removal to the House of Lords as anything like a fitting
excuse for the break-up of the whole Government. More than that, Peel
had no confidence in the chances of a new Conservative Administration
just then. It was not encouraging to a statesman about to form his
first Cabinet to have to believe, as Peel did, that such a Government
would be left very much at the mercy of the Opposition, and in more
than one important or even impending question might at any time be
outvoted in the House of Commons. None the less, however, was Peel
resolved to stand by his sovereign, who appeared to be in a difficulty.
The same sense of public duty, according to his conception of public
duty, which guided him at every great crisis of his political career
decided his action in this instance. He set himself to the work of
forming an Administration in which he proposed to take under his own
charge the functions of {238} Prime Minister and the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knew that he could count on the
support of the Duke of Wellington, and to Wellington he offered the
post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which was at once accepted.
Then he wrote to Sir James Graham and to Lord Stanley. Both refused.
Sir James Graham, although he declined to accept office, promised Peel
all the support he could give consistently with his own judgment and
his own political views. Lord Stanley wrote a letter to Peel which has
even still both historical and personal interest. Its historical
interest consists in the clear exposition it contains of the various
questions which then divided the two great parties in the State. Its
personal interest is found in the fact that it shows Lord Stanley as
the convinced reformer, who sees no possibility of his joining an
Administration about to be created by a statesman whose whole career
has been antagonistic to political reform. Those of us who remember
the brilliant orator Lord Derby, by whom the office of Prime Minister
was three times held, find it hard to think of him as anything but a
steady-going Conservative at heart, and may be excused a shock of
surprise when they are bidden to remember that in 1834 the same man,
then Lord Stanley, declared that he could not serve under Peel because
Peel was not reformer enough all round to secure his co-operation.
Lord Stanley pointed out, in his letter, that between Peel and himself
there had been a complete difference of opinion on almost every great
pu