Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 12, August, 1863, No. 70 by Various

V >> Various >> Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 12, August, 1863, No. 70

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

Then pausing a moment and overcoming his evident emotion, he continued,
with a force of manner and dignity of bearing which no words can fitly
describe,--"But I may be asked, 'Why do you think such measures
requisite? Are we not in alliance with France? Are we not on terms of
friendship with Russia? What other power can molest us?' To these
questions, my lords, my answer shall be a short and simple one. I will
not consent to live in dependence on the friendship or forbearance of
any country. I rely solely on my own vigor, my own exertion, and my own
intelligence." It will be readily believed that cheer after cheer rang
through the House when this bold and manly announcement was made.

Then, after alluding to the immense armament by sea and land which
France had hurled with such incredible rapidity upon the Austrian Empire
during the recent war in Italy, he concluded by saying,--"Are we to sit
supine on our own shores, and not to prepare the means necessary in case
of war to resist that power? I do not wish to say that we should do this
for any aggressive purpose. What I insist upon is, that we are bound to
make every effort necessary for our own shelter and protection. Beside
this, the question of expense and of money sinks into insignificance. It
is the price we must pay for our insurance, and it is but a moderate
price for so important an insurance. I know there are persons who will
say, 'Let us run the risk.' Be it so. But, my lords, if the calamity
should come, if the conflagration should take place, what words can
describe the extent of the calamity, or what imagination can paint the
overwhelming ruin that would fall upon us? I shall be told, perhaps,
that these are the timid counsels of old age. My lords, for myself, I
should run no risk. Personally I have nothing to fear. But to point out
possible peril and how to guard effectively against it,--that is surely
to be considered not as timidity, but as the dictate of wisdom and
prudence. I have confined myself to facts that cannot be disputed. I
think I have confined myself to inferences that no man can successfully
contravene. I hope what I have said has been in accordance with your
feelings and opinions. I shall terminate what I have to say in two
emphatic words, '_Voe victis!_'--words of solemn and most significant
import."

So spoke the Nestor of the English nation. Has our country no lesson to
learn from the well-considered words of this aged and accomplished
statesman? Are we not paying a large insurance to secure permanent
national prosperity? And is it not a wise and profitable investment, at
any cost of blood and treasure, if it promises the supremacy of our
Constitution, the integrity of our Union, and the impartial enforcement
of our laws?

When it is remembered that Lord Lyndhurst was at this time in his
eighty-eighth year, this speech of nearly an hour in length, giving no
evidence from first to last of physical debility or mental decay,
delivered in a firm, clear, and unfaltering voice, admirable for its
logical arrangement, most forcible and telling in its treatment of the
subject, and irresistible in its conclusions, must be considered as
hardly finding a parallel in ancient or modern times. We might almost
call it his valedictory; for his lordship's subsequent speeches have
been infrequent, and, with, we believe, a single exception, short, and
he is now rarely, if ever, seen in the House of Lords.

I shall not dwell upon the speeches that followed this earnest and
eloquent appeal to the wisdom and patriotism of the listening peers.
They were mainly confined to grateful recognition of the service which
Lord Lyndhurst had rendered to the nation by his frank and fearless
avowal of those principles which alone could preserve the honor and
independence of England. The opposition urged the most vigorous
preparations for resisting invasion, while Her Majesty's ministers
disclaimed any intention of weakening or neglecting the national
defences. As the speeches, however exhibited little worthy of mention
beyond the presentation of these points, I have supposed that a more
general description of some of the leading members of the Upper House
would be more interesting to my readers than a detailed account of what
was said upon this particular occasion.

I have already alluded to the personal appearance and bearing of Lord
Brougham. By reason of his great age, his long Parliamentary experience,
(he has been in the House of Commons and House of Lords for nearly fifty
years,) his habit of frequent speaking, and the commanding ability of
many of his public efforts, his name as an orator is perhaps more widely
known, and his peculiar style of declamation more correctly appreciated,
than those of any other man now living. It would therefore seem
unnecessary to give any sketch of his oratory, or of his manner in
debate. Very few educated men in this country are unfamiliar with his
eloquent defence of Queen Caroline, or his most bitter attack upon Mr.
Canning, or his brilliant argument for Mr. Williams when prosecuted by
the Durham clergy. Lord Brougham retains to this day the same fearless
contempt of all opposition, the same extravagant and often inconsistent
animosity to every phase of conservative policy, and the same fiery zeal
in advocating every measure which he has espoused, that have ever
characterized his erratic career. The witty author of "The Bachelor of
the Albany" has tersely, and not without a certain spice of truth,
described him as "a man of brilliant incapacity, vast and various
misinformation, and immense moral requirements."

The Duke of Argyle deserves more than a passing mention. Although
comparatively a young man, he has already had a most creditable career,
and given new lustre to an old and honored name. In politics he is a
decided and consistent Liberal, and he merits the favorable
consideration of all loyal Americans from the fact that he has not
failed on every proper occasion to advocate our cause with such
arguments as show clearly that he fully understands our position and
appreciates the importance of the principles for which we are
contending. It is a curious coincidence, that his style of address bears
a close resemblance to what may be called the American manner. Rapid,
but distinct, in utterance, facile and fluent in speech, natural and
graceful in gesticulation, he might almost be transplanted to the halls
of Congress at Washington without betraying his foreign birth and
education.

Lord Derby is undoubtedly the most skillful Parliamentary tactician and
the most accomplished speaker in the House of Lords. In 1834, (when he
was a member of the House of Commons,) Macaulay said of him, that "his
knowledge of the science of parliamentary defence resembled an
instinct." He is the acknowledged leader of the Tories or Conservatives
in England, and dictates the policy of his party with absolute
despotism. Belonging to one of the oldest peerages in the kingdom,
having already filled some of the most important offices in Her
Majesty's Government, occupying the highly honorable position of
Chancellor of the University of Oxford, (as successor of the first Duke
of Wellington,) an exact and finished scholar, enjoying an immense
income, and the proprietor of vast landed estates, he may be justly
considered one of the best types of England's aristocracy. He has that
unmistakable air of authority without the least alloy of arrogance, that
"pride in his port," which quietly asserts the dignity of long descent.
As a speaker, his manner is impressive and forcible, with a rare command
of choice language, an accurate and comprehensive knowledge of all
subjects connected with the administration of public affairs, and that
entire self-control which comes from life-long contact on terms of
equality with the best society in Europe and a thorough confidence in
his own mental resources. Lord Derby is preeminently a Parliamentary
orator, and furnishes one of the unusual instances where a reputation
for eloquence earned in the House of Commons has been fully sustained by
a successful trial in the House of Lords.

Another debater of marked ability in this body is Dr. Samuel
Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He is the third son of William
Wilberforce, the celebrated philanthropist, but by no means inherits the
simplicity of character and singular absence of all personal ambition
which made his father so widely beloved and respected. He is known as
the leading exponent of High-Church views, and has been heard in the
House of Lords on every question directly or indirectly affecting the
interests of the Establishment. It was long ago said of him, that, had
he been in political life, he would surely and easily have risen to the
position of Premier. He has for years been charged with a marked
proclivity to the doctrines of the Puseyites; and his adroitness in
baffling all attempted investigation into the manner in which he has
conducted the discipline of his diocese has perhaps contributed more
than any other cause to fasten upon him the significant _sobriquet_ to
which I have already alluded.

Any sketch of the prominent members of the House of Lords would be
imperfect which should omit to give some account of Lord Westbury, the
present Lord-High-Chancellor. Having been Solicitor-General in two
successive Administrations, he was filling for the second time the
position of Attorney-General, when, upon the death of Lord Campbell, he
was raised to the wool-sack. As a Chancery practitioner he was for years
at the head of his profession, and is supposed to have received the
largest income ever enjoyed by an English barrister. During the four
years next preceding his elevation to the peerage his average annual
earnings at the bar were twenty thousand pounds. In the summer of 1860
it was my good fortune to hear the argument of Lord Westbury (then Sir
Richard Bethell) in a case of great interest and importance, before
Vice-Chancellor Wood. The point at issue involved the construction of a
marriage-settlement between the Earl of Shrewsbury and the Prince
Borghese of Rome, drawn up on the occasion of the marriage of the Prince
with Lady Talbot, second daughter of the Earl. The interpretation of the
terms of the contract was by express stipulation to be in accordance
with the Roman common law. A commission sent to Rome to ascertain the
meaning of certain provisions contained in the contract resulted in
several folio volumes, embodying "the conflicting opinions of the most
eminent Roman lawyers," supported by references to the Canonists, the
decisions of the "Sacred Rota," the great text-writers upon
jurisprudence, the Institutes and Pandects, and ascending still higher
to the laws of the Roman Republic and the Augustan era.

The leading counsel in the kingdom were retained in the case, and
unusual public interest was enlisted. The amount at stake was twenty
thousand pounds, and it was estimated that nearly, if not quite, that
amount had already been consumed in costs. Legal proceedings are not an
inexpensive luxury anywhere; but "the fat contention and the flowing
fee" have a significance to English ears which we can hardly appreciate
in this country.

It will be at once apparent even to the unprofessional reader that most
difficult and complicated questions were presented by this
case,--questions turning on the exact interpretation of contracts,
involving delicate verbal distinctions, and demanding a thorough
comprehension of an immense and unwieldy mass of Roman law embraced in
the dissenting _dicta_ of Roman lawyers. It required the exercise of the
very highest legal ability, trained and habituated by long and patient
discipline to grapple with great issues.

The argument of Sir Richard Bethell abundantly demonstrated his capacity
to satisfy the demands of the occasion, and displayed most triumphantly
his perfect mastery of the whole subject. As the time drew near when he
was expected to close for the defence, barristers and students-at-law
began to flock into the small and inconveniently arranged courtroom. A
stranger and a foreigner could not but see at once that the
Attorney-General was the cynosure of all eyes. And, indeed, no one in
the room more thoroughly appreciated the fact that he was the central
and controlling attraction than Sir Richard himself. I must be pardoned
for using an English slang-phrase, but I can convey the impression which
he inevitably makes upon a spectator in no other way than by saying that
he is "a most magnificent swell." And I do this with the more confidence
as I have heard him characterized in precisely these words by members of
the English bar. Every motion, every attitude, indicates an intense
self-consciousness. The Earl of Chatham had not a greater passion for
theatrical effect, nor has a more consummate and finished actor ever
graced the stage. If the performance had been less perfect, it would
have been ludicrous in the extreme; for it did not overlook the minutest
details. He could not examine his brief, or make a suggestion to one of
his associates, or note an important point in the argument of opposing
counsel, or listen to an intimation of opinion from the Bench, without
an obvious eye to dramatic propriety. During the trial, an attorney's
clerk handed him a letter, and the air with which it was opened, read,
and answered was of itself a study. Yet it was all in the highest style
of the art. No possible fault could be found with the execution. Not a
single spectator ventured to smile. The supremacy of undoubted genius
was never more apparent, and never exacted nor received more willing
worship. Through the kindness of a friendly barrister I was introduced
to one of the juniors of the Attorney-General,--a stripling of about
fifty years of age. While we were conversing about the case, Sir Richard
turned and made some comment upon the conduct of the trial; but my
friend would no more have thought of introducing me to the leader of the
bar than he would have ventured to stop the carriage of the Queen in
Hyde Park and present me then and there to Her Majesty.

I remember as well as if it were but yesterday how attorneys and junior
counsel listened with the utmost deference to every suggestion which he
condescended to address to them, how narrowly the law-students watched
him, as if some legal principle were to be read in his cold, hard
countenance, and, as he at last rose slowly and solemnly to make his
long-expected argument, how court, bar, and by-standers composed
themselves to hear. He spoke with great deliberation and distinctness,
with singular precision and propriety of language, without any parade of
rhetoric or attempt at eloquence. After a very short and appropriate
exordium, he proceeded directly to the merits of the case. His words
were well-weighed, and his manner was earnest and impressive. It was, in
short, the perfection of reason confidently addressed to a competent
tribunal.

And yet his manner was by no means that of a man seeking to persuade a
superior, but rather that of one comparing opinions with an equal, if
not an inferior mind, elevated by some accident to a position of
factitious importance. One could not but feel that here was a power
behind the throne greater than the throne itself.

It cannot be doubted that this consciousness of mental and professional
preeminence, sustained by the unanimous verdict of public opinion, has
given to Lord Westbury a defiant, if not an insolent bearing. The story
is current at the English bar, that, some years ago, when offered a seat
on the Bench, with a salary of five thousand pounds, he promptly
declined, saying, "I would rather earn ten thousand pounds a year by
talking sense than five thousand pounds a year by hearing other men talk
nonsense." Anecdotes are frequent in illustration of his supercilious
treatment of attorneys and clients while he was a barrister. And since
his elevation to the wool-sack there has been no abatement or
modification of his offensive manner. His demeanor toward counsel
appearing before him has been the subject of constant and indignant
complaint. It will be remembered by some of my readers, that, not long
since, during a session of the House of Lords, he gave the lie direct to
one of the peers,--an occurrence almost without precedent in that
decorous body. Far different from this was the tone in which Lord
Thurlow, while Lord-Chancellor, asserted his independence and vindicated
his title to respect in his memorable rebuke addressed to the Duke of
Grafton. If the testimony of English travellers in this country is to be
believed, the legislative assemblies of our own land have hitherto
enjoyed the unenviable monopoly of this species of retort.

The House of Lords contains other peers of marked ability and protracted
Parliamentary experience, among whom are Earl Granville, the Earl of
Ellenborough, the Duke of Somerset, and the Earl of Shaftesbury; but we
cannot dwell in detail upon their individual characteristics as
speakers, or upon the share they have severally taken in the public
councils, without extending this article beyond its legitimate limits.

As genius is not necessarily or usually transmitted from generation to
generation, while a seat in the House of Lords is an inheritable
privilege, it will be readily believed that there is a considerable
number of peers with no natural or acquired fitness for legislative
duties,--men whose dullness in debate, and whose utter incapacity to
comprehend any question of public interest or importance, cannot be
adequately described. They speak occasionally, from a certain
ill-defined sense of what may be due to their position, yet are
obviously aware that what they say is entitled to no weight, and are
greatly relieved when the unwelcome and disagreeable duty has been
discharged. They are the men who hesitate and stammer, whose hats and
canes are always in their way, and who have no very clear notions about
what should be done with their hands. A visitor who chances to spend an
evening in the House of Lords for the first and last time, while
noblemen of this stamp are quieting their tender consciences by a
statement of their views upon the subject under discussion, will be sure
to retire with a very unfavorable and wholly incorrect estimate of the
speaking talent of English peers.

It would hardly seem necessary to devote time or space to those members
of the House of Lords who are rarely, if ever, present at the debates.
As has been already stated, the whole number of peers is about four
hundred and sixty, of whom less than twenty-five are minors, while the
average attendance is less than fifty. The right to vote by proxy is a
peculiar and exclusive privilege of the Upper House, and vicarious
voting to a great extent is common on all important issues. Macaulay,
many years ago, pronounced the House of Lords "a small and torpid
audience"; and certainly, since the expression of this opinion, there
has been no increase of average attendance. A considerable proportion of
the absentees will be found among the "fast noblemen" of the
kingdom,--the men who prostitute their exalted social position to the
basest purposes, squandering their substance and wasting their time in
degrading dissipation, the easy prey of accomplished sharpers, and a
burning disgrace to their order. Sometimes, indeed, they pause on the
brink of utter ruin, only to become in their turn apostles of iniquity,
and to lure others to a like destruction. The unblushing and successful
audacity of these titled _roues_ is beginning to attract the attention
and awaken the fears of the better part of the English people. Their
pernicious example is bearing most abundant and bitter fruit in the
depraved morals of what are called the "lower classes" of society, and
their misdeeds are repeated in less fashionable quarters, with less
brilliant surroundings. Against this swelling tide of corrupting
influence the press of England is now raising its warning voice, and the
statements which are publicly and unreservedly made, and the predictions
which are confidently given, are very far from being welcome to English
eyes or grateful to English ears.

