Punch, or The London Charivari | Page 7

as Houses were counted then, when the
number of Members was considerably less. First business was to
choose SPEAKER. SHAW-LEFEVRE (not the Member for Bradford,
but a forbear) had been SPEAKER in last Parliament; re-elected now,
PEEL, who, by the lifting of a finger, could have put his own nominee

in the Chair, graciously consenting.
[Illustration: "The Colossus of Words," 1879.]
Of all who filled the House on that night, only two have seats in the
present Parliament--Mr. G., and the humble person who, by favour of
the Electors of Barkshire, is permitted to pen these lines.
(CHRISTOPHER TALBOT, then represented Glamorganshire, but he
just failed to live into this Jubilee time.) Yet, when I look round on the
Benches now, I see a score of men who bear the names, and are, in
many cases, descendants, of Members who sat in the Parliament that
will ever have a place in history, if only because it was born in the
same year, almost in the same month, as _Mr. Punch_. There was a
THOMAS DYKE ACLAND, representing Devonshire; there were two
HENEAGES, one representing Devizes, and the other, EDWARD,
sitting for Grimsby, as EDWARD HENEAGE sits to-day for the same
borough. There was a BORTHWICK, Member for Evesham. There
was a PHILIP STANHOPE, Member for Hertford. STANSFELD sat
for Huddersfield, and MARJORIBANKS for Hythe, a LAWSON for
Knaresborough, a BECKETT for Leeds, a CHILDERS for Malton, a
MANNERS for Newark-upon-Trent, having a certain WILLIAM
EWART GLADSTONE for colleague. He was the Lord JOHN, well
known to students of poetry, who now wears a Ducal coronet.
Of course there was a SMITH, VERNON by Christian name, Member
for Northampton; a HOULDSWOTH representing Nottinghamshire, a
MACLEAN for Oxford, a HARCOURT for Oxfordshire--nay, in this
happy Parliament there were two HARCOURTS, GRANVILLE
HARCOURT VERNON sitting for East Retford. A VIVIAN sat for
Penrhyn--HUSSEY VIVIAN's father, JOHN HENEY, sat in the same
Parliament for Swansea. Lord EBRINGTON sat for Plymouth, and
CHARLES RUSSELL for Reading. ORMSBY GORE represented
North Shropshire, long a possession of his family. The Markiss o'
GRANBY sat for Stamford, with a CLARK for colleague.
FREDERICK VILLIERS (not our present Father) kept the name green
at Sudbury, and there was a WYNDHAM for Sussex. The HENRY
LABOUCHERE of those less lively days sat for Taunton, and Sir
ROBERT PEEL, our SPEAKER's father, for Tamworth. There was a
HAYTER, GOOD-ENOUGH: for Wells, one LOWTHER represented
Westmoreland, and another York. A WALTER LONG sat for North

Wilts, STUART WORTLEY sat for the West Riding, and JAMES
DUFF for Banffshire. We had a BALFOUR for Haddington, and Lord
DALMENY of that day, happier than the present head of the family, sat
in the Commons for Inverkeithing, a place long since swept off the
electoral board. These surnames, with one or two others I can't
recall--yes, there was a DALRYMPLE for Wigtonshire--are familiar on
the Roll of Parliament to-day.
Amongst the prominent Members of this Parliament I remember
ROEBUCK sitting; for Bath; and PAKINGTON--then plain JOHN all
unconscious of the coming marvel of a Ten Minutes' Reform Bill--for
Droitwich. STRATFORD CANNING had a seat for King's Lynn, and
MONCKTON' MILNES was Member for Pomfret. JOHN BRIGHT
was not in the House, but RICHARD COBDEN sat for Stockport, and
there was an acidulous person, then known as RALPH BERNAL, who
sat for Wycombe. We knew BERNAL OSBORNE in many later
Parliaments.
Curious to think how Ireland at this epoch belonged to the classes!
DANIEL O'CONNELL was just in his prime, and, in addition to
himself returned three of his name. SMITH O'BRIEN was yet far off
the cabbage garden, and HENRY GRATTAN sat for Meath. There is a
living image of him now among the busts in the corridor leading out of
the Octagon Hall; a fiery dramatic speaker in the House, who, as
someone said of him at the time, used in his passion to throw up his
arms, bend over till he touched the floor with his finger-nails, and thank
Heaven he had no gestures. The O'CONNOR DON whom Members
younger than I remember as he sat above the Gangway in the
Parliament of 1874, then represented Roscommon. But for the most
part the Irish Members of those days were Earls, Viscounts, Knights,
Baronets, Honourables and Right Honourables.
There were, on the Motion for the Address, big debates in both Houses
on this particular night, when I first saw the SPEAKER in wig and
gown. The fate of the Ministry could scarcely be said to hang in the
balance; they knew they were doomed. In the Lords the shrift was short.
Not too late for dinner, their Lordships divided: "Contents 96, Not
Contents 168," majority against Government 72. I well remember
COVENTRY's speech; worth reciting as a model for these later days.
He followed LANSDOWNE, and