Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 28rd of July. In

his speech he thanked both houses for their expressions of sympathy and

affectionate attachment, conveyed to him on the demise of his lamented

brother, and on his accession; and said that he ascended the throne with

a deep sense of the sacred duties which devolved upon him, and with a

humble and earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he would prosper his

anxious endeavours to promote the happiness of a free and loyal people.

His majesty referred to the Catholic Relief bill, expressing a hope

that it would put an end to religious feuds; and declaring that he was

determined to support the Protestant religion as by law established. On

the next day parliament was dissolved by proclamation, and writs were

ordered to be issued for the election of a new one, returnable on the

14th of September.

STATE OF PARTIES.

The session just closed had broken up the alliance which enabled

ministers to retain office; and as this alliance, whilst it lasted,

seemed to widen the breach between them and their ancient friends,

they were destined, in the ensuing elections, to meet with a formidable

opposition. To oust the ministry was the avowed object of the Whigs, and

whoever professed the same object was their friend. The hostility of the

Tories rested on different grounds from that of the Whigs, but it was

equally formidable. The ministry, therefore, was forced to an election

in face of the combined opposition of the two parties—by playing off

one of which against the other it had flattered itself with being able

to retain its power. Yet the opposition was not stated on any special

ground. The manifestoes of the Whigs attacked it on the ground of

incapacity; but in what they were incapable was not shown. The Duke of

Wellington was said by them to be a domineering soldier, unfitted to

conduct alone the government of the nation, yet determined to surround

himself with men of mean capacity and dependent spirit, who would act as

the unreflecting instruments of his will. Such were the views put forth

by the Whigs, and though the offended Tories did not deliberately act

in union with them, yet their influence operated in the same

direction—namely, to overthrow the ministry. This general spirit of

opposition suddenly gained an addition of strength by a revolution in

France. The ministers of Charles X., discovering that the new elections

increased the number of their opponents, broke through the fences of the

constitution, with a determination to establish a species of Prussian

government, in which the material interests of the people should

dominate over those that are intellectual and political. A royal

ordinance abolished the liberty of the press; cancelled the existing

system of representation; and fashioned for the kingdom a new system of

election, which would produce a chamber of deputies more subservient to

the royal will. Paris rose in arms against these decrees, and the rabble

overcame the troops. Charles X. and his descendants were then excluded

from the throne by the deputies then in Paris, and the French crown

was presented by them at the same time to the Duke of Orleans. This

revolution in France was followed by another in Belgium, where a

national congress declared Belgium an independent state, excluded the

house of Orange from the throne, and set themselves about the election

of a new king. These events were hailed in England by the Whigs with

applause, as the dawning of a new and glorious era in the history of

man. Public meetings were held to pass resolutions commending the spirit

with which the Parisians had shaken off encroaching despotism, and

deputations were sent to congratulate them on their triumph. The people

of England were especially called on to remark how little they had to

fear from military power, since the citizens of Paris and Brussels

had been able to set it at defiance. It was also stated that they were

clearly entitled to be heard in the government, since it was in their

power to make the government what they chose. The excitement produced

by these events, indeed, acted in the elections very unfavourably to

ministers; and it had also the effect of bringing forward the question

of parliamentary reform in a much more prominent and remarkable shape

than it had yet assumed. The force of example was now added to the

existing motives for change, and the notion of transferring the

privileges of a corrupt borough to an unrepresented place, or giving

the elective franchise to a populous town, was discarded. A wild and

indiscriminating change was abroad. Meetings, petitions, and addresses

were got up on every hand, advocating extensive alterations in our

representative system, all of which, however vague and indeterminate in

their respective conditions, tended to confer the elective rights on

a much larger proportion of the people than had hitherto enjoyed them.

Threats were even uttered that a refusal of these rights would lead to

a general convulsion, in which the privileged orders might possibly

be forced to yield more than was required. As a natural consequence

of these menaces and demands, disturbances took place throughout the

country. Lurking incendiaries wreaked their vengeance on property, the

destruction of which only tended to aggravate the prevailing distress.

Night after night they lighted up conflagrations, by which a large

quantity of grain, and even of live stock, was consumed. Bands of men,

also, still more daring than the incendiary, attacked machinery of

all kinds, particularly thrashing machines, the use of which became so

unpopular that insurance-offices refused a policy to those who kept them

on their premises. The military force was increased in the disturbed

counties, and a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of

five hundred pounds for the conviction of an incendiary. A special

commission, also, was ordered to proceed into those counties where the

outrages were committed. The first offenders that were seized, being

tried before county magistrates, met with lenity, from commiseration

for their starving condition. But this only increased the evil; and,

therefore, the government resolved to quell the riotous proceedings by

the strong arm of the law. They were aided in this work by the yeomanry

and fanners, who, mounting their horses and scouring the country, aided

the civil officers in the discovery and apprehension of offenders.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

It was under these gloomy circumstances that, on the 26th of October,

the new parliament met for the dispatch of business. The meeting of

parliament found parties precisely as they had been at the dissolution,

with this difference, that all the elements of opposition had acquired

new vigour by the course of events, while new topics had sprung up,

on which it would be forced to make a trial of strength. It appeared

certain that the question of reform would speedily be brought forward;

and the ministers may have hoped that such a discussion would restore to

their ranks their former adherents. The session opened in reality on

the 2nd of November, the intervening days being occupied in swearing

in members, and in the re-election of Mr. Manners Sutton as speaker. The

king attended on that day in person. In his speech his majesty alluded

to the important events which had occurred on the continent; to the

continuance of his diplomatic relations with the new French dynasty; to

the endeavours he was making to restore tranquillity in the Netherlands;

to the maintenance of those general treaties by which the political

system of Europe had been established; and to the hope of renewing

his diplomatic relations with Portugal, because the government of that

country had determined to perform a great act of justice and humanity by

the grant of a general amnesty. The remainder of his majesty’s address

referred to the estimates, the expiration of the civil list on the

demise of his late brother, and his own dependence upon the generosity

and loyalty of the house and the country.

The usual addresses were carried in both houses, though not without

signs of opposition to ministers on the subjects of reform and

retrenchment. Earl Grey, in allusion to that part of the address which

spoke of the proceedings in Belgium as a revolt against an enlightened

government, and expressed our determination to maintain in regard to it

those general treaties by which the political system of Europe had been

fixed, said, that all this sounded like threatened interference,

while our principle should have been, as in the case of France,

non-interference. He could not conceive why we should be bound by

treaties to interfere between Holland and the Low Countries. We ought to

learn wisdom from what had passed before our eyes; and when the spirit

of liberty was breaking out all around, it was our duty to secure our

own institutions by introducing into them a temperate reform. Unless we

did so, he was persuaded that we must make up our minds to witness the

destruction of the constitution. He had been a reformer all his life;

but at no period had he been inclined to go further than he would be

prepared to go now, if the opportunity offered. He did not found this

on abstract right. It was said that every man who paid taxes, nay,

that every man arrived at years of discretion, had a right to vote for

representatives. He denied this. The right of the people was to have

a good government, one calculated to secure their privileges and

happiness; and if that was incompatible with universal suffrage, then

the limitation, and not the extension, was the true right of the people.

In reply to Earl Grey on this subject, the Duke of Wellington went

beyond his usual prudence and reserve. He remarked:—“The noble earl has

alluded to something in the shape of a parliamentary reform; but he

has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any

measure of reform. I have as little scruple to say, that his majesty’s

government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my part

I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any

measure, up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy

my mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be

rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present

moment. I will not, however, at such an unseasonable time enter upon

the subject, or excite discussion; but I shall not hesitate to declare

unequivocