CHAP. better to have had the matter settled by Act of Parliament— but little practical inconvenience is likely to arise from the A.D. 1845. innovation. No minister will advise a proclamation by the sovereign for summoning or dissolving Parliament to be signed at Calais, and the validity of proper acts of state done abroad in the common administration of the government will never be questioned. Sudden political changes in the autumn of 1845. A.D. 1846. Introduc tion of Sir Robert Peel's Bill for Repeal ing the Corn Laws. The autumn of 1845 witnessed the most sudden and unexpected turn in domestic politics recorded in our party annals. When Parliament was prorogued all was calm and prosperous, and the most calculating and clear-sighted lover of place would have been delighted to declare himself an adherent of the existing administration. Before Parliament met again that administration expired, and, although it was apparently brought to life again, it then rather resembled a dead body moved by galvanism. I have never heard, from any authentic source, what part Lyndhurst took when, famine approaching by reason of the potato blight, and Lord John Russell having written his famous Edinburgh letter recommending an immediate abolition of the Corn Laws, Peel himself proposed this measure to his Cabinet, and resigned that it might be carried by his successor. Certain it is that the Chancellor expressed great joy when, from the opposition of Lord Grey to the appointment of Lord Palmerston as Foreign Minister, Lord John Russell failed in forming a government. This failure, nevertheless, was a most fortunate occurrence for the Whig party and for the country. Lord John Russell could not have carried the repeal of the Corn Laws, and if by any chance he had succeeded in the attempt, his immediate and permanent exclusion from power must have followed. I saw Lyndhurst several times in the beginning of 1846, but he preserved a deep silence respecting the measures of the ensuing session, perhaps (among other reasons) because he did not know them. At last on the memorable 27th day of January, 1846, I was present in the House of Commons when Peel made his famous speech recommending the repeal of the Corn Laws. Next morning, at 10 o'clock, I went into the House of 66 VII. hurst's economy. Lords to hear the argument upon a Writ of Error. As CHAP. I entered Lyndhurst beckoned to me, and when I approached him he exclaimed in a loud voice, "Campbell! I find the Corn A.D. 1846. Laws are all a humbug. I used to suppose that the prosperity Lord Lyndof our agriculture and of our commerce all depended upon great disProtection; but I tell you Protection is a humbug. There is covery in political nothing for it now but Free Trade." He then informed me that although Stanley had gone out because he was so prejudiced as to stick up for Protection, he himself, and all the other members of the Cabinet, had resolved to sacrifice themselves for the good of their country. The truth I believe to be that, calculating upon the strength of the Government, the temporary aid of the Whigs, the favour of the Court and the prestige of Peel's name, they all expected to carry the abolition of the Corn Laws and still to retain office. And so they probably would if Lord George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli had not been raised up, miraculously as it were, for their destruction. Once on a time an intimate familiarity had subsisted between Lyndhurst and Disraeli, and it was believed that they used jointly to write articles in 'The Times' against Lord Melbourne. Lyndhurst thus took a peculiar interest in Disraeli's new career, and as I went frequently to the House of Commons to hear him abuse Peel, which the Chancellor could not decently do, he curiously interrogated me about Disraeli's salient points and the effect which they produced. When I told him, according to the truth, that the House seemed to relish very much the jokes upon Peel's alleged hypocrisy, pedantry, and inconsistency, Lyndhurst could hardly conceal his satisfaction, although he might have seen that this feeling in the House of Commons must speedily work his own downfall. . An unmistakable forewarning followed. This was the rejection by the Lords of the Chancellor's "Charitable Trusts Bill," which in the preceding year he had carried through the Upper House without difficulty, although from the lateness of the season when it reached the Commons it had been dropped there. Now it was considerably improved in its details, and several clauses to which I had most objected had been omitted or modified. But the Protectionist Peers, headed Rejection of the Charita ble Trusts Bill by a Whigs and Protection coalition of ists, VII. by the Duke of Richmond-to show their spite-offered to coalesce with us in throwing it out, and we, alas! had not A.D. 1846. the virtue to withstand the temptation. Accordingly it was thrown out on the second reading, and I must with shame confess very factiously. I can only say that the Protectionists were more to blame than the Whigs; for we had always expressed a dislike of the Bill, whereas in the preceding session they had cordially supported it. Lyndhurst and Brougham have often taunted us all bitterly, both in public and private, with this coalition, and I have never been able to do more than plead in mitigation the force of bad example and pray privilege for a "first fault." and of the Irish Coercion Bill. Death by of estimat- case of an actual or ex pectant Chancellor. 