The Town-crier was employed to hawk an address to His Majesty, pressing upon him the necessity of retaining in his confidence the Conservative Ministry. From door to door went the crier with "Please, sir, sign this. Make haste, I'm in such a hurry; there's no time to read it; you are only wished to sign it." This address, purporting to have emanated from the visitors and inhabitants was drawn up - so it was said, by a near relative of a church dignitary who happened to be staying in the town. Walls were then placarded that the petition was lying for signature at the Pelham Arcade. It was remarkable that at that time St. Leonards and Hastings were unusually full of visitors. Edlin's Victoria hotel was filled to its utmost capacity, and it was the same with Eldridge's Saxon and Emary's Castle; yet out of a population of at least 12,000, including visitors, only 200 signatures could be obtained. My readers will understand that this petition had reference, not to Sir Robert Peel's final resignation on the 8th of April, but to the Government defeat on the Speakership, a few weeks previously. It was on the 24th of February that the House of Commons met for the dispatch of business, and when Sir Robert Peel was beaten both on the election of Speaker and on the Address to the Throne, but did not resign. Mr. Elphinstone' energy was such that even in those days of comparatively slow travelling, the news of any important event was communicated to his constituency in the course of a few hours. Hence, whe on the 25th of February it became known in Hastings and St. Leonards that Mr. Abercrombie had been elected to the Speakership, the news was received by the Liberals with unmistakable enthusiasm, whilst the chagrin of both sections of the Conservatives - as the Whigs and Tories were wont to be called - was equally conspicuous. SImilar enthusiasm and similar dejection were manifested when, after suffering four defeats, Sir Robt. Peel was compelled to resign. His last two defeats were upon a vital policy of the Government, and to continue any longer in office would be unconstitutional. In announcing his resignation, however, the Premier called forth the cheers of the whole house by saying "My whole political life has been spent in the House of Commons; and whatever may be the conflict of parties, I shall always wish, whether in a majority or minority, to stand well in the House of Commons."
As the conduct of Mr. North in voting with the Conservatives was seriously called into question, I will burden my readers with an outline of the measures which caused the fall of the Peel Cabinet and of one or two other proposed measures in the voting for or against which mr. North was accused of deserting the principles which he had indirectly promised to uphold. On the 17th of March Sir R. Peel moved to bring in a Bill to relieve Nonconformists from the compulsory rite to the Church of England in cases of marriage. Attempts had been previously made by the Whigs, but only in a half'hearted manner, to effect a similar relief. Sir Robert dealt with the subject in a more energetic and liberal spirit; but unfortunately for him, he did not remain in office sufficiently long to carry his measure. Then on the 26th of March, the Marquis of Chandos proposed the abolition of the Malt Tax, as a relief to the Agricultural interest which was then - as it had been again for some years past - in a very depressed condition. But in this matter the Premier exhibited a less liberal spirit. He strongly opposed the motion, and prophesied that if the sum of nearly five millions of pounds was thus lost to the revenue, a property tax must necessarily follow. The motion was lost by 350 to 192, Mr. North voting with the majority.
Three days later, Sir Hy. Hardinge brought forward the Ministerial plan for the settlement of the Tithe Question, by proposing tithes to be recoverable from the head landlord, 25 per cent. being allowed for the cost of collection and risk which such landlord could assume. He might redeem the same if he so desired at 20 years' purchase the purchase money to be invested for the benefit of rectors and other tithe-owners. This was carried by 213 to 198.
Next came the burning question of the Irish Church. On the 30th of March, Lord John Russell moved - "That the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the temporalities of the Church of Ireland, with a view of applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual cost of its members to the general education of all classes of people, without distinction of religious persuasion." It was contended by the mover and other liberal speakers that the revenues had increased sevenfold, and were then £800,000 a year. On the other hand, Sir Robert Peel and his party held that when the drawbacks and deductions were made, the Irish Church revenues did not probably exceed £100,000. The debate - a memorable one in Parliamentary history - continued for four nights, after which at 4 o'clock in the morning, the motion was carried by 322 to 289, leaving the Government in a minority of 33. On the following night Lord John Russell obtained another victory over the Government - 285 to 258 - on the Appropriation clause, the resolution of which was "That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." As already shown, this question caused the shipwreck of the Peel Ministry, after several hard-fought battles for its brief existence.
Sir Robert Peel's Ministry resigned on the 8th of April; and, ten days later, Lord Melbourne's Cabinet with a few changes, was again installed in office. The change of ministers and the creation of peers necessitated some new elections. These did not affect the political relations of Hastings or St. Leonards, but they were so intimately associated with two statesmen of eminence as to deserve a passing notice. Lord John Russell lost his seat for South Devon, but Col. Fox made way for him at Stroud; and the same thing was done for Lord Palmerstone by Mr. Kennedy at Tiverton, his lordship having been defeated in Hampshire.
The election at Hastings, three months before, showed a great disparity between the strength of Liberals and Conservatives, but in the House of Commons the two parties were so evenly balanced that although, locally, political demonstrations in their rougher character had greatly subsided, the parliamentary proceedings were watched with an eye as keen as ever. Lord Melbourne was not regarded as a Reformer of an ardent stamp, but it was said of him that what he lacked in energy, he possessed in good intentions and suavity of manners. The opinion mostly prevalent in political circles was that the Viscount was a better follower than a leader, whilst Sir Robert Peel was a leader in the fullest sense, and aimed at educating his party.
It would almost appear evident from the votes which Mr. North gave that he had a greater appreciation of the Tory leader than of the Whig. Be that as it might, various opinions were at that time hazarded respecting the irreconcilable votes which the "unpledged" Member recorded, and the subject was nightly discussed among all parties. The Dissenters and others who voted for him on the strength of his professions were chafing with indignation for having suffered themselves to be deluded by an air of sincerity both in his canvass and on the hustings when he seemed to promise all that they desired. They vowed, however, that Mr. North should discover before long the mistake he had made. The Dissenters at least felt that he had enlisted under the banner of Lord Stanley, and they therefore gave up all hope that he would support what they regarded as their just claims. He had, they said, tacitly shown himself to be opposed to progressive measures of Reform, and a letter which he had written to his constituents, was regarded as being in keeping with both his printed and spoken addresses. Mr. North came home, however, whilst the Melbourne Cabinet was being re-formed, and on the evening of the 10th of April he met about twenty-five of his political friends at the Castle hotel, there to offer an explanation of his conduct in Parliament. Very little of what transpired was allowed to reach the public ear, but enough was stated to have oozed out to convince the majority of his supporters that his explanation was anything but satisfactory. It was argued by at least the advanced section of Liberals that it at once disabused their minds of the idea that he was a real Reformer. By opposing the claims of the Catholics in Ireland, and the consequent restoration of tranquility to that misgoverned country, he had proved himself an enemy to civil and religious liberty. After such criticism as this, it may seem strange that in his subsequent career the censured gentleman should adopt for his motto, "Civil and Religious Liberty." But, as already stated, Mr. North did not become a thorough Reformer all at once. Even after the meeting of Parliament under the change of Cabinets, the Liberals could not find it in their hearts to forget or forgive their wayward representative, albeit Mr. North's relatives and person friends - influential politicians of the old Corporation party - reminded them that they were treading on forbidden ground. They knew that North and Elphinstone were voting in direct opposition to each other on questions of great importance, and that was enough for them. It was then rumoured that in consequence of the continued censure upon his conduct, Mr. North had declared his intention to abstain in the future from voting altogether. "If he really means this," replied his censors, "he has our thanks; for he has virtually ceased to represent our borough."
Whilst this distrust of Mr. North was manifesting itself, the reception given to Mr. Elphinstone was one of the most enthusiastic character. But what of the other two gentlemen who so recently had striven to be the representatives of the borough? Of one - Mr. Musgrave Brisco - it was said that a sly canvass was still going on in his behalf in anticipation of another contest the Chief actors being Mr. and Mrs. Camac. The other one - The Rt. Hon. Joseph Planta - was suffering under a severe indisposition, for which the inhabitants, both of Hastings and St. Leonards, were truly sorry; for, although Mr. Planta was a Tory of the first water, he was an excellent specimen of the "Fine Old English Gentleman," and his general urbanity and agreeable manners endeared him even to his political opponents.
It should not be forgotten that Mr. North was a magistrate as well as a member of Parliament, and that to his clemency while sitting in judgment, the inhabitants were sometimes indebted either for their release from charges brought against them, or for a mitigation of "pains and penalties." One such case occurred in the early part of 1835. A galley belonging to the Rob-Roy revenue cutter seized a lugger and a smack, with seven men and a boy, off St. Leonards. These were conveyed to one of the Martello Towers, and were afterwards examined before Mr. North in his magisterial capacity. The result was that the lugger's crew, who belonged to Hastings, were discharged, whilst the three men of the smack, who belonged to Rye, were convicted of attempting to run contraband, and were sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
I have referred to Mr. North as a magistrate, but at much greater length as a politician in his early parliamentary career; and as that gentleman was a sort of central figure in political circles during 1835, it may be well to further consider his relations with the borough for the remainder of that year before returning to more general matters. It has been shown that he was reproached for the several votes which he offered in opposition to the votes recorded by Mr. Elphinstone, and that the explanations which he gave were not satisfactory to the general body of his Liberal supporters. Mr. North felt however, that he was unjustly censured, and he complained of the warmth with which the Brighton Guardian (a Liberal organ of great influence in Hastings and St. Leonards at that time) attacked his political conduct. The journal in question in its reply asked - "Does Mr. North flatter himself that there are not many like Mr. Thwaites, who will, on the first opportunity, call on him to account for his stewardship? But, above all, is he alone blind to the fact that Hastings has bt one real representative? Let Mr. North or his supporters answer our questions satisfactorily, and we are then willing to confess that we have unjustly attacked a very pure, a very disinterested, and a very consistent body of men. On seeing those around the great Frederick who professed Reform principles, we were induced to advocate his cause before that of the eloquent Brisco or the whipper-in Planta; but, having watched his career through its various shifts, we find him proving himself to be anything but what a Reformer ought to be."
North and Brisco's principles questioned - "Brotherhood of Guestling"
On the 19th of June Mr. and Mrs. North travelled to London in their own carriage, and whilst the horses were being changed at Lock's Bottom, the lady fell through a cellar-opening to the depth of sixteen feet. She was so much hurt that at first it was feared the result would be very serious, -
