first, dis

The old

Houses temporarily repaired.

Among the many extravagances of which George IV. had been guilty, he had, in 1825, set about the erection of a new London palace on the site of old Buckingham House. The king, whose simple tastes had no need for all the palaces which his brother had erected, voluntarily offered to place it at the disposal of the Legislature. The ministers were, at posed to accept this offer. They found, however, that the walls of the old House of Lords, which were still standing, could be covered in without much expense, and could be converted in this way into a temporary House of Commons, and that the old Painted Chamber, whose contents only had been destroyed, could be fitted up as the House of Lords. They decided on effecting these alterations, instead of asking the Legislature to migrate to the other end of St. James's Park.1 Temporary accommodation of this kind-so it was thought-would suffice till new buildings of a permanent character could be constructed.

The elec

Speaker.

In the temporary premises thus arranged for the reception. of the Legislature the new Parliament met for the first time on the 19th of February 1835. The Commons were at once desired to withdraw to the place where tion of a they were to sit, and choose a Speaker. With their withdrawal the struggle began which continued, almost without intermission, till the final overthrow of Peel's Government. One man, indeed, had strong claims for the Speakership. Manners Sutton had occupied the chair of the House of Commons for nearly eighteen years. He had been chosen in the first instance by an unreformed House; the choice had been confirmed on the last occasion by a reformed Parliament. He had been elected in 1817 at the instance of a Tory Ministry; his election had been repeated in 1833 on the suggestion of a Whig Government. He had, moreover, a distinct claim on the consideration of the Whigs. At their wish, and for their convenience, he had postponed the retirement which he had contemplated in 1832, and had consented to continue 1 Melbourne, vol. ii. p. 30. 2 Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 2.

in office.1 In ordinary circumstances he might have expected that the Whigs in Opposition would imitate the course which they had pursued in office, and again support his claims for the chair. The more extreme members of the Whig party had, however, never tolerated the acquiescence of their leaders - in Sutton's claims; and Sutton himself had too frequently justified their objections to him. So long as he was in the chair, indeed, every Radical in the House was ready to bear testimony to his efficiency and impartiality. But, when he left the chair, he too often forgot the spirit of the beautiful prayer which it was the daily duty of his chaplain to read during the session, and indulged in the animosity of partisan warfare. In the summer of 1834 he actually presided at a dinner of the Conservative party.2 In the autumn of 1834 it was everywhere rumoured that he would accept high political office in Peel's Cabinet. The Whigs had the mortification of noticing that the Speaker of the House of Commons attended the meetings of the Privy Council at which the routine business. of the Tory Government was conducted, and that he was in almost continual communication with Wellington. Complaints of this character were almost daily made in the Whig newspapers; and the Whig leaders, encouraged by their persistency, decided on opposing Sutton's re-election. They chose for his opponent James Abercromby, the member for Edinburgh, a politician who had long been distinguished for the liberality of his views, and who had sat in the Melbourne Cabinet. The choice was almost unanimously approved by the Whigs: their approval made Sutton's defeat a matter of course. Abercromby was elected by 316 votes to 306;3 and Sutton, hiding his mortification in a peerage, became Lord Canterbury.

Peel had the dexterity to conceal his annoyance at this damaging division. He congratulated Abercromby on his election, and busily continued his own preparations for the session. He had still a short interval for the purpose. The 2 Spencer, P. 474.

1 See ante, vol. iii. p. 364.

3 Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 56.

first few days which succeeded Abercromby's election were occupied by swearing in the members of the new Parliament. It was only on Tuesday, the 24th of February, that Parlia ment was formally opened by the king. The Speech was an unusually long one. It repeated the assurances and renewed the promises of the Tamworth Manifesto.

Peel,

Peel's declaration of policy.

however, was not content with embodying these promises in an address to his constituents, and in putting them into the mouth of the king. During the debate on the Address he emphatically renewed them: "I make great offers, which should not lightly be rejected. I offer you the prospect of continued peace. . . . I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical law, the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, the commutation of tithe in England, the removal of any real abuse in the Church, the redress of those grievances of which the Dissenters have any just ground to complain. I offer you these specific measures, and I offer also to advance, soberly and cautiously, it is true, in the path of progressive improvement."1 These offers did not moderate the anxiety of the Whigs to defeat the Government. They insisted on proposing an amendment to the Address, distinctly lamenting that the progress of reforms had "been interrupted and endangered by the unnecessary dissolution of a Parliament earnestly intent upon the vigorous prosecution of measures to which the wishes of the people were most anxiously and justly directed." 2 When the debate began the Opposition confidently expected a majority of thirty to forty votes. amendment was carried ultimately by a majority of only seven. The division was embarrassing enough feated on to a ministry which had already been defeated on the contest for the Speakership; but the boasts of the Opposi

1 Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 241.

