Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 22.djvu/336

 of the committee of four to whom was entrusted the preparation of the first Reform Bill, though when the measure came before parliament his speech was pronounced to be a failure.

On the dissolution in 1831 Graham found that his constituents proposed to run a second liberal candidate for the county, a Cumberland yeoman, William Blamire, the companion of his own early days. Graham feared that this might imperil his seat, and showed the impatience of an aristocratic whig by asking, ‘Am I to carry Blamire on my back?’ The answer was given, ‘Take care that Blamire hasn't to carry thee,’ and this incident is characteristic of the cause of Graham's political failure. Polished, cultivated, and capable, he was convinced that he was one of the class who had the right to govern England; he was too cold and unsympathetic to put himself frankly into connection with that popular sentiment which he claimed to express, and whose applause was almost necessary to his happiness. However, on this occasion his petulance was forgiven, and he and Blamire were elected.

After the passing of the Reform Bill Graham was enabled to carry out still more vigorously his reforms at the admiralty. In 1834 there were signs of disunion in the cabinet, which displayed itself significantly in a debate on Hume's motion on the corn law. As it was impossible to deal with the question fully, Graham undertook to oppose it on behalf of the ministry, but in the course of his speech his rhetoric carried him beyond the limits of the actual question, and he was attacked as retrograde by Mr. Poulett Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade. This was the first indication that Graham was receding from the position of an advanced reformer. In the same session he introduced a bill for the reform of the exchequer office, which was lost in committee. This was his last attempt at financial reform. When the government showed an inclination to meddle with the revenues of the Irish church, Graham joined Mr. Stanley (afterwards earl of Derby) in resigning office. He was convinced of the need of an established church, and was of opinion that constitutional changes had gone far enough.

On the fall of the whig ministry Graham was offered office by Sir Robert Peel, but refused. At the election of 1835 he defended himself to his constituents, and spoke with considerable asperity of his late colleagues. For this he was attacked when parliament met, and in the debate which followed, O'Connell quoted Canning's line in reference to Lord Stanley and his friends, ‘The Derby Dilly carrying six insides.’ The name stuck and gave point to the ridicule with which the independent position of Graham was now assailed. His naturally haughty and sensitive temper felt the taunts of his former friends. At last, on 30 June, after a vote given by Graham against the ministry on an unimportant amendment, as he was about to cross the floor of the house to his accustomed seat, a cry was raised on the ministerial side, ‘Stay, stay.’ Pale with anger, Graham proudly took his seat on the opposition side, and from that time approached nearer and nearer to the principles of the conservative party. His change of front was not approved by his constituents, and, in spite of his distinction and his local influence, he was rejected by the Cumberland electors in the election of 1837. He deeply felt this rejection, for local patriotism was strong in the north of England, nowhere stronger than in Cumberland, and Graham was proud of his local popularity. He was singularly dependent on outward surroundings, and his natural coldness and haughtiness increased before the consciousness of hostility. A seat was found for him at Pembroke early in 1838, but he went back to parliament an embittered man.

In the same year Graham was elected lord rector of the university of Glasgow against the Duke of Sussex. His inaugural address was a failure, and by an allusion to the relations between church and state he turned his audience against him. In spite of his polished style of oratory Graham was ineffective outside of the region of politics. In the House of Commons his speeches were increasingly distinguished by the asperity of their invective against Lord Melbourne and his ministry, and in a speech in favour of Sir Robert Peel's motion of want of confidence in 1841 his rhetoric against his old friends was inexcusably savage. Lord Melbourne was defeated, and in the following election a seat was secured for Graham at Dorchester. In Sir Robert Peel's administration he undertook the post of home secretary (September 1841), a post scarcely well suited to one who was so little conciliatory in manner and so rash in utterance. An important question with which he had to deal was the threatened disruption of the Scottish church on the subject of patronage. The cabinet resolved to uphold the existing condition of the law and make no concessions. Graham's supercilious manner in dealing with representatives from Scotland and in announcing the decision of the cabinet was singularly unfortunate, and was greatly responsible for creating the feeling of hard usage which led to the secession of the Free kirk. In the ses-