Chapter 2190 - 244: An Old Friend of the Canadian People: Sir Arthur Hastings

In Britain in 1837, although the Radical Liberal Party had not yet formed a unified organization, its members could still be divided into several major camps according to their political demands.

First were the Ireland Radical Party centered around Daniel O’Connell, leader of the Irish Nationalism Movement. After the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed, these Irish who had previously been barred from entering the Lower House because of their religious faith not only successfully secured a dozen or so seats there, but also reached a political alliance with the Whig Party. They used their support for the Whig Party as leverage in exchange for leniency and concessions from the Whig Government on Ireland policy.

Besides the Ireland Radical Party, another clearly bannered Radical group was the London University System, bound together by the University of London.

This faction was centered on figures such as Upper House Member Lord Brougham, Earl of Dalmo, and Lower House Members George Grotte and Henry Warburton, all of them members of the University of London Board. Although the number of seats they held was not as large as that of the Ireland Radical Party, the existence of the University of London meant that their voice in Britain far surpassed that of other Radical factions.

Many of the people who supported this faction, though not Members of either House, wielded considerable influence in philosophy and natural philosophy. Representative among them were the University of London Professor of Political Economy and leading figure of the Ricardo school, John McCulloch; the University of London Professor of Geography and Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, Alexander MacKennochi; as well as Eld and Arthur’s teachers—University of London Professor of Greek and Secretary of the London Central Education Association, George Lang; and Professor of Latin, Fellow of the Royal Society, and President of the London Philological Association, Thomas Key, and so on.

Although these scholars were not Members of Parliament and their influence was confined to the academic sphere, that did not mean they could not exert pressure on the Government.

For many among them had received offers of Government appointments more than once. For instance, former University of London Professor of Jurisprudence John Austin entered the Royal Criminal Law committee after resigning his chair, and Arthur often dealt with him in his daily work.

And once the Ireland Radical Party and the London University System were excluded, the remaining radicals mostly appeared as lone operators. Although they would occasionally form short-lived alliances around particular bills, on most issues they tended to take pride in their independence.

Such figures usually came from the medical profession, where materialist tendencies were pronounced. For example, Joseph Hume, who, ever since first being elected in 1812, had continuously opposed the Government in the Lower House. Or Thomas Wickerly, founder of The Lancet.

However, Arthur today probably had neither the interest nor the nerve to pay a call on Vickery.

For at that Lower House questioning, Vickery did far more than grill Lord Russell, Minister of Internal Affairs, over the Canada problem; he had also slammed onto the table the reports concerning the new Police Bill Draft.

By the rules, Arthur was under no obligation to attend the Lower House questioning. He was neither a Member of Parliament nor a Cabinet member; responsibility for the bill lay with the Home Secretary, and the Police Commissioner Committee was merely a consultative body of the Home Office, not directly answerable to the Lower House.

So institutionally speaking, even if Arthur ought, in principle, to bear full responsibility for the Police Bill Draft, he could still have sat comfortably in his office, sipping tea and enjoying the breeze along the Thames River.

However!

Institutions were one thing, rules another; from a political perspective, it was best not to refuse the Lower House’s "needs."

For the unwritten rule of British politics had always been that anyone who dared not come before the Lower House was tacitly presumed to have a guilty conscience.

All the more so given how viciously Vickery had phrased his remarks that day.

"If this bill were being proposed not in London, but in Vienna, Berlin, or St. Petersburg, I would not be surprised. But in Britain? In the Lower House? In 1837? Gentlemen, in my view this is an attempt to turn us into a police state. Of course, if Sir Arthur Hastings is willing to attend the hearing voluntarily and clear up my doubts, then I believe that would hardly be a bad thing for the Government."

It was precisely because of this statement from Vickery that Arthur had no choice but to appear in the Lower House.

Lord Russell, Minister of Internal Affairs, was counting on him to come help absorb some of the bullets; the Home Office Legal Advisor wanted to heap a bit more burden onto this policing expert; Fleet Street, for its part, seized the opportunity to hype the matter, vowing to use the pretext of transparent government to force him into "hanging himself" at Westminster.

Perhaps it was also for this reason that Arthur had been so theatrically sarcastic in front of Earl of Dalmo that day, using his performance at the questioning to mock the "utterly irresponsible" Lord Russell.

After all, he had already taken all the bullets of his life under the Tower of London back in 1832—why should he once again have to step out and take fire for the Home Office?

Even if, to concede the point, this time the whole affair was indeed of his making, was it not still done out of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, to cover up that bit of gossip involving her and Viscount Melbourne?

Of course, if one were to be blunt, Arthur was not entirely unable to understand why these people were so eager to push him into the flames.

After all, both Earl of Dalmo and Lord Brougham had fallen.

As for the Conservative Party?

Peel, though in favor of police reform, had no reason to step forward and wade into muddy waters; on the contrary, he could wait until Arthur had been duly criticized and then emerge looking like the good man, brandishing one of his beloved compromise schemes.