especially in the House of Peers, it owed a great deal to the vigour with which he defended it. The king, William IV., appears at first to have been amused and nattered by the attentions of his chancellor, who made infinite exertions to ingratiate himself with the court. But his manner, which was at first obsequious, became dictatorial ; his restless eccentricity and his passion for interfering with every department of state, alarmed and irritated the king,
and at last the former liking was turned into bitter aversion.
It would be superfluous in this place to follow the fortunes of the Reform Bill of 1832, and we shall confine ourselves to a brief notice of the part which Lord Brougham took in promoting it The first grand crisis in the con test occurred in April 1831, when General Gascoyne s amendment was carried against the Government. A cabinet was held, and ministers agreed to advise the king to dissolve Parliament. The king not only assented, but expressed his readiness to go down to Westminster in a hackney coach if necessary. The elaborate narrative com municated by Lord Brougham to Mr Roebuck, and adopted by Mr Moles worth in his History of the Reform Bill, by which it would appear that Lord Grey and the Lord Chancellor resorted to management and a species of mild compulsion in making this proposal to William IV., Lord Brougham having taken upon himself to order out the royal carriages and the guards, is found on more exact inquiry to be unfounded. Unquestionably it was the duty of the prime minister to take the king s pleasure on such an occasion, though the chancellor, contrary to the usual practice, did accompany him, but the whole correspondence of the king on the subject of reform is addressed to Eaii Grey alone. The second great crisis in the passage of the bill was in May 1832, when it became necessary to obtain from the king his consent to make peers in sufficient number to carry the bill, if the majority in the Upper House persevered in the attempt to defeat it, It has been stated, apparently on Lord Brougham s aitthority, that in the course of an audience granted to Lord Grey and himself, he succeeded in extorting from the king, in writing, the following paper:—
" The king grants permission to Earl Grey, and to his chancellor Lord Brougham, to create such a number of peers as will be sufficient to ensure the passing of the Reform Bill, first calling up eldest sons.
(Signed) William R.
" Windsor, May 17, 1832."
It is enough to say that this extraordinary document has never been seen by any one, and is not known to exist, therefore its exact tenor must be a mystery. The king was not at Windsor on the 17th May, but at St James s ; and the Cabinet asked for an assurance of His Majesty s inten tions on the following day (the 18th), which they would not have done if a written promise had been given the day before. This story, therefore, is incredible, and in Lord Brougham s autobiography nothing is said of this written paper Lord Grey and Lord Brougham were both of them strongly averse to the creation of peers, which was fiercely urged on them by some of their colleagues, such as Lord Durham and Sir John Hobhouse. Lord Brougham has even intimated a doubt whether at the last extremity they should have used the power the king had at one time most reluctantly given them. But they both knew that their honour, and possibly their lives, were staked on carrying the bill ; and, fortunately, they were relieved from the dire necessity of swamping the House of Lords by the influence of the king and the duke of Wellington over the Tory majority.
It is surprising that Lord Grey s administration, which had achieved so great a work in passing the Reform Bill, and was supported by an immense majority in the reformed Parliament, should so soon have come to an end. But Lord Grey was perpetually threatening to resign office; Lord Althorp longed for retirement ; the question of the Irish Church led to the secession of four important mem bers of the Cabinet; the queen was hostile; and the kin"- was alarmed and dissatisfied with the Whig ministers. InJuly 1834 the crisis arrived, and having carried on the govern ment for three years and 231 days, Lord Grey resigned. Lord Brougham had contrived to monopolize the authority and popularity of the Government, and no doubt his in satiable activity contributed to this result ; and there were those who accused him of having intrigued to bring it about, with a view to superseding Lord Grey himself. But this imputation is unjust. Brougham, however, had caused Mr Littleton, the Irish secretary, to suggest to Lord Wellesley, the lord-lieutenant, that some of the clauses in the Irish Coercion Bill might be withdrawn on its renewal, with a view to conciliate O Connell. Lord Althorp was of the same opinion ; but Lord Grey refused to entertain the proposal, and on this rock the ship struck. Brougham declared with great vehemence that it was madness to resign, and that for his own part he had not tendered his resignation. Very much by his exertions the Cabinet was re constructed under Lord Melbourne, and without Lord Grey; and he appeared to think that his own influence in it would be increased. He laboured at the time under extreme mental excitement,[1] and in this state he unfortunately pro ceeded to make a journey or progress to Scotland, where his behaviour was so extravagant that it gave the final stroke to the confidence of the king. At Lancaster he joined the bar-mess, and spent the night in an orgy. In a country house he lost the great seal, and found it again in a game of blindman s-buff. At Edinburgh, in spite of the coldness which had sprung up between himself and the Grey family, he was present at a banquet given to the late premier, and delivered a harangue on his own services and his public virtue. All this time he continued to correspond with the king in a strain which created the utmost irrita tion and amazement at Windsor. He seemed totally un conscious of the abyss which was opening at his feet. He was not the Bacon but the Wolsey of the 19th century.
learned the intelligence. Melbourne made him promise that he would keep it a secret till the morrow ; but the moment he quitted the ex-premier, he sent a paragraph to the Times relating the occurrence, and adding that " the queen had done it all." That statement, which was totally unfounded, was the last act of his official life. The Peel ministry, prematurely and rashly summoned to power, was of no long duration, and Brougham naturally took an active part in overthrowing it. Lord Melbourne was called upon in April 1835 to reconstruct the Whig Govern ment with his former colleagues. But, formidable as he might be as an opponent, the Whigs had learned by ex perience that Brougham was even more dangerous to them as an ally, and with one accord they resolved that he should not hold the great seal or any other office. The great seal was put in commission, to divert for a time his resentment, and leave him, if he chose, to entertain hopes of recovering it. These hopes, however, were soon dissipated ; and Later par- although the late chancellor assumed an independent Hamentary position in the House of Lords, and even affected to protect lat)0urs -
the Government, his resentment against his "noble friends"- ↑ Mr Greville records in his Journal a conversation with Lord Mel bourne of the 23d September in this year, from which it is clear that Melbourne was perfectly aware of the state the chancellor was in, and that he hardly thought him of sound mind. He added, " The king can t bear these exhibitions in Scotland,"
