1. Graham, A. H., “The Lichfield House Compact,” Irish Historical Studies, XII (1961), 209–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Davis, H. W. Carless, The Age of Grey and Peel (Oxford, 1964), p. 238Google Scholar.

3. Macintyre, Angus, The Liberator: Daniel O'Connell and the Irish Party 1830–1847 (London, 1965), pp. 163–64Google Scholar; Southgate, Donald, The Passing of the Whigs 1832–1886 (London, 1962), pp. 61–62Google Scholar. Norman Gash agrees that the Compact brought the English and Irish Radicals to the support of the Whigs, but that “there is also a sense in which it gained the Whigs for Radicalism,” and concludes that the Compact “established the first solid foundation for the construction of a real Liberal party.” Gash, Norman, Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics 1832–1852 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 169–70Google Scholar.

4. PRO, Viscount Althorp to Lord John Russell, Nov. 16, 1834, Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1C, fol. 145. For a discussion of the dismissal, see Condon, Mary D., “The Irish Church and the Reform Ministries,” J.B.S., III (1964), 136–42Google Scholar; also Gash, , Reaction and Reconstruction, pp. 11–16Google Scholar.

5. Lord Palmerston to William Temple, Nov. 16, 1834, in Bulwer, Henry Lytton, The Life of Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, with Selections from His Diaries and Correspondence (London, 1870), II, 207Google Scholar.

6. National Library of Scotland, Lord Grey to Edward Ellice (priv.), Nov. 16, 1834, Ellice Papers, E/19, fol. 39. I have to thank Russell Ellice of Invergarry for permission to make use of the Ellice Papers.

7. Durham University, Lord Melbourne to Grey (confid.), Nov. 14, 1834, 1:30 a.m., Grey Papers; Melbourne to Grey (priv. and confid.), Nov. 18, 1834, ibid.

8. Durham U., Russell to Grey, Nov. 19, 1834, ibid.

9. Halévy, Élie, The Triumph of Reform 1830–1841 (New York, 1961), p. 14Google Scholar; Woodward, Sir Llewellyn, The Age of Reform 1815–1870 (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1962), p. 79Google Scholar; Aspinall, A., “The Cabinet Council 1783–1835,” Proc. Br. Academy, XXXVIII (1953), 200Google Scholar.

10. Durham U., Grey to Knight of Kerry, n.d. (headed “copy of extract" and in Grey's hand), Grey Papers. Trevelyan dated the document the winter of 1830–31. Trevelyan, G. M., Lord Grey of the Reform Bill (2nd ed.; London, 1952), p. 237Google Scholar. Sir James Graham also approached the reform struggle in a typically Whig fashion: “The object being to reform to the extent necessary for preserving our Institutions, not to change for the purpose of subverting.” Graham to Lord Brougham, Nov. 2, 1830, Graham Papers. (The Graham Papers are available on microfilm at the Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library, National Library of Ireland, and the Newberry Library.) Indeed, Melbourne wrote that “change is of itself a great danger and a great evil.” PRO, Northern Ireland, Melbourne to Lord Anglesey, Apr. 8, 1833, Anglesey Papers, T1068/31, fol. 39.

11. PRO, N. Ireland, Grey to Anglesey (priv.), June 11, 1832, ibid., T1068/30, fol. 239.

12. PRO, N. Ireland, Anglesey to Lord Holland, Aug. 12, 1831, ibid., T1068/7, p. 40 (typescript copy from Holland House Papers).

13. University College, London, Anglesey to Brougham, Feb. 19, 1833, Brougham Papers. Again, in defense of his proposals for extensive church reform, he wrote, “I love the Protestant Church … and I want to save it.” PRO, N. Ireland, Anglesey to Edward Stanley, Mar. 21, 1832, Anglesey Papers, T1068/18.

14. PRO, N. Ireland, Anglesey to Stanley, Aug. 2, 1832, ibid.

15. Althorp Park, Althorp to Grey (priv.), Aug. 26, 1832, Spencer Papers. I have to thank the Rt. Hon. Earl Spencer for permission to read the papers of Viscount Althorp, third Earl Spencer.

16. PRO, N. Ireland, Grey to Anglesey (priv.), Mar. 21, 1832, Anglesey Papers, T1068/30, fol. 193; Grey to Anglesey (priv.), June 11, 1832, ibid., fol. 207.

17. Graham to Russell (priv. and confid.), Dec. 5, 1832, in Russell, Rollo (ed.), The Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell 1805–40 (London, 1913), II, 38Google Scholar; N.L. of S., Grey to Ellice (priv.), Nov. 16, 1834, Ellice Papers, E/19, fol. 39.

18. Graham to Russell (priv. and confid.), Dec. 5, 1832, in R. Russell, Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell, II, 38.

19. E.g., in the 1833 session Grey included a staunch affirmation of the Union in the King's Speech calculated to force Daniel O'Connell to oppose the Speech on the basis of repeal and thereby isolate him and his following in opposition. He knew that on the question of repeal the Radicals would support the Government. PRO, N. Ireland, Grey to Anglesey (priv.), Dec. 31, 1832, Anglesey Papers, T1068/30, fol. 261; Grey to Anglesey, Dec. 14, 1832, ibid., fols. 255–56. Although O'Connell did not raise the repeal question in that session, his motion to amend the King's Speech drew little support beyond his own following, leading Althorp to acknowledge that “O'Connell has played our game.” Althorp Park, Althorp to Sir Herbert Taylor, Feb. 9, 1833, Spencer Papers.

20. BM, Lord Mahon to Sir Robert Peel, Jan. 8, 1833, Peel Papers, Add. MSS, 40403, fol. 167.

21. BM, Place Papers, Add. MSS, 27796, fols. 12–21, 30–33, esp. Francis Place's “Political Narrative,” June 1832. Several divisions in the Commons reflected the dichotomy between Repealers and Radicals. In 1833 O'Connell's motion that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the King's Speech mustered only forty supporters, his own repeal group, six English Radicals, and two Scottish members. 3 Hansard 15: 461 (8 Feb., 1833). Despite opposition of English Radicals in a committee of the House to specific provisions of the Coercion Bill, O'Connell collected an opposition no larger than eighty or at most ninety in the divisions on the bill. Eighty-nine members opposed the first reading, eighty-four the second, and eighty-six the third. Of these a range of thirty-six to forty were Irish members, leaving approximately forty to fifty English Radicals supporting O'Connell and the Repealers in opposition. ibid. 16: 280–81 (6 Mar., 1833), 528–29 (11 Mar., 1833), 1283–84 (29 Mar., 1833). If the calculation of “190 thick-and-thin Radicals” and Repealers was accurate, then approximately one hundred English Radicals had declined to join O'Connell in opposition to a bill which they most certainly would have opposed had it been applicable to any part of the United Kingdom but Ireland. In his motion during the next session, which called for an inquiry on the consequences of the Union, O'Connell was supported by only thirty-eight members, only one of whom was an English member; 523 members voted with the Government. ibid. 23: 286–87 (29 Apr., 1834).

22. A recent study lists thirty-five. Whyte, J. H., “Daniel O'Connell and the Repeal Party,” I.H.S., XI (1959), 306Google Scholar; the Whig politician, Charles Wood, listed each Irish M.P. and remarked about the attitude of each toward the Whig Government. In his list of Irish members, Wood indicated approximately the same number of Repealers. BM, Wood to Sir John Cam Hobhouse (confid.), Apr. 9, 1833, Broughton Papers, Add. MSS, 36467, fol. 38. Thirty-nine members of the “Repeal party” in 1832 are listed in Macintyre, The Liberator, pp. 301–02.

23. Whyte, , “Repeal Party,” I.H.S., XI, 306Google Scholar.

24. O'Connell to the People of Kilkenny, , Pilot, Jan. 3, 1831Google Scholar.

25. O'Connell to Henry Jervis, Jan. 19, 1834, in FitzPatrick, W. J. (ed.), Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell the Liberator (London, 1888), I, 396–97Google Scholar; O'Connell to Edward Dwyer, Nov. 9, 1830, in ibid., I, 229.

26. National Library of Ireland, O'Connell to wife, Sat. [Nov. 1830], O'Connell-FitzSimon Papers.

27. O'Connell to P. V. FitzPatrick, Aug. 29, 1832, in FitzPatrick, , Correspondence of O'Connell, I, 301.Google Scholar

28. O'Connell to Richard Barrett, Fri. (July 1834), in ibid., I, 451.

29. O'Connell followed two seemingly contradictory courses: first, he resorted to his lingering and naive tactic of trying to promote a union of all Irishmen, Orangemen as well as Repealers, who would act for the common good of Ireland; simultaneously, he urged the solidarity of all Radicals, with whom, restlessly perhaps, he associated the Repealers. As he was anathema to the Whigs, O'Connell refrained, initially, from overtures to that party which had been “such cruel drags on the wheels of rational improvement.” O'Connell to B. Boothley, July 17, 1834, in Aspinall, Arthur, Lord Brougham and the Whig Party (Manchester, 1927), p. 291Google Scholar; O'Connell to FitzPatrick, July 16, 1834, in FitzPatrick, , Correspondence of O'Connell, I, 452–54Google Scholar. When those with Orange sympathies helped to defeat the Government's Irish Tithe Bill in the House of Lords, O'Connell abandoned the former tactic.

30. N.L. of S., O'Connell to Ellice, Sep. 3, 1834, Ellice Papers, E/37, fol. 24; BM, O'Connell to James Abercromby (priv.), Sep. 5, 1834, Russell Papers, Add. MSS, 38080, fob. 64–65.

31. In a series of published letters, O'Connell advised Lord Duncannon that he wanted to exonerate the “popular party” in Ireland from the charge that it had been unnecessarily hostile to the Whigs. Secondly, he wanted to “reconcile, if possible, the popular party in Ireland with the present Ministry — to make us part of your strength, not of your weakness; and in particular, to strengthen the Ministry in the approaching collision with the House of Lords.” O'Connell to Duncannon, Aug. 30, 1834, in FitzPatrick, , Correspondence of O'Connell, I, 468–69Google Scholar.

32. Melbourne to Russell (priv.), Aug. 23, 1834, in Sanders, Lloyd C. (ed.), Lord Melbourne's Papers (London, 1889), pp. 209–11Google Scholar; BM, Russell to Melbourne, Sep. 22, 1834, Russell Papers, Add. MSS, 38080, fols. 71–72.

33. N.L. of I., Spring Rice to General Bourke (priv. and confid.), June 26, 1834, Monteagle Papers. Nor was the prospect fanciful. Aside from particular Irish issues which estranged him from the Government, Stanley must have agreed with Graham that their departure as well as some of their replacements gave the Whig Government an ominously liberal cast. Graham was particularly annoyed by the inclusion of James Abercromby in the cabinet which, he thought, made “a strong movement… quite inevitable.” Graham to Lord Richmond, June 10, 1834, Graham Papers. He must also have been disturbed by the subsequent inclusion of Edward Ellice in the cabinet. Actually the replacements for the four departing ministers enhanced the aristocratic and conservative complexion of the Government. King William had accepted the resignations of Stanley, Graham, and company only on the condition that Grey accept them. Grey in turn consented to remain in office only if the conservative Lord Lansdowne did not resign with the departing ministers. “Minute of Occurrences at the Levee on 27 May, which produced my [Graham's] resignation that day at St. James's,” May 27, 1834, ibid. Lansdowne was as conservative on the church issue as were those who had retired; and even after the matter was purportedly resolved, he continued to remark in the Lords that the revenues of the Irish Church should be restricted to church purposes. 3 Hansard 24: 293 (6 June, 1834). He was persuaded to remain, but did so on the condition that he be permitted to nominate some, if not all, of the replacements for the retired ministers. Graham's successor to the Admiralty, Lord Auckland, was acknowledged as Lansdowne's choice, and Lansdowne may also have had a hand in the selection of other ministers, particularly Spring Rice, Stanley's replacement for War and Colonies. Le Marchant, Denis, Memoir of Viscount Althorp, Third Earl Spencer (London, 1876), pp. 488–89Google Scholar. Lansdowne consented to the establishment of the commission to investigate church revenues, proposed by Brougham, in return for acceptance of his nominees to the cabinet. Staffordshire Record Office, E. J. Littleton to Marquis of Wellesley, May 30, 1834, Hatherton Papers, D/260/M/01/3, fol. 214. I have to acknowledge the permission of the Rt. Hon. Lord Hatherton to cite material from the Hatherton Papers.

34. Stanley to Graham (confid.), June 21, 1834, Graham Papers; Peel to Graham (confid.) [late June or early July 1834], ibid.; Stanley to Graham (priv.), July 22, 1834, ibid.

35. Creevey to Miss Ord, Aug. [sic] 12, 1834, in Maxwell, Sir Herbert (ed.), The Creevey Papers: A Selection jrom the Correspondence and Diaries of the Late Thomas Creevey (London, 1903), II, 284Google Scholar. The date is obviously July 12.

36. “Those principles,” he wrote, “I consider to be perfectly compatible with cautious and well-digested reforms in every institution which really requires reform, and with the redress of proved grievances.” Peel to King William, July 13, 1834, in Lord Mahon and Right Hon. Cardwell, Edward (eds.), Memoirs by the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel (London, 1856–1857), II, 13Google Scholar. Such a statement could just as well have come from Lord Grey, Stanley's supposed mentor.

37. BM, Peel to Stanley, Dec. 9, 1834, Peel Papers, Add. MSS, 40404, fols. 341–42; Peel to Graham, Whitehall, Dec. 9, 1834, Graham Papers.

38. In the early months of his Government, Grey already looked to Stanley as the next leader in the Commons. PRO, N. Ireland, Grey to Anglesey, Mar. 5, 1831, Anglesey Papers, T1068/30, fol. 79. Some scholars have interpreted Russell's famous speech in which he “upset the coach” in May 1834, as a move calculated to force Stanley out of the Government so that Russell would be the unrivalled heir to the leadership of the party in the Commons. Southgate, , Passing of the Whigs, p. 61Google Scholar; Macintyre, , The Liberator, pp. 131–32Google Scholar. There is no evidence to support this interpretation, however convenient it may appear to be.

39. BM, Stanley to Lord Ripon (confid.), Nov. 27, 1834, Ripon Papers, Add. MSS, 40863, fols. 133–35.

40. Ibid., fol. 133; Graham to Stanley (confid.), Nov. 21, 1834, Graham Papers.

41. BM, Stanley to Ripon, Nov. 20, 1834, Ripon Papers, Add. MSS, 40863, fol. 130; Stanley to Ripon (confid.), Nov. 27, 1834, ibid., fols. 133–35.

42. N.L. of I., O'Connell to wife, Nov. 25, 21, 20, 18, 1834, O'Connell-FitzSimon Papers.

43. University College, Dublin, Henry Warburton to O'Connell, Dec. 20, 1834, O'Connell Papers. Warburton is generally considered to have initiated the enterprise.

44. N.L. of I., William Percival to Spring Rice, Dec. 31, 1834, Monteagle Papers.

45. Durham U., Duncannon to Grey (priv.), Nov. 19, 1834, Grey Papers.

46. Duncannon to Melbourne, Dec. 18, 1834, in Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 229–30Google Scholar.

47. BM, Melbourne to Holland, Jan. 21, 1835, Holland House Papers. The Holland House Papers were not yet catalogued when read.

48. BM, Duncannon to Wellesley (priv.), Jan. 30, 1835, Wellesley Papers, Add. MSS, 37311, fols. 232–33.

49. PRO, Palmerston to Russell, Jan. 22, 1835 (typescript copy), Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1E, fol. 10; Lansdowne to Russell (priv.), Feb. 1, 1835, ibid., fol. 17.

50. BM, Littleton to Wellesley, Jan. 14, 1835, Wellesley Papers, Add. MSS 37311, fol. 216.

51. BM, Duncannon to Wellesley (priv.), Jan. 22, 1835, ibid., fols. 221–22; Littleton to Wellesley, Jan. 23, 1835, ibid., fols. 225–26.

52. University College, Dublin, Warburton to O'Connell, Jan. 20, 1835, O'Connell Papers; BM, Melbourne to Holland (priv.), Jan. 16, 1835, Holland House Papers; Melbourne to Holland, Jan. 21, 1835, ibid.; Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, Hobhouse to Melbourne, Jan. 19, 1835, Melbourne Papers, Box 12. I have to acknowledge the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen to make use of the Melbourne Papers.

53. BM, Duncannon to Wellesley (priv.), Jan. 30, 1835, Wellesley Papers, Add. MSS, 37311, fols. 232–33; PRO, Lansdowne to Russell (priv.), Feb. 1, 1835, Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1E, fol. 17.

54. PRO, Lord Ellenborough's diary, Jan. 30, 1835, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/28/5, fol. 154.

55. PRO, Lansdowne to Russell (priv.), Feb. 1, 1835, Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1E, fols. 17–19.

56. PRO, Grey to Melbourne, Feb. 1, 1835, ibid., fol. 21.

57. N.L. of S., Grey to Ellice, Jan. 22, 1835, Ellice Papers, E/19, fol. 50.

59. PRO, Lord Howick to Russell, Feb. 3, 1835, ibid., fols. 25–26.

60. Durham U., Melbourne to Grey (priv.), Feb. 6, 1835, Grey Papers; Melbourne to Grey (confid.), Jan. 23, 1835, ibid.

61. Durham U., Melbourne to Grey (confid.), Feb. 6, 1835, ibid.

62. BM, Melbourne to Holland, Feb. 10, 1835, Holland House Papers.

63. The source of these funds has not been ascertained. But there were a number of applications addressed to Hobhouse, Ellice, and Thomas Drummond at Cleveland Square which referred to the Whig “electoral committee.” BM, Edmund Temple to Hobhouse, Dec. 29, 1834, Broughton Papers, Add. MSS, 47227, fol. 98; Lord Breadalbane to Hobhouse, Jan. 6, 1835, ibid., fol. 116; R. Gordon to Drummond, Jan. 14, 1835, ibid., fols. 137–38; Duncannon to Hobhouse (priv.), Nov. 26 [1834], ibid., fols. 75–76; Duncannon to Hobhouse (priv.), Jan. 16, 1835, ibid., fols. 146–47.

64. University College, Dublin, Warburton to O'Connell, Jan. 30, 1835, O'Connell Papers.

65. N.L. of S., Grey to Ellice, Jan. 22, 1835, Ellice Papers, E/19, fols. 49–50; PRO, Duke of B[edford] to Russell, Thurs. [late Jan. or early Feb. 1835], Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1C, fols. 151–52.

66. University College, London, Russell to Brougham, Feb. 18 [1835], Brougham Papers; Durham U., Russell to Grey, Jan. 22, 1835, Grey Papers.

67. Russell to Spring Rice, Jan. 23, 1835, in Russell, R., Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell, II, 74–75Google Scholar; Spring Rice to Russell, Jan. 29, 1835, in ibid., II, 78–80.

68. BM, Russell to Holland, Feb. 4 [1835], Holland House Papers.

69. Macintyre contends that Russell was deeply implicated in the association with Radicals and Repealers from its inception; that his biographer, Spencer Walpole, tried to exonerate him from any such involvement; and that Russell's vacillating remarks to Melbourne and others were surreptitious pretense designed to mollify Melbourne and to protect “the official Whig leadership from any possibly harmful effects of the plan [to associate with Radicals and Repealers].” Macintyre, , The Liberator, pp. 141–42Google Scholar. The evidence he produces to verify this contention follows: “Before Warburton sent out the circulars, Hobhouse, in the thick of the plot as the liaison between the Whigs and the English Radicals, told Ellenborough that the Opposition had formed two committees, ‘one of Whigs [Russell, Spencer, Spring Rice, Duncannon and Hobhouse himself], the other of Radicals [O'Connell, Warburton, Hume, and Gillon] which were to communicate upon every measure prepared by either Party.’“ ibid., Macintyre's brackets. It is extremely unlikely that Hobhouse, who, to be sure, was corresponding with Radicals and Repealers, should have revealed opposition plans to Ellenborough who was in the Tory cabinet as President of the Board of Control. The document from Ellenborough's diary which Macintyre cites actually reads as follows: “Henry [Goulburn?] told me H. Hobhouse said there were two committees, one of Whigs, the other of Radicals which were to communicate upon every measure proposed by either party. Ld. Spencer, Ld. J. Russell, [John Cam] Hobhouse, S. Rice, Duncannon and P. Methuen are on the Whig Committee. O'Connell, Hume and Gillon on that of the Radicals. Warburton must be likewise of the Committee for he is to be the Radical leader.” PRO, Ellenborough's diary, Feb. 2, 1835, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/28/5, fol. 158. My brackets and italics.

So Ellenborough derived this rumor thirdhand, through Henry Hobhouse, the Tory, not John Cam Hobhouse, the Whig. The reliability of the document as evidence of the existence of a formal Whig committee of which Russell was a member is further vitiated by the fact that Spencer, who is listed as a member of the supposed Whig committee, was not in London until after the contest on the speakership. He did encourage Russell to consent to oppose Manners-Sutton as speaker and then to consent to an amendment to the King's Speech. Spencer to Russell, Wiseton, Jan. 28, 1835, in Russell, R., Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell, II, 76–77Google Scholar. But he did not attend the opening of Parliament since he did not want to give the impression of being a leader of the party. He had already decided to retire from politics and had told Melbourne so when the Whig Government was dismissed. BM, Spencer to Holland, Feb. 9, 1835, Holland House Papers. Furthermore, Spring Rice, also listed as a member of the supposed Whig committee, informed Stanley, only three days after Ellenborough's entry in the diary, of his opposition to the Whigs' flirtations with Radicals and Repealers. Stanley to Graham, Feb. 5, 1835, Graham Papers. Spring Rice even resented Russell's having asked him who his choice would be for speaker, since he wanted the honor himself. PRO, Spring Rice to Spencer (copy), Jan. 13, 1835, Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1E, fol. 9.

70. Royal Archives, Hobhouse to Melbourne, Jan. 19, 1835, Melbourne Papers, Box 12.

Duncannon had encouraged Hobhouse to establish a working relationship with Radicals and Repealers, and he may have conceived the idea of a meeting of all the opposition. BM, Duncannon to Hobhouse (priv.), Jan. 16, 1835, Broughton Papers, Add. MSS, 47227, fols. 146–47; Duncannon to Hobhouse (priv.), Jan. 24, 1835, ibid., fols. 156–57; Duncannon to Hobhouse (priv.), Jan. 31 [1835], ibid., fols. 160–61.

71. Walpole, Spencer, The Life of Lord John Russell (London, 1889), I, 219Google Scholar; University College, Dublin, Warburton to O'Connell, Feb. 3, 1835, O'Connell Papers.

72. O'Connell to Russell, Feb. 13, 1835, in Russell, R., Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell, II, 92–94.Google Scholar

73. Duncannon to Russell (priv.), Tues. (Feb. 17, 1835), in Walpole, , Russell, I, 222–23Google Scholar.

74. Durham U., Lord Howick's Journal, Feb. 18, 1835, Grey Papers.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Strachey, Lytton and Fulford, Roger (eds.), The Greville Memoirs 1814–1860 (London, 1938), III, 168Google Scholar.

78. Varying accounts are offered for the origin of the term “compact.” Perhaps the most plausible is to be found in McCullagh, W. T., Memoirs of the Right Honourable Richard Lalor Sheil (London, 1855), II, 209Google Scholar. The author states that Sheil used the term at one of the meetings at Lord Lichfield's, remarking to those assembled “that no personal jealousies or minor differences would be permitted to mar their compact and cordial alliance.” Sheil used the term once again, in public, whereafter it was misconstrued so as to suggest some illicit collaboration.

