CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE TWO GLADIATORS.
The great debate was commenced with all the solemnities which arecustomary on such occasions, and which make men think for the daythat no moment of greater excitement has ever blessed or cursed thecountry. Upon the present occasion London was full of clergymen.The specially clerical clubs,--the Oxford and Cambridge, the OldUniversity, and the Athenaeum,--were black with them. The bishops anddeans, as usual, were pleasant in their manner and happy-looking, inspite of adverse circumstances. When one sees a bishop in the hoursof the distress of the Church, one always thinks of the just andfirm man who will stand fearless while the ruins of the world arefalling about his ears. But the parsons from the country were a sorrysight to see. They were in earnest with all their hearts, and didbelieve,--not that the crack of doom was coming, which they couldhave borne with equanimity if convinced that their influence wouldlast to the end,--but that the Evil One was to be made welcomeupon the earth by Act of Parliament. It is out of nature that anyman should think it good that his own order should be repressed,curtailed, and deprived of its power. If we go among cab-driversor letter-carriers, among butlers or gamekeepers, among tailors orbutchers, among farmers or graziers, among doctors or attorneys, weshall find in each set of men a conviction that the welfare of thecommunity depends upon the firmness with which they,--especiallythey,--hold their own. This is so manifestly true with the Bar thatno barrister in practice scruples to avow that barristers in practiceare the salt of the earth. The personal confidence of a judge in hisown position is beautiful, being salutary to the country, though notunfrequently damaging to the character of the man. But if this be sowith men who are conscious of no higher influence than that exercisedover the bodies and minds of their fellow creatures, how muchstronger must be the feeling when the influence affects the soul! Tothe outsider, or layman, who simply uses a cab, or receives a letter,or goes to law, or has to be tried, these pretensions are ridiculousor annoying, according to the ascendancy of the pretender at themoment. But as the clerical pretensions are more exacting thanall others, being put forward with an assertion that no answer ispossible without breach of duty and sin, so are they more galling.The fight has been going on since the idea of a mitre first enteredthe heart of a priest,--since dominion in this world has found itselfcapable of sustentation by the exercise of fear as to the world tocome. We do believe,--the majority among us does so,--that if we liveand die in sin we shall after some fashion come to great punishment,and we believe also that by having pastors among us who shall bemen of God, we may best aid ourselves and our children in avoidingthis bitter end. But then the pastors and men of God can only behuman,--cannot be altogether men of God; and so they have oppressedus, and burned us, and tortured us, and hence come to love palaces,and fine linen, and purple, and, alas, sometimes, mere luxury andidleness. The torturing and the burning, as also to speak truth theluxury and the idleness, have, among us, been already conquered, butthe idea of ascendancy remains. What is a thoughtful man to do whoacknowledges the danger of his soul, but cannot swallow his parsonwhole simply because he has been sent to him from some source inwhich he has no special confidence, perhaps by some distant lord,perhaps by a Lord Chancellor whose political friend has had a sonwith a tutor? What is he to do when, in spite of some fine linenand purple left among us, the provision for the man of God in hisparish or district is so poor that no man of God fitted to teachhim will come and take it? In no spirit of animosity to religion hebegins to tell himself that Church and State together was a monkishcombination, fit perhaps for monkish days, but no longer havingfitness, and not much longer capable of existence in this country.But to the parson himself,--to the honest, hardworking, conscientiouspriest who does in his heart of hearts believe that no diminution inthe general influence of his order can be made without ruin to thesouls of men,--this opinion, when it becomes dominant, is as thoughthe world were in truth breaking to pieces over his head. The worldhas been broken to pieces in the same way often;--but extreme Chaosdoes not come. The cabman and the letter-carrier always expect thatChaos will very nearly come when they are disturbed. The barristersare sure of Chaos when the sanctity of Benchers is in question. Whatutter Chaos would be promised to us could any one with impunitycontemn the majesty of the House of Commons! But of all theseChaoses there can be no Chaos equal to that which in the mind of azealous Oxford-bred constitutional country parson must attend thatannihilation of his special condition which will be produced bythe disestablishment of the Church. Of all good fellows he is thebest good fellow. He is genial, hospitable, well-educated, andalways has either a pretty wife or pretty daughters. But he has soextreme a belief in himself that he cannot endure to be told thatabsolute Chaos will not come at once if he be disturbed. And nowdisturbances,--ay, and utter dislocation and ruin were to come fromthe hands of a friend! Was it wonderful that parsons should be seenabout Westminster in flocks with _"Et tu, Brute"_ written on theirfaces as plainly as the law on the brows of a Pharisee?
The Speaker had been harassed for orders. The powers and prowessof every individual member had been put to the test. The gallerieswere crowded. Ladies' places had been ballotted for with desperateenthusiasm, in spite of the sarcasm against the House which MadameGoesler had expressed. Two royal princes and a royal duke wereaccommodated within the House in an irregular manner. Peers swarmedin the passages, and were too happy to find standing room. Bishopsjostled against lay barons with no other preference than thatafforded to them by their broader shoulders. Men, and especiallyclergymen, came to the galleries loaded with sandwiches and flasks,prepared to hear all there was to be heard should the debate lastfrom 4 P.M. to the same hour on the following morning. At two in theafternoon the entrances to the House were barred, and men of allranks,--deans, prebends, peers' sons, and baronets,--stood therepatiently waiting till some powerful nobleman should let themthrough. The very ventilating chambers under the House were filledwith courteous listeners, who had all pledged themselves that underno possible provocation would they even cough during the debate.
A few minutes after four, in a House from which hardly more than adozen members were absent, Mr. Daubeny took his seat with that air ofaffected indifference to things around him which is peculiar to him.He entered slowly, amidst cheers from his side of the House, whichno doubt were loud in proportion to the dismay of the cheerers as tothe matter in hand. Gentlemen lacking substantial sympathy with theirleader found it to be comfortable to deceive themselves, and raisetheir hearts at the same time by the easy enthusiasm of noise. Mr.Daubeny having sat down and covered his head just raised his hat fromhis brows, and then tried to look as though he were no more than anyother gentleman present. But the peculiar consciousness of the mandisplayed itself even in his constrained absence of motion. You couldsee that he felt himself to be the beheld of all beholders, and thathe enjoyed the position,--with some slight inward trepidation lestthe effort to be made should not equal the greatness of the occasion.Immediately after him Mr. Gresham bustled up the centre of the Houseamidst a roar of good-humoured welcome. We have had many Ministerswho have been personally dearer to their individual adherents in theHouse than the present leader of the Opposition and late Premier,but none, perhaps, who has been more generally respected by hisparty for earnestness and sincerity. On the present occasion therewas a fierceness, almost a ferocity, in his very countenance, tothe fire of which friends and enemies were equally anxious to addfuel,--the friends in order that so might these recreant Tories bemore thoroughly annihilated, and the enemies, that their enemy'sindiscretion might act back upon himself to his confusion. For,indeed, it never could be denied that as a Prime Minister Mr. Greshamcould be very indiscreet.
A certain small amount of ordinary business was done, to the disgustof expectant strangers, which was as trivial as possible in itsnature,--so arranged, apparently, that the importance of what was tofollow might be enhanced by the force of contrast. And, to make thedismay of the novice stranger more thorough, questions were ask
edand answers were given in so low a voice, and Mr. Speaker uttered aword or two in so quick and shambling a fashion, that he, the novicestranger, began to fear that no word of the debate would reach himup there in his crowded back seat. All this, however, occupied but afew minutes, and at twenty minutes past four Mr. Daubeny was on hislegs. Then the novice stranger found that, though he could not see Mr.Daubeny without the aid of an opera glass, he could hear every wordthat fell from his lips.
Mr. Daubeny began by regretting the hardness of his position, in thathe must, with what thoroughness he might be able to achieve, applyhimself to two great subjects, whereas the right honourable gentlemanopposite had already declared, with all the formality which could bemade to attach itself to a combined meeting of peers and commoners,that he would confine himself strictly to one. The subject selectedby the right honourable gentleman opposite on the present occasionwas not the question of Church Reform. The right honourable gentlemanhad pledged himself with an almost sacred enthusiasm to ignore thatsubject altogether. No doubt it was the question before the House,and he, himself,--the present speaker,--must unfortunately discussit at some length. The right honourable gentleman opposite would not,on this great occasion, trouble himself with anything of so littlemoment. And it might be presumed that the political followers of theright honourable gentleman would be equally reticent, as they wereunderstood to have accepted his tactics without a dissentient voice.He, Mr. Daubeny, was the last man in England to deny the importanceof the question which the right honourable gentleman would selectfor discussions in preference to that of the condition of theChurch. That question was a very simple one, and might be put tothe House in a very few words. Coming from the mouth of the righthonourable gentleman, the proposition would probably be made in thisform:--"That this House does think that I ought to be Prime Ministernow, and as long as I may possess a seat in this House." It wasimpossible to deny the importance of that question; but perhaps he,Mr. Daubeny, might be justified in demurring to the preference givento it over every other matter, let that matter be of what importanceit might be to the material welfare of the country.
He made his point well; but he made it too often. And an attack ofthat kind, personal and savage in its nature, loses its effect whenit is evident that the words have been prepared. A good deal may bedone in dispute by calling a man an ass or a knave,--but the resolveto use the words should have been made only at the moment, and theyshould come hot from the heart. There was much neatness and someacuteness in Mr. Daubeny's satire, but there was no heat, and it wasprolix. It had, however, the effect of irritating Mr. Gresham,--aswas evident from the manner in which he moved his hat and shuffledhis feet.
A man destined to sit conspicuously on our Treasury Bench, or on theseat opposite to it, should ask the gods for a thick skin as a firstgift. The need of this in our national assembly is greater thanelsewhere, because the differences between the men opposed to eachother are smaller. When two foes meet together in the same Chamber,one of whom advocates the personal government of an individual ruler,and the other that form of State, which has come to be called a RedRepublic, they deal, no doubt, weighty blows of oratory at eachother, but blows which never hurt at the moment. They may cut eachother's throats if they can find an opportunity; but they do not biteeach other like dogs over a bone. But when opponents are almost inaccord, as is always the case with our parliamentary gladiators,they are ever striving to give maddening little wounds throughthe joints of the harness. What is there with us to create thedivergence necessary for debate but the pride of personal skill inthe encounter? Who desires among us to put down the Queen, or torepudiate the National Debt, or to destroy religious worship, or evento disturb the ranks of society? When some small measure of reformhas thoroughly recommended itself to the country,--so thoroughly thatall men know that the country will have it,--then the question ariseswhether its details shall be arranged by the political party whichcalls itself Liberal,--or by that which is termed Conservative. Themen are so near to each other in all their convictions and theoriesof life that nothing is left to them but personal competition for thedoing of the thing that is to be done. It is the same in religion.The apostle of Christianity and the infidel can meet without a chanceof a quarrel; but it is never safe to bring together two men whodiffer about a saint or a surplice.
Mr. Daubeny, having thus attacked and wounded his enemy, rushedboldly into the question of Church Reform, taking no little prideto himself and to his party that so great a blessing should bebestowed upon the country from so unexpected a source. "See what weConservatives can do. In fact we will conserve nothing when we findthat you do not desire to have it conserved any longer. 'Quod minimereris Graia pandetur ab urbe.'" It was exactly the reverse of thecomplaint which Mr. Gresham was about to make. On the subject ofthe Church itself he was rather misty but very profound. He wentinto the question of very early Churches indeed, and spoke of themisappropriation of endowments in the time of Eli. The establishmentof the Levites had been no doubt complete; but changes had beeneffected as circumstances required. He was presumed to have alludedto the order of Melchisedek, but he abstained from any mention of thename. He roamed very wide, and gave many of his hearers an idea thathis erudition had carried him into regions in which it was impossibleto follow him. The gist of his argument was to show that audacity inReform was the very backbone of Conservatism. By a clearly pronounceddisunion of Church and State the theocracy of Thomas a Becket wouldbe restored, and the people of England would soon again become thefaithful flocks of faithful shepherds. By taking away the endowmentsfrom the parishes, and giving them back in some complicated way tothe country, the parishes would be better able than ever to supporttheir clergymen. Bishops would be bishops indeed, when they were nolonger the creatures of a Minister's breath. As to the deans, notseeing a clear way to satisfy aspirants for future vacancies in thedeaneries, he became more than usually vague, but seemed to implythat the Bill which was now with the leave of the House to be reada second time, contained no clause forbidding the appointment ofdeans, though the special stipend of the office must be matter ofconsideration with the new Church Synod.
The details of this part of his speech were felt to be dull by thestrangers. As long as he would abuse Mr. Gresham, men could listenwith pleasure; and could keep their attention fixed while he referredto the general Conservatism of the party which he had the honourof leading. There was a raciness in the promise of so much Churchdestruction from the chosen leader of the Church party, which wasassisted by a conviction in the minds of most men that it wasimpossible for unfortunate Conservatives to refuse to follow thisleader, let him lead where he might. There was a gratification infeeling that the country party was bound to follow, even should hetake them into the very bowels of a mountain, as the pied piper didthe children of Hamelin;--and this made listening pleasant. But whenMr. Daubeny stated the effect of his different clauses, explainingwhat was to be taken and what left,--with a fervent assurance thatwhat was to be left would, under the altered circumstances, go muchfurther than the whole had gone before,--then the audience becameweary, and began to think that it was time that some other gentlemanshould be upon his legs. But at the end of the Minister's speechthere was another touch of invective which went far to redeem him.He returned to that personal question to which his adversary hadundertaken to confine himself, and expressed a holy horror atthe political doctrine which was implied. He, during a prolongedParliamentary experience, had encountered much factious opposition.He would even acknowledge that he had seen it exercised on both sidesof the House, though he had always striven to keep himself free fromits baneful influence. But never till now had he known a statesmanproclaim his intention of depending upon faction, and upon factionalone, for the result which he desired to achieve. Let the righthonourable gentleman raise a contest on either the principles orthe details of the measure, and he would be quite content to abidethe decision of the House; but he should regard such a raid as thatthreatened against him and his friends by the right hono
urablegentleman as unconstitutional, revolutionary, and tyrannical. He feltsure that an opposition so based, and so maintained, even if it beenabled by the heated feelings of the moment to obtain an unfortunatesuccess in the House, would not be encouraged by the sympathyand support of the country at large. By these last words he wasunderstood to signify that should he be beaten on the second reading,not in reference to the merits of the Bill, but simply on the issueas proposed by Mr. Gresham, he would again dissolve the House beforehe would resign. Now it was very well understood that there wereLiberal members in the House who would prefer even the success of Mr.Daubeny to a speedy reappearance before their constituents.
Mr. Daubeny spoke till nearly eight, and it was surmised at the timethat he had craftily arranged his oratory so as to embarrass hisopponent. The House had met at four, and was to sit continuously tillit was adjourned for the night. When this is the case, gentlemenwho speak about eight o'clock are too frequently obliged to addressthemselves to empty benches. On the present occasion it was Mr.Gresham's intention to follow his opponent at once, instead ofwaiting, as is usual with a leader of his party, to the close of thedebate. It was understood that Mr. Gresham would follow Mr. Daubeny,with the object of making a distinct charge against Ministers, sothat the vote on this second reading of the Church Bill might intruth be a vote of want of confidence. But to commence his speech ateight o'clock when the House was hungry and uneasy, would be a trial.Had Mr. Daubeny closed an hour sooner there would, with a littlestretching of the favoured hours, have been time enough. Memberswould not have objected to postpone their dinner till half-pasteight, or perhaps nine, when their favourite orator was on his legs.But with Mr. Gresham beginning a great speech at eight, dinner wouldaltogether become doubtful, and the disaster might be serious. It wasnot probable that Mr. Daubeny had even among his friends proclaimedany such strategy; but it was thought by the political speculators ofthe day that such an idea had been present to his mind.
But Mr. Gresham was not to be turned from his purpose. He waited fora few moments, and then rose and addressed the Speaker. A few membersleft the House;--gentlemen, doubtless, whose constitutions, weakenedby previous service, could not endure prolonged fasting. Some who hadnearly reached the door returned to their seats, mindful of Messrs.Roby and Ratler. But for the bulk of those assembled the interestof the moment was greater even than the love of dinner. Some of thepeers departed, and it was observed that a bishop or two left theHouse; but among the strangers in the gallery, hardly a foot of spacewas gained. He who gave up his seat then, gave it up for the night.
