury, and his

earnest wishes for a strong Conservative Government. Then I spoke (mainly on the question of the August session, which I urged most strongly), and carried the meeting. Raikes expressed some doubts, but did not entirely dissent. Sir R. Fowler, Staveley Hill, and Sir H. Holland spoke in my view, and Tottenham and Beresford Hope asked questions; and so it is pretty nearly settled that we meet in August for business. I know nothing of allocation of offices; Lord

Salisbury said he had no colleagues. Beach sat on his right, Cranbrook on his left-so there is no doubt as to Beach's position. I suspect Londonderry will go to Ireland: he sat in a prominent place. Randolph brought him in and placed him in communiIcation with Beach."

a

The house met in August, and the brilliant start made as Leader of the House by Lord Randolph Churchill was great satisfaction to my father, who took an almost paternal interest in his career, auguring a splendid future for him, grieving over his mistakes and faults of temper, and yet more over his premature end.

"Aug. 19, 1886.-Our people have made a capital start last night. Lord Randolph sent his compliments and asked me to introduce him; so I took up the Leader of the House in company with Sir W. Barttelot. Then I was further in requisition to take up

Sir H. Holland, and for a third time to take up Ashmead Bartlett. Lord Randolph made a most successful speech, very clear, able, and dignified. He made a good impression on both

sides the Liberal Unionists were quite delighted. The Old Man looked well, and is in better voice: he made a very nasty speech in some respects as to non-payment of rent in NovemRandolph how pleased I was, and ber. I had an opportunity of telling what the Liberal Unionists said of his speech. I had also a few words with Sir Michael Beach. I told him

I thought it the most magnanimous thing I had ever known in public life. The arrangement seems to have been made at his own will,-he is certainly a very high-minded man. It was a pleasant start for me in the new House to conduct the new Leader and walk up on his right hand from the Bar to the Table."

Lord Iddesleigh's terribly sudden death on Jannary 12, 1887, ended a long friendship. My father attended the funeral service held in Westminster

Abbey, on January 18.

He

was very much impressed by the character of the gathering. The genuine feeling of personal affection shown on all sides was most remarkable, and of all the public funerals he attended I think he felt that this was the one where most personal feeling was displayed.

The sudden resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill and the death of Lord Iddesleigh had caused some alterations in the Administration, and when the House met in January 1887, it met under the Leadership of Mr W. H. Smith.

"Feb. 18, 1887.-We had a very satisfactory night. The Speaker deserves all the compliments I paid him last year. He is a regular trump card. The new Leader also did admirably, and the loyalty of the

Liberal Unionists is beyond praise. John Bright was there for many hours and voted like a man against Dillwyn, and said that the Welsh Church can wait. Hartington, of course, stuck to it, and Joe Chamberlain came back from dinner and remained voting with us till 1.10. The M.P.'s for Oxford University and Prestwich were in all seven divisions."

out in a body, and we divided 332 to 162: the Old Man walked out at the head, and so we closed the Committee on the Crimes Bill."

One matter about which my father was always anxious, especially as he grew older and not able to attend so regularly at prayers, was to secure the

Interested as he was in all seat which he had occupied by

that concerned the forms of the House, the debates on procedure claimed his attention.

He had taken part in them in 1882; and in 1887, when the Rules were again altered, he spoke more than once on the subject.

The recollections of the Westminster boy of 1831 were fresh to the mind of the M.P. of 1887, as the following letter shows:

"June 18, 1887.-I went into the Abbey yesterday to see all the arrangements. I am No. 30 in our House, and shall be in the second row. Apart from the sentiment of seeing the Queen in the Coronation Chair in the Abbey, the sight outside

a sight never before seen since the world began the Sovereign of England, surrounded by such a cavalcade of sons, sons-in-law, and grandsons on horseback, including the Heir Apparent of the British Crown and the Heir Apparent of the empire of Germany,-will be the grandest spectacle. It is very interesting to me to think how like the place looks to what it did when I was there on September 7, 1831, before King William was crowned. I see the gallery in which the Westminster boys sat, and the connection behind which enabled us both to see the king crowned under the Lantern and the king in the Sacrarium receiving the Holy Communion; and I can look down on the Peers below me and see old Lyndhurst again reading his 'Times' during the ceremony. We had a scene at the House last night, when all the Irish members walked

courtesy ever since he left the front bench in 1874. The first opening of a new Parliament right to it was ever seriously was the only time when his in question. He wrote on January 31, 1893 :

"I was much disconcerted to find my place taken by Lord F. Hamilton and Barttelot's by Lord Carmarthen at 7 A.M.! However, I set it all right with Lord Frederick, and I hope I shall not have any further trouble. But you will be amused to hear that Dr Tanner came up in his blandest way and assured me that if any Irishman ever took my place, he would see to it and set it right! It was an awful scramble in the House."

Again, on February 13, 1893, he wrote on the day when Mr Gladstone introduced his second Home Rule Bill:

"I was in the lobby at 11.30 and was closely packed in a queue reaching from the door to the corridor. People were wonderfully kind to me, took me in the middle, and guarded me through the rush, and I found my seat respected by everybody, so I remained in the House all day, leaving my hat to guard my seat. The Old Man's was a wonderful effort, although I scarcely think, as a matter of rhetoric, it was up to the former mark. It occupied exactly two hours and twenty minutes. It is impossible to offer an opinion on so elaborate a scheme; but I think it is too elaborate, and one cannot but feel that if there are so many objections (which he admits and states) to all his proposals, he had better let things remain as they are."

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »