BOOKS.

LORD MELBOURNE'S PAPERS.§

LORD MELBOURNE occupies a peculiar position among British Prime Ministers,—his is, to a great extent, an undefined political personality. In his preface, the best thing in the book, Lord Cowper puts the question in this way :—" Everybody allows his personal charm, his knowledge, his originality of mind, and his upright and honourable character. But did he really govern the country, or was he a mere figure-head, or rather, what intermediate position did he occupy between the two ?" There is a further limit to the inquiry. We read that "he had no self-assertion," cared very little who had the credit of work so long as it was done, and, of course, did not "stump the country" or write in the magazines. The resource of the student should be his correspondence and his papers ; but, says his relative, "here again he is un- fortunate. He was not a methodical man. He burned many of the letters addressed to him, and he very seldom kept a copy of his own." Consequently, "the materials which have been collected in the present book are very imperfect," a 4‘ small sample, accidentally preserved, of what would have been a very voluminous collection." Not a hopeful case for the inquirer, especially if he should be very anxious about the question raised; and although Lord Cowper thinks that the papers saved "throw considerable light upon his real position," we do not find that they modify the general impression alike of his merits and defects. Upon the one subject of deep interest—his conduct towards a youthful Queen, which all parties have praised—the volume, for obvious and sufficient reasons, is almost silent. Yet, the fulfilment of that onerous trust, and it was a noble task, is the chief act of his public life, and that one for which the nation should gratefully hold in remembrance the name of Melbourne. Apart from matters• bearing on the question of his influence and weight as a governing person, the book contains a good deal that may interest others besides the students of modern political history.

In the middle of the last century died Matthew Lamb, a very wealthy solicitor. Made a baronet in 1755, he left his son Peniston "property estimated at nearly half-a-million, besides half-a-million in ready-money," which was "squandered aim- lessly." Lord North made that son first Baron and then Viscount Melbourne, in the peerage of Ireland, as a reward for steady support ; the English peerage did not come until 1815. William Lamb, born in 1779, was the second son of the silent prodigal. Educated for the Bar, he seems to have studied his business, and "he used to say that the first sight of his name on the back [of a complimentary brief] gave bini the highest • At North Berwick. t At hfaerihanish. At St. Andrews.

§ Lord Melbourne's Papers: Edited by Lloyd C. Sanders. With a Preface by the Earl Cowper, E.G. London: Longman. and Co.

feeling of satisfaction he ever experienced, very far transcending his enjoyment on being appointed Prime Minister,"—the sort of speech an elderly man is apt to make when looking back on the innocent pleasures of youth. Perhaps had he con- tinued at the Bar, the rigorous training needful for success would have hardened his character enough to make him a stronger statesman, and have enabled him not only to see both sides of a question with painful distinctness, but to acquire the habit of decision. But his elder brother died ; at twenty-six he had to quit the law, enter Parliament, and take a wife, as became an eldest son. Thus the course of his life was changed at an early age, and he lost the fine discipline which he might have got by following a definite profession in earnest. Not that he did not take politics seriously. He was a Liberal of the Fox school, had been in boyhood an admirer of "Bonaparte," delivered his first speech under the reign of "All the Talents," was eager for reforms of all kinds, and kept a diary more or less regularly—for a couple of years. In it we note that the future Canningite could write of Canning's speech on the Copenhagen question, that it "was, as usual, false and incon- clusive ;" and on another occasion, that "Mr. Canning made a speech of some ability, but pettish, querulous, and little beyond his usual pettishness, querulousness, and littleness." But in 1822 he found that Canning "had no jealousy of anybody," just as, in his altered frame of mind, he drew a parallel between Alcibiades and Charles James Fox, his early idol. Lord Cowper says : "It was Lord Melbourne, and not Sydney Smith, who said, I wish I was as cock- sure of anything as Tom Macaulay is cock-sure of every- thing,"—adding that he also, like other people, had his period of cock-sureness. That extended a little beyond his adolescence, no doubt ; but he must have given indications of a higher character in manhood, or Castlereagh would not have said that he might become Premier if he would only shake off his carelessness ; nor would the Regent have exclaimed : "Sligo, mark my words, that man will some day or other be Prime Minister." Mr. Sanders observes that Melbourne's carelessness was more apparent than real, which is true, just as his cynicism in speech gave a totally wrong indication of his nature. Lord Cowper does not admit that it was "affecta- tion ;" but whatever it was, the thing was there. His character, he says, was tempered with a vein of thoughtfulness and a touch of melancholy, yet being genial and full of spirits, "he shrouded himself under an exterior of jovial indifference," adding that he was really indifferent about small things. Calling on the Duke of Wellington in 1840, by appointment, as Lord Stanhope reports, Melbourne "threw himself into an arm-chair, like an old friend, with great glee and rubbing of hands, and began at once with : Well, now, what do you think of the Regency Bill." The lively manner did not cover any indifference or levity, but genuine anxiety about the thorny subject, followed by great relief when he found that the leaders on both sides agreed. Perhaps, as a harassed Minister forming a Government, he was quite himself when he let fall the exclamation : "Damn the Whigs ; they are all cousins,"— and his conduct after the Cabinet dinner on the proposed fixed duty on corn, was equally characteristic. He did not like to - touch the Corn Laws, but after the project was adopted, he put his back to the door and said :—"Is it to lower the price of bread, or isn't it? It does not much matter which, but we must all say the same thing." Another and more painful example of joking was his outburst to Dr. Whately :—" What do you think I'd have done about this slavery business if I'd had my own

way? I'd have done nothing at all It's a pack of nonsense,—they would have their fancy, so we have abolished slavery; but it's a great folly." Such language could not represent his real opinion, and reads more like an attempt to poke up the Archbishop than a deliberate exposition of his own mind. When a man with so flippant a tongue becomes a Prime Minister, we may be sure that his friends and colleagues had found in him weight and sense. A different reason for his elevation is suggested by the words attributed by Lord Dolling, who had them from his brother Edward, to Lord Durham. At a dinner during the Grey Administration, the guests discussed his probable successor. "Various candidates were put forward, but Lord Durham, alluded to as one, said at once : Melbourne is the only man to be Prime Minister, because he is the only one of whom none of us would be jealous." And so it proved. His administrative ability had

been rudely tested at the Home/ Office ; they knew his worth to the party; and they were not jealous, for they also knew that he would interfere as little as possible. The curious fact about him is that he was a member or the head of Govern- ments which carried, or tried to carry, measures of which he did not heartily approve. On men he was firmer, would have nothing more to do with Brougham, and no dealings with O'Connell, and even declared that he knew nothing whatever of the famous Lichfield House compact, though he defended Lord Mulgrave when he invited O'Connell to dinner.

There are some passages not without a direct bearing on present politics. Take this, written respecting tithe, in 1832 :—

"Depend upon it, if the abolition of this payment is effected by force, the violence which has been so successful will imme- diately be extended farther. It is according to human nature and common-sense that it should be so. Rents, taxes, &e., may be very well paid now,—probably the better because the country is relieved from the tithe ; but the Irish, who are the most conspiring people on the face of the earth, have sagacity enough to fight one point at a time, and to collect and combine all their strength for the purpose of carrying one sensible object."

When that was attained by violence, a fresh one would be selected, and so on, just as we have seen it to be, until we have now not an ultimate, but the penultimate, demand. He says, characteristically, touching a suggestion that O'Connell should be offered a place :—

" Taking office would not shake his influence with the people of Ireland one jot. The people of Ireland are not such damned fools as the people of England. When they place confidence, they do not withdraw it the next instant When they trust a man, when they are really persuaded that he has their interest at heart, they do not throw him off because he does something which they cannot immediately understand or explain. On the contrary, they think that he probably knows what he is about, that what he does is done to serve them, and they cling to him the closer on account of any apparent inconsistency."

That view of the matter has been strikingly illustrated in our own day. We may extract a few spicy sentences, from a letter dated September, 1840, when there was trouble abroad, which remind one of Wellington's sharp words about the Princess Lieven, who also talked a great deal when he was Prime Minister :—

" The talking at Holland House is irremediable. They cannot help it, and they are not themselves aware how much they talk. In 1827 Canning said : But what shall we do with Lady Holland in the Cabinet ?' The Duke of Bedford," he continues, "is a good adviser for principles and opinions, but bad for action. All advisers are dangerous. They encumber the free exercise of the understanding, and substitute authority for reason."

The leisurely reader may find instruction and some amuse- ment in these papers, which have been carefully edited on the

whole, and with good taste. We believe, however, that the Joubert, not " Jaubert," as it is printed, who was killed on board the 'Orient' at the Nile fight, was cammissaire ordon- nateur to the flagship, and that the Joubert about whom young William Lamb was feelingly anxious, was the gallant General who was killed at Novi in 1799. Also, "the novelist, Robert

Moore, M.D., now almost forgotten," one of whose tales, lifordaunt, young Lamb had been reading, is he not "John," the father of Sir John Moore, and by no means forgotten as an author of other books besides Zeluco, Edward, and lifor- ' daunt ? Mr. Sanders, however, deserves the praise bestowed

on him by Lord Cowper in the preface, for he has done his work well, much to the contentment, we should hope, of the general reader.