79. 3 Hansard 26: 56–61 (19 Feb., 1835).

80. Durham U., Russell to Grey, Feb. 28, 1835, Grey Papers.

81. PRO, H. G. Ward to Russell, Feb. 18, 1835, Russell Papers, PRO 30/22/1E, fols. 33–34.

82. Durham U., Duncannon to Grey, Feb. 5, 1835, Grey Papers.

83. Although it is impossible to give a precise figure for Stanley's numerical support, at least forty members met with him on the evening of the King's Speech. PRO, Ellenborough's diary, Feb. 24, 1835, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/28/5, fols. 199–200. In the debate on the amendment, it was a peculiar twist to find O'Connell supporting the Whigs while Stanley sought to sustain the Tory Government. But most significant were O'Connell's terms for supporting a future Whig government. He would dispense with agitation for repeal of the Union if that government would amend the Irish Reform Act, appropriate surplus church revenues, and reform Irish municipal corporations. 3 Hansard 26: 394–408 (26 Feb., 1835).

84. Melbourne seemed to convey this by asking Russell whether he would "be satisfied with Duncannon's bill for the present and with leaving future measures to future discussion and consideration.” Melbourne to Russell (confid.), Feb. 12, 1835, in Russell, R., Early Correspondence of Lord John Russell, II, 91Google Scholar. Duncannon, as Home Secretary in Melbourne's first administration, had drawn a bill for Irish tithe reform which, because of the dismissal, was never presented to Parliament. Duncannon's bill included provisions for the suspension of non-cure parishes and provided that any surplus that was to accrue to the ecclesiastical commissioners was to be employed “for such purposes as Education and Charity as Parliament shall from time to time direct.” BM, “Plans for the Draft of a Bill,” [Nov. 1834], Wellesley Papers, Add. MSS, 37307, fols. 185–86; Duncannon to Littleton (priv.), Oct. 2, 1834, ibid., fols. 181–82.

85. Durham U., Grey to Russell, Mar. 11, 1835, Grey Papers.

86. Baines, Edward, The Life of Edward Baines, Late M.P. of the Borough of Leeds (London, 1851), pp. 211–12Google Scholar.

87. Torrens, W. M., Memoirs of the Right Honourable William Second Viscount Melbourne (London, 1878), II, 106Google Scholar.

88. Graham to Howick (priv. and confid.), Mar. 13, 1835, Graham Papers.

89. Strachey, and Fulford, , Greville Memoirs, III, 180.Google Scholar

90. 3 Hansard 27: 772–77 (2 Apr., 1835), 861–64, 969–74 (7 Apr., 1835).

91. BM, King William to Peel, Mar. 30, 1835, Peel Papers, Add. MSS, 40303, fol. 120.

92. PRO, Ellenborough's diary, Apr. 8, 1835, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/28/5, fol. 266.

93. Melbourne to Spencer, (Apr.) 1835, in Le Marchant, , Althorp, p. 538Google Scholar.

94. Graham, , “Lichfield House Compact,” I.H.S., XII, 225Google Scholar.

95. Melbourne to King William, Apr. 15, 1835, in Sanders, , Melbourne's Papers, pp. 274–75Google Scholar.

96. Ellice to Lord Durham (confid.), Sat., Apr. 11 (1835), in Aspinall, , Brougham, p. 296Google Scholar; Staffordshire Record Office, Littleton's diary, Sat., Apr. 11, 1835, Hatherton Papers, D/260/M/F/26/9, fols. 80–81; Torrens, , Melbourne, II, 121Google Scholar; Durham U., Lord Howick's Journal, Apr. 11, 1835, Grey Papers.

97. 3 Hansard 27: 999 (18 Apr., 1835).

98. PRO, Ellenborough's diary, Apr. 12, 1835, Ellenborough Papers, PRO 30/12/28/5, fols. 274–75.