Mr. Gresham began with a calmness of tone which seemed almost to beaffected, but which arose from a struggle on his own part to repressthat superabundant energy of which he was only too conscious. But thecalmness soon gave place to warmth, which heated itself into violencebefore he had been a quarter of an hour upon his legs. He soon becameeven ferocious in his invective, and said things so bitter thathe had himself no conception of their bitterness. There was thisdifference between the two men,--that whereas Mr. Daubeny hit alwaysas hard as he knew how to hit, having premeditated each blow, andweighed its results beforehand, having calculated his power even tothe effect of a blow repeated on a wound already given, Mr. Greshamstruck right and left and straightforward with a readiness engenderedby practice, and in his fury might have murdered his antagonistbefore he was aware that he had drawn blood. He began by refusingabsolutely to discuss the merits of the bill. The right honourablegentleman had prided himself on his generosity as a Greek. He wouldremind the right honourable gentleman that presents from Greeks hadever been considered dangerous. "It is their gifts, and only theirgifts, that we fear," he said. The political gifts of the righthonourable gentleman, extracted by him from his unwilling colleaguesand followers, had always been more bitter to the taste than DeadSea apples. That such gifts should not be bestowed on the countryby unwilling hands, that reform should not come from those whothemselves felt the necessity of no reform, he believed to bethe wish not only of that House, but of the country at large.Would any gentleman on that bench, excepting the right honourablegentleman himself,--and he pointed to the crowded phalanx of theGovernment,--get up and declare that this measure of Church Reform,this severance of Church and State, was brought forward in consonancewith his own long-cherished political conviction? He accused thatparty of being so bound to the chariot wheels of the right honourablegentleman, as to be unable to abide by their own convictions. And asto the right honourable gentleman himself, he would appeal to hisfollowers opposite to say whether the right honourable gentleman waspossessed of any one strong political conviction.
He had been accused of being unconstitutional, revolutionary, andtyrannical. If the House would allow him he would very shortlyexplain his idea of constitutional government as carried on in thiscountry. It was based and built on majorities in that House, andsupported solely by that power. There could be no constitutionalgovernment in this country that was not so maintained. Any othergovernment must be both revolutionary and tyrannical. Any othergovernment was a usurpation; and he would make bold to tell theright honourable gentleman that a Minister in this country who shouldrecommend Her Majesty to trust herself to advisers not supported by amajority of the House of Commons, would plainly be guilty of usurpingthe powers of the State. He threw from him with disdain the chargewhich had been brought against himself of hankering after the sweetsof office. He indulged and gloried in indulging the highest ambitionof an English subject. But he gloried much more in the privileges andpower of that House, within the walls of which was centred all thatwas salutary, all that was efficacious, all that was stable in thepolitical constitution of his country. It had been his pride to haveacted during nearly all his political life with that party which hadcommanded a majority, but he would defy his most bitter adversary, hewould defy the right honourable gentleman himself, to point to anyperiod of his career in which he had been unwilling to succumb to amajority when he himself had belonged to the minority.
He himself would regard the vote on this occasion as a vote of wantof confidence. He took the line he was now taking because he desiredto bring the House to a decision on that question. He himself had notthat confidence in the right honourable gentleman which would justifyhim in accepting a measure on so important a subject as the union orseverance of Church and State from his hands. Should the majority ofthe House differ from him and support the second reading of the Bill,he would at once so far succumb as to give his best attention tothe clauses of the bill, and endeavour with the assistance of thosegentlemen who acted with him to make it suitable to the wants of thecountry by omissions and additions as the clauses should pass throughCommittee. But before doing that he would ask the House to decidewith all its solemnity and all its weight whether it was willing toaccept from the hands of the right honourable gentleman any measureof reform on a matter so important as this now before them. It wasnearly ten when he sat down; and then the stomach of the House couldstand it no longer, and an adjournment at once took place.
On the next morning it was generally considered that Mr. Daubeny hadbeen too long and Mr. Gresham too passionate. There were some whodeclared that Mr. Gresham had never been finer than when he describedthe privileges of the House of Commons; and others who thought thatMr. Daubeny's lucidity had been marvellous; but in this case, as inmost others, the speeches of the day were generally thought to havebeen very inferior to the great efforts of the past.