6 The loss of the Charitable Trusts Bill' was the deathwarrant of Sir Robert Peel's administration; but it did not receive the coup de grace till the division in the House of Commons upon the Irish Coercion Bill,' when there was a similar coalition with a similar result, and this proved instantly fatal. In the mean time business had gone on in the House of Lords as if nothing extraordinary were to happen. I again pushed through the 'Deodand Abolition Bill,' and the 'Death by Negligence Compensation Bill.' The latter was now a good deal discussed, and Lyndhurst showed some disposition to cavil at it. He pretended rather to stand up for the old common law maxim that "the life of man is too valuable to allow of any estimate of the damages to be given for the loss of it." I said :— 'If a Lord Chancellor were killed by an accident on a railway there might certainly be a difficulty in estimating the sum his family should receive by way of compensation for the pecuniary loss; this would depend much upon the probable tenure of his office, if he had survived; for he might be likely to retain it for twenty years, or he might be on the point of being ejected from it by an inevitable change of ministry." Lord Lyndhurst." There is a much more difficult case which may arise than that which my noble and learned friend has had the kindness to suggest. If my noble and learned friend should unfortunately himself fall a sacrifice to railway negligence, being at present without office and without retired allowance, how would a jury be able to estimate the value of his hopes ?" * *Hansard, vol. lxxxvi., p. 174. VII. The Bill, however, did pass both Houses, notwithstanding CHAP. a powerful exertion of railway interest to crush it, and it has been the most popular of all my efforts at legislation. I ought here gratefully to notice the very handsome compliment which Lord Lyndhurst this session publicly paid me as an author. Shortly before the commencement of the session I had published the first three volumes of the 'Lives of the Chancellors.' He took occasion in the course of a debate to praise the work in very high terms, and his remarks being received with loud cheers from all parts of the House, I rose in my place and bowed my thanks. When the Corn Laws Abolition Act came to the House of Lords, I said to Lyndhurst that he was bound to defend it. "No," answered he, "this is unnecessary, for the Duke of Wellington has secured a majority in its favour, although he thinks as badly of it as I should have done seven years ago. Thus he addressed a Protectionist Peer, who came to lament to him that he must on this occasion vote against the Government, having such a very bad opinion of the bill. Bad opinion of the bill, my Lord! You can't have a worse opinion of it than I have; but it was recommended from the Throne, it has passed the Commons by a large majority, and we must all vote for it. The Queen's Government must be supported.""* The argument arising out of opinion being thus silenced, the Protectionists were helpless and the bill passed. However, they vowed vengeance against the author of it, and Peel was soon ejected, with all his colleagues, as well those who approved as those who abhorred it. * In truth this is pretty much the substance of the Duke's speech in moving the second reading. A.D. 1846. How the Lords. M VOL. VIII. CHAP. CHAPTER VIII. OUT OF OFFICE.-1846-1854. LYNDHURST viewed his final descent from power very calmly. I really believe that from growing infirmities (for he was lame A.D. 1846. of one leg and his eyesight was much impaired) he was not Lyndhurst's sorry to retire into private life, so that he shared the fate of final resig- the rest of his party, and did not appear to be ignominiously discarded by them. nation of office. It was on the 6th of July that the government was transferred. The outgoing and incoming Ministers met at Buckingham Palace, and Lyndhurst having resigned the Great Seal into Her Majesty's hands, it was delivered to Lord Cottenham. Lyndhurst, again an ex-Chancellor, very cordially congratulated me on becoming a member of the Cabinet and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. On this very day the Benchers of the Inner Temple were to give a grand banquet, to which the heads of the law had been invited some weeks before. Lyndhurst, Brougham, and myself meeting in the House of Lords at five o'clock, we agreed to go together, and Lady Lyndhurst took us in her coach. Being set down at the Temple, we had a sumptuous dinner from the Benchers, drank their wine copiously, and passed a very merry evening. The chair was filled by Sir Charles Wetherell. He was extravagantly ultra-Tory and ultraHigh Church, but a most honourable and excellent man, who had resigned the office of Attorney General in 1829 rather than agree to the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill. He gave successively the healths of all the distinguished guests, not concealing his own principles, but saying nothing to hurt the feelings of any one. Lyndhurst made an exceedingly good-humoured and beau |