Métodos

- 76 -

The odds were already set against Byron. Indeed, as Marchand observesi

Just how radical that position was It Is difficult now to realise unless we refer It to hysterical periods In our own more recent history when It has taken a brave man to stand up against popular fears and prejudices and speak out for the constitutional rights of free speech. Some Indication of what a lone wolf Byron really was on this occasion will be seen In the fact that Cartwright could not get the Reform Whig leader Whitbread to present the petition In the lower house.^

Nonetheless, Byron was at pains to point out the 'firm, yet respectful

language' In which the Petition was couched, adding that it was 'the highest

mark of respect that could be paid to the House, that to /its/ justice, rather

than by appeal to any Inferior court' Cartwright had committed himself. The

House chose to think otherwise; and this very point was raised by Earls

Fitzwilliam and Lauderdale as an objection to receiving the Petition. Byron

gives a synopsis of Cartwright's complaint and concludest

Your lordships will, I hope, adopt some measure fully to protect and redress him, and not him alone, but the whole body of the people insulted and aggrieved in his person, by the interposition of an abuse civil, and unlawful military force between them and their right of petition to their own representatives.

Notice again how he lifts the issue from the local and specific to the

general; the threat is not only to the rights of the individual but to those

of 'the whole body of the people', of which that individual is but a represen­

tative. Byron had one supporter in the House, Earl Stanhope - 'Citizen

Stanhope', as he was known popularly - who was, like Cartwright, one of the

first champions of parliamentary reform. Needless to say, the Petition was

rejected; but the reasons for its rejection do not owe themselves to tiny fault

of Byron's. They rested upon the point mentioned above (that no inferior

court had been approached in the first instance); the absence of a 'Prayer', it

was rather 'the written speech of the individual who had signed it' — Lauderdale;

and upon 'the censure on the conduct of a most respectable magistrate (Nr.

Radcliffe), who had acted in such a manner as to deserve praise, instead of

reproach' - the Duke of Norfolk (himself a subscriber to the London Hampden

- 77 -

Club), with which Sidmouth, coming in late to the debate, concurred, Hie

technical reason (the 'Prayer'), and the almost formal support for the 'most

respectable magistrate' (i.e. prevailing justice and authority), lessen the

ignominy of Byron's defeat, Indicating as they seem to do the Government's

prejudiced attitude. To reject an issue on the grounds of formalities is a

neat way of a weak or partial Government avoiding the necessity of discussing

it. For once, brief as his comments are, Byron is without 'impudence' or

defiance; he is completely low-key, factual and restrained - no 'fancy', no

display of 'wit*. Indeed the 'abuse' (see post) which he received came quite

gratuitously and without provocation from Lauderdale; 'This was not the fair

mode of petitioning, but would have only became /sic/ the noble Lord to have

moved as a peer'. This spiteful remark perhaps suggests some undercurrent

hostility to the Poet-Peer, besides the individual he was representing. For

the first time, Byron actually answered his critics (i.e. spoke-spontaneously)

by asking 'What was the necessity of a prayer?' and re-iterating the 'respectful

language' of the Petition, As hopeless as he obviously realized his position

was, he did not lose his self-control.

As early as March 1813 ** that is, not much above a year since his first

speech, and three months only before his presentation of Major Cartwright's

Petition. Byron was tiring of parliamentary life. He wrote to Lord Holland;

'I have neither the verve nor the "copia fandi"^ to rival Lord Ellenborough in o

Moloch-like declamation in the House'. And, to his sister a day later, he

writes; 'my parliamentary schemes are not much to my taste - I spoke twice

Session - & was told it was well enough - but I hate the thing altogether -

3

and have no intention to "strut another hour" on that stage', 123

1, Richness of expression or, 'copiousness of declamation', LJ, IX, 43« 2, To Lord Holland, March 25» 1813» L J . Ill, 30/31»

- 7* -

These comments are revealing. To Lord Holland, Byron is self-critloal -

he lacks self-confidence, energy and ability. But in so far as he qualifies

this with 'to rival Lord Ellenborough in Moloch-like declamation' his criticism

is barbed. For clearly, given the terms of the rivalry (its 'Moloch-like'

quality) participation was distasteful to him. This is why he 'hate/c^ the

thing altogether'. It was too bloody. Later he wrote to Hunt '"PoliticsI" -

the barking of the wardogs for their carrion has sickened me of them for the

present.''1' His comment to his sister is more openly critical of parliament!

it is a stage, removed from real life. For Byron this meant creating a persona,

or pose, which was no more his real self than were the poses in his poetry.

One is reminded again of Sheridan's 'would but grow a parliament m a n ' (emphasis

added), Parliament required not that he be himself, but that he wear a mask.

As he later wrote to Douglas Kinnairdi 'You have not hypocrisy enough for a

politician'. Given his loathing of 'cant' and his desire to express himself

in his own person, this stage sense of parliament is an important factot to

bear in mind as a reason for his ceasing in the House. This stage vocabulary

is repeated in his Journal!

I have declined presenting the Debtor's Petition, being sick of parliamentary mummeries. I have spoken thrice; but I doubt my ever becoming an orator. My first was likedj - the second and third - I don't know whether they succeeded or not. I have never yet set it con amore; - one must have some excuse to oneself for laziness, or inability, or both, and this is mine. "Company, villainous company, hath been the spoil of mej" - and then, I "have drunk medicines," not to make me love others, but certainly enough to hate myself.3

And againi 'Baldwin is boring me to present their King's Bench Petition. I

presented Cartwright's last year; and Stanhope and I stood against the whole

House, and mouthed it valiantly,'^ Notice the 'mummeries' and the 'mouthed'i

the one suggests the futile acting out of certain expected gestures; the 1234

1. To Leigh Hunt, May-June 1, 1815, ££• IV, 295« 2. To Douglas Kinnaird, February 3» 1817, LJ. V, 168. 3. LJ. Ill, 206.

4. LJ. Ill, 228/2291 The Debtor's Petition and the King's Bench Petition