enches, vociferated and gesticulated against each
other, heedless of the fines and threats of the bewildered President,
and altogether reproduced a scene of the French revolutionary
Assembly.' Mr. Llewelyn Davies was the unfortunate President on this
occasion, and mentions that my brother commemorated the scene in a
'heroic ballad' which has disappeared.
From the minutes of the Society[54] 'I learn further details of this
historic scene. The debate (November 27, 1849) arose upon a motion in
favour of Cobden. His panegyrist made 'such violent interruptions' that
a motion was made for his expulsion, but carried by an insufficient
majority. Another orator then 'became unruly' and was expelled by a
superabundant majority, while the original mover was fined 2_l._ The
motion was then unanimously negatived, 'the opener not being present to
reply.' From the records of other debates I learn that Fitzjames was in
favour of the existing Church Establishment as against advocates of
change, whether high churchmen or liberationists. He also opposed
motions for extension of the suffrage, without regard to education or
property, moved by Sir W. Harcourt. He agrees, however, with Harcourt in
condemning the game laws. His most characteristic utterance was when the
admirer of Cobden had moved that 'to all human appearance we are
warranted in tracing for our own country through the dim perspective of
coming time an exalted and glorious destiny.' Fitzjames moved as an
amendment 'that the House, while it acknowledges the many dangers to
which the country is exposed, trusts that through the help of God we may
survive them.' This amendment was carried by 60 to 0.
The other society was one which has included a very remarkable number of
eminent men. In my undergraduate days we used to speak with bated breath
of the 'Apostles'--the accepted nickname for what was officially called the
Cambridge Conversazione Society. It was founded about 1820, and had
included such men as Tennyson (who, as my brother reports, had to leave
the Society because he was too lazy to write an essay), the two younger
Hallams, Maurice, Sterling, Charles Buller, Arthur Helps, James
Spedding, Monckton Milnes, Tom Taylor, Charles Merivale, Canon
Blakesley, and others whom I shall have to mention. The existence of a
society intended to cultivate the freest discussion of all the great
topics excited some suspicion when, about 1834, there was a talk of
abolishing tests. It wa
|