CHAPTER IX.
THE DEBATE.
The beginning of the battle as recorded in the last chapter tookplace on a Friday,--Friday, 11th November,--and consequently twoentire days intervened before the debate could be renewed. Thereseemed to prevail an opinion during this interval that Mr. Greshamhad been imprudent. It was acknowledged by all men that no finerspeech than that delivered by him had ever been heard within thewalls of that House. It was acknowledged also that as regarded thequestion of oratory Mr. Daubeny had failed signally. But the strategyof the Minister was said to have been excellent, whereas that ofthe ex-Minister was very loudly condemned. There is nothing soprejudicial to a cause as temper. This man is declared to be unfitfor any position of note, because he always shows temper. Anythingcan be done with another man,--he can be made to fit almost anyhole,--because he has his temper under command. It may, indeed, beassumed that a man who loses his temper while he is speaking isendeavouring to speak the truth such as he believes it to be, andagain it may be assumed that a man who speaks constantly withoutlosing his temper is not always entitled to the same implicit faith.Whether or not this be a reason the more for preferring the calmand tranquil man may be doubted; but the calm and tranquil man ispreferred for public services. We want practical results rather thantruth. A clear head is worth more than an honest heart. In a matterof horseflesh of what use is it to have all manner of good gifts ifyour horse won't go whither you want him, and refuses to stop whenyou bid him? Mr. Gresham had been very indiscreet, and had especiallysinned in opposing the Address without arrangements with his party.
And he made the matter worse by retreating within his own shellduring the whole of that Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning.Lord Cantrip was with him three or four times, and he saw both Mr.Palliser, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer under him, and Mr.Ratler. But he went amidst no congregation of Liberals, and askedfor no support. He told Ratler that he wished gentlemen to votealtogether in accordance with their opinions; and it came to bewhispered in certain circles that he had resigned, or was resigning,or would resign, the leadership of his party. Men said that hispassions were too much for him, and that he was destroyed by feelingsof regret, and almost of remorse.
The Ministers held a Cabinet Council on the Monday morning, and itwas supposed afterwards that that also had been stormy. Two gentlemenhad certainly resigned their seats in the Government before the Housemet at four o'clock, and there were rumours abroad that others woulddo so if the suggested measure should be found really to amount todisestablishment. The rumours were, of course, worthy of no belief,as the transactions of the Cabinet are of necessity secret. LordDrummond at the War Office, and Mr. Boffin from the Board of Trade,did, however, actually resign; and Mr. Boffin's explanations inthe House were heard before the debate was resumed. Mr. Boffin hadcertainly not joined the present Ministry,--so he said,--with theview of destroying the Church. He had no other remark to make, and hewas sure that the House would appreciate the course which had inducedhim to seat himself below the gangway. The House cheered very loudly,and Mr. Boffin was the hero of ten minutes. Mr. Daubeny detractedsomething from this triumph by the overstrained and perhaps ironicpathos with which he deplored the loss of his right honourablefriend's services. Now this right honourable gentleman had never beenspecially serviceable.
But the wonder of the world arose from the fact that only twogentlemen out of the twenty or thirty who composed the Government didgive up their places on this occasion. And this was a ConservativeGovernment! With what a force of agony did all the Ratlers of theday repeat that inappropriate name! Conservatives! And yet theywere ready to abandon the Church at the bidding of such a man as Mr.Daubeny! Ratler himself almost felt that he loved the Church. Onlytwo resignations;--whereas it had been expected that the whole Housewould fall to pieces! Was it possible that these earls, that marquis,and the two dukes, and those staunch old Tory squires, should remainin a Government pledged to disestablish the Church? Was all thehonesty, all the truth of the great party confined to the bosoms ofMr. Boffin and Lord Drummond? Doubtless they were all Esaus; butwould they sell their great birthright for so very small a mess ofpottage? The parsons in the country, and the little squires who butrarely come up to London, spoke of it all exactly as did the Ratlers.There were parishes in the country in which Mr. Boffin was canonised,though up to that date no Cabinet Minister could well have been lessknown to fame than was Mr. Boffin.
What would those Liberals do who would naturally rejoice in thedisestablishment of the Church,--those members of the Lower House,who had always spoken of the ascendancy of Protestant episcopacy withthe bitter acrimony of exclusion? After all, the success or failureof Mr. Daubeny must depend, not on his own party, but on them.It must always be so when measures of Reform are advocated by aConservative Ministry. There will always be a number of untrained menready to take the gift without looking at the giver. They have notexpected relief from the hands of Greeks, but will take it when itcomes from Greeks or Trojans. What would Mr. Turnbull say in thisdebate,--and what Mr. Monk? Mr. Turnbull was the people's tribune, ofthe day; Mr. Monk had also been a tribune, then a Minister, and nowwas again--something less than a tribune. But there were a few men inthe House, and some out of it, who regarded Mr. Monk as the honestestand most patriotic politician of the day.
The debate was long and stormy, but was peculiarly memorable for theskill with which Mr. Daubeny's higher colleagues defended the stepsthey were about to take. The thing was to be done in the cause ofreligion. The whole line of defence was indicated by the gentlemenwho moved and seconded the Address. An active, well-supported Churchwas the chief need of a prosperous and intelligent people. As to theendowments, there was some confusion of ideas; but nothing was to bedone with them inappropriate to religion. Education would receivethe bulk of what was left after existing interests had been amplyguaranteed. There would be no doubt,--so said these gentlemen,--thatample funds for the support of an Episcopal Church would come fromthose wealthy members of the body to whom such a Church was dear.There seemed to be a conviction that clergymen under the new orderof things would be much better off than under the old. As to theconnection with the State, the time for it had clearly gone by. TheChurch, as a Church, would own increased power when it could appointits own bishops, and be wholly dissevered from State patronage. Itseemed to be almost a matter of surprise that really good Churchmenshould have endured so long to be shackled by subservience to theState. Some of these gentlemen pleaded their cause so well that theyalmost made it appear that episcopal ascendancy would be restored inEngland by the disseverance of the Church and State.
Mr. Turnbull, who was himself a dissenter, was at last upon his legs,and then the Ratlers knew that the game was lost. It would be lost asfar as it could be lost by a majority in that House on that motion;and it was by that majority or minority that Mr. Daubeny would bemaintained in his high office or ejected from it. Mr. Turnbull beganby declaring that he did not at all like Mr. Daubeny as a Ministerof the Crown. He was not in the habit of attaching himself speciallyto any Minister of the Crown. Experience had taught him to doubtthem all. Of all possible Ministers of the Crown at this period, Mr.Daubeny was he thought perhaps the worst, and the most dangerous. Butthe thing now offered was too good to be rejected, let it come fromwhat quarter it would. Indeed, might it not be said of all the goodthings obtained for the people, of all really serviceable reforms,that they were gathered and garnered home in consequence of thesquabbles of Ministers? When men wanted power, either to grasp atit or to retain it, then they offered bribes to the people. But inthe taking of such bribes there was no dishonesty, and he shouldwillingly take this bribe.
Mr. Monk spoke also. He would not, he said, feel himself justifiedin refusing the Address to the Crown proposed by Ministers, simplybecause that Address was founded on the proposition of a futurereform, as to the expediency of which he had not for many yearsentertained a doubt. He could not allow it to be said of him that hehad voted for the permanence of the Ch
urch establishment, and he musttherefore support the Government. Then Ratler whispered a few wordsto his neighbour: "I knew the way he'd run when Gresham insisted onpoor old Mildmay's taking him into the Cabinet." "The whole thing hasgone to the dogs," said Bonteen. On the fourth night the House wasdivided, and Mr. Daubeny was the owner of a majority of fifteen.
Very many of the Liberal party expressed an opinion that the battlehad been lost through the want of judgment evinced by Mr. Gresham.There was certainly no longer that sturdy adherence to their chiefwhich is necessary for the solidarity of a party. Perhaps no leaderof the House was ever more devoutly worshipped by a small number ofadherents than was Mr. Gresham now; but such worship will not supportpower. Within the three days following the division the Ratlers hadall put their heads together and had resolved that the Duke of St.Bungay was now the only man who could keep the party together. "Butwho should lead our House?" asked Bonteen. Ratler sighed instead ofanswering. Things had come to that pass that Mr. Gresham was the onlypossible leader. And the leader of the House of Commons, on behalfof the Government, must be the chief man in the Government, let theso-called Prime Minister be who he may.