more
prudent of his friends, who perceived the dilemma in which he had
placed himself. Nobody in the meantime had any clear notion of
what would be done, what motions would be made or withdrawn, and
how the whole thing was to end. But as the debate promised a
great deal of personality, it was exceedingly attractive, and 517
members[10] went down to the House. Lord Maidstone moved that
O'Connell's speech was a scandalous libel, and Lord Howick moved
the order of the day. O'Connell made a very good speech and then
retired; John Russell spoke on one side, and Peel and Follett on
the other, and on the division the Tories carried the question by
nine: 263 to 254. They were of course in a state of uproarious
triumph; the Government people exceedingly mortified, and the
tail in a frenzy. The scene which ensued appears to have been
something like that which a meeting of Bedlam or Billingsgate
might produce. All was uproar, gesticulation, and confusion. The
Irishmen started up one after another and proclaimed their
participation in O'Connell's sentiments, and claimed to be joined
in his condemnation. They were all the more furious when they
found that the conquerors only meant to have him reprimanded by
the Speaker, and that there was no chance of his or their being
sent to Newgate or the Tower. At last 'le combat finit faute de
combattants,' for John Russell and his colleagues first, and
subsequently Peel and his followers, severally made their exits
something like rival potentates and their trains in a tragedy,
and when the bellowers found nobody left to bellow to, they too
were obliged to move off.

[9] The notice was that _if_ Lord Maidstone persisted in
his motion, he would call the attention of the Crown to
a charge delivered by the Bishop of Exeter (nearly two
years ago), in which he had accused the Catholic
members of perjury and treachery.

[10] Many more, I am told, for 517 voted, and several went
away who would not vote.

[Page Head: LORD LYNDHURST AND LORD MELBOURNE.]

In the House of Lords there had been an early, but very smart
skirmish between Melbourne and Lyndhurst,[11] in which the former
drew a contrast between what would have been the conduct of the
Duke (who was absent) and that of Lyndhurst, and said that the
Duke was a man of honour and a gentleman in a tone which implied
that Lyndhurst was neither. Brougham stepped in and aggravated
mat