Another class of the House of Lords, and it is a large one, is most
happily characterized by Sydney Smith in his review of "Granby." "Lord
Chesterton we have often met with, and suffered a good deal from his
lordship: a heavy, pompous, meddling peer, occupying a great share of
the conversation, saying things in ten words which required only two,
and evidently convinced that he is making a great impression; a large
man, with a large head, and a very landed manner; knowing enough to
torment his fellow-creatures, not to instruct them; the ridicule of
young ladies, and the natural butt and target of wit. It is easy to talk
of carnivorous animals and beasts of prey; but does such a man, who lays
waste a whole civilized party of beings by prosing, reflect upon the joy
he spoils and the misery he creates in the course of his life, and that
any one who listens to him through politeness would prefer toothache or
ear-ache to his conversation? Does he consider the great uneasiness
which ensues, when the company has discovered a man to be an extremely
absurd person, at the same time that it is absolutely impossible to
convey by words or manner the most distant suspicion of the discovery?"

Now, most unfortunately, the noble House of Chesterton is still extant,
and its numerous representatives cherish with jealous care every
inherited absurdity of the family. Their favorite field of operations is
the House of Lords, partly because the strict proprieties of the place
protect them from rude and inconvenient interruption, and partly because
they can be sure of a "fit audience found, though few,"--an audience
of equals, whom it is no condescension to address. In the House of
Commons they would be coughed down or groaned down before they had
wasted ten minutes of the public time, and that they escape as swift
suppression in the House of Lords is much more creditable to the
courtesy of that body than to its just appreciation of the shortness of
human life. There is rarely a debate of importance in the House of Lords
during which some one of the Chesterton family does not contribute his
morsel of pompous imbecility, or unfold his budget of obsolete and
exploded prejudices, or add his mite of curious misinformation. That
such painful exhibitions of callow and contracted bigotry should so
frequently be made in a body claiming for itself the finest culture and
the highest civilization in Christendom is certainly a most mortifying
circumstance, and serves to show that narrow views and unstatesmanlike
opinions are not confined to democratic deliberative assemblies, and
that the choicest advantages of education, literary and political, are
not at all inconsistent with ignorance and arrogance.

But we will allow his lordship to tell his own story. Here is his set
speech, only slightly modified from evening to evening, as may be
demanded by the difference in the questions under debate.

"My lords, the noble lord who has just taken his seat, although, I am
bound to say, presenting his view of the case with that candor which my
noble friend (if the noble lord will allow me to call him so) always
displays, yet, my lords, I cannot but add, omitted one important feature
of the subject. Now, my lords, I am exceedingly reluctant to take up the
time of your lordships with my views upon the subject-matter of this
debate; yet, my lords, as the noble and learned lord who spoke last but
one, as well as the noble earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government,
and the noble marquis who addressed your lordships early in the evening,
have all fallen into the same mistake, (if these noble lords will permit
me to presume that they could be mistaken,) I must beg leave to call
your lordships' attention to the significant fact, that each and all of
these noble lords have failed to point out to your lordships, that,
important and even conclusive as the arguments and statistics of their
lordships may at first sight appear, yet they have not directed your
lordships to the very suspicious circumstance that our noble ancestors
have never discovered the necessity of resorting to this singular
expedient.

"For myself, my lords, I confess that I am filled with the most gloomy
forebodings for the future of this country, when I hear a question of
this transcendent importance gravely discussed by noble lords without
the slightest allusion to this vital consideration. I beg to ask noble
lords, Are we wiser than our forefathers? Are any avenues of information
open to us which were closed to them? Were they less patriotic, less
intelligent, less statesmanlike, than the present generation? Why, then,
I most earnestly put it to your lordships, should we disregard, or,
certainly, lose sight of their wisdom and their experience? I implore
noble lords to pause before it is too late. I solemnly call upon them to
consider that the proposed measure is, after all, only democracy under a
thin disguise. Has it never occurred to noble lords that this project
did not originate in this House? that its warmest friends and most
ardent and persevering advocates are found among those who come from the
people, and who, from the very nature of the case, are incompetent to
decide upon what will be for the, best interests of the kingdom? My
lords, I feel deeply upon this subject, and I must be pardoned for
expressing myself in strong terms. I say again, that I see here the
clearest evidence of democratic tendencies, a contempt for existing and
ancient institutions, and an alarming want of respect for time-honored
precedents, which, I am bound to say, demand our prompt and indignant
condemnation," etc., etc., etc.[2]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19