The

He is de

the Address.

2 These are the concluding words of the amendment, which was moved by Lord Morpeth. Ibid., p. 172. A similar amendment was moved in the House of Lords by Melbourne (ibid., p. 81), and rejected without a division. Ibid., p. 151. 3 Greville, vol. iii. p. 221. 4 309 votes to 302. Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 410.

tion deprived their success of some of its significance. A majority of only seven votes seemed almost like a defeat to men who had confidently relied on a considerable majority.

The ministry had been defeated on the Speakership; it had been defeated on the Ad Iress; and its capacity to deal with any subject obviously depended on the forbearance of the Opposition. Forbearance was the last thing which the Opposition was thinking of. Its more eager members were intent on finding some fresh occasion for inflicting a new defeat on the Government. One circumstance, however, caused them disquietude. Technically, the Crown had power to dissolve Parliament. Long usage, however, had limited the right of each minister to one dissolution only. It was tacitly understood that a minister had the right to appeal once from Parliament to the country; but it was also tacitly understood that he should abide by the result of the appeal. During the debate on the Address rumours were freely circulated that Peel contemplated the violation of this virtual understanding. On the 2nd of March, Russell referred to these reports in the House of Commons. It was not easy to answer Russell. If Peel had declared his intention of advising a fresh dissolution he would virtually have defied the unwritten law of the Constitution. If he had announced his determination to abide by the result of the last appeal he would have released timid members, afraid of the expense of a contested election, from the one influence which made them refrain from voting against him. It was difficult, then, for Peel to reply to Russell. With much dexterity he declared that he had neither "directly nor indirectly sanctioned" the rumours to which Russell referred. "It would be most unbecoming in me to fetter the discussions of the House of Commons by any, the slightest, menace of contingent dissolution; but it would be equally unbecoming in me, as a minister of the Crown, to consent to place in abeyance any prerogative of the Crown, or to debar myself by previous pledges from giving to the Crown that advice which future exigencies of the public service might require." 1

1 Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 474.

to

Russell had failed to extract any distinct pledge from Peel; and the Opposition had to find some fresh pretext for attacking the ministry. It occurred to some of them that Peel's difficulties would be increased if the supplies were granted for only a limited period. With Russell's consent Hume proHume gave notice of a motion for voting the sup- post the plies for three months only. His notice, however, supplies. did his friends no good. Some of the Whigs thought that a limitation of the ordinary vote might damage the credit of the country; others of them desired to afford the new ministry a fair trial. Instead of bringing forward his motion, Hume was compelled to withdraw it ;1 and the Whig leaders were forced to wait for some other pretext for seizing office. A fresh opportunity for attacking the ministry occurred, however, immediately. Ever since Lord Heytesbury's retirement, in 1832, the embassy at St. Petersburg, one of the richest prizes in the diplomatic service, had been vacant.2 Wellington, on receiving the seals of the Foreign Office, decided on sending a new ambassador to Russia. Towards the end of December it was reported that he had nominated Lord Londonderry to the post. The appointment was thought almost donderry's appointment incredible. The Times, on the 2nd of January, to St. Petersburg. declared it an "absurd report" and "a sorry joke." Its bare announcement rekindled the opposition to the ministry. The selection was, in fact, in many respects objectionable. Londonderry was the representative of those old-fashioned Tories who still clung to the domestic policy which had made his brother an object of detestation at home, and to the foreign policy which had made this country the ally of sovereigns and not of peoples abroad. In the past he had served with distinction in the Peninsula; he had been present with the allied armies during the campaign of 1813; and his energetic counsels, on more than one occasion, had been of undoubted service to the cause of the Allies. Raised to the peerage, and nominated 1 Recollections and Suggestions, p. 134. Hansard, vol. xxvi. p. 885. Greville, vol. iii. p. 224.

3

Lord Lon

2 For the circumstances connected with this vacancy see ante, vol. iii. p. 387, 3 Greville, vol. iii. p. 183.

note.