I am writing in the Cabinet room, and by the unanimous desire of my colleagues, to request that, unless you object to the Irish Church Bill, you will come over and give us the benefit of your vote on Friday.
It is not often that the vote of the Ambassador at Paris is wanted, and if I remember rightly, Cowley only once or twice sent me his proxy; but proxies are now abolished, and the real presence is necessary. Every vote is of importance, as the question is one of great gravity not only as respects the Irish Church but the conflict between the two Houses that is impending, and that must if possible be averted.
Gladstone has just expressed a strong opinion as to the duty of a peer not to abstain from voting when he is not disabled from doing so, and does not admit that diplomatic convenience is a sufficient reason against his doing so.
I hope therefore you will come over if you are not opposed to the Bill.
It being practically impossible to resist an intimation of this kind from an official chief, Lord Lyons reluctantly went over to London to vote, and as he had not yet even taken his seat, took the precaution of asking a trusty friend in the Foreign Office to find out what the necessary formalities were. The following somewhat naïve communication possesses a modern interest as it discloses the fact that backwoodsmen were as much in existence then as they are now.
Mr. Staveley to Lord Lyons.
Foreign Office, June 16, 1869.
Not being able to get any reliable information in the Foreign Office as to your modus operandi in regard to taking your seat to-morrow, I have been down to the House of Lords this afternoon and saw one of the clerks in the Crown Office, who says that all you have to do is to present yourself at the Peers' entrance to-morrow not later than 4.45 p.m., when you will receive from the clerk in attendance for that purpose the necessary writ to enable you to take your seat.
Nothing further is necessary, and many peers presented themselves and took their seats for the first time this session, for the debate of Monday last, with no further formalities.
The obvious comment on this incident is that Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were totally wanting in a sense of proportion, and their action justifies the belief that the eminent persons who govern this country are sometimes literally incapable of looking beyond the next division list in Parliament.
If a British Ambassador is to inspire confidence in his countrymen it is all important that he should not be a partisan or dependent in any degree upon party favours. The majority for the second reading of the Bill was 33, and no fewer than 108 peers were absent from the division unpaired. Yet because the whip (probably a person of very mediocre intelligence) said that he wanted every vote that could be obtained, the Ambassador was sent for, made to figure as a party hack, and forced to give a vote on a question of which he had admittedly no knowledge, and upon which his opinion was valueless. It will be seen later that similar attempts to force him to vote were subsequently made by people who ought to have known better, but fortunately without much success.
Towards the close of April, 1869, the French Legislative Session came to an end, and with it expired the Chamber elected in 1863. The General Election took place in May, and, as an insignificant number of opposition deputies were returned, owing to the unscrupulous intervention of the Executive, the results were received with much satisfaction in Government circles. It was generally felt, however, that even the huge Government majority would be more independent than in the late Chamber, and that a very real control would be exercised over the Ministers. It was even expected by some that the Emperor would formally announce the acceptance of the principle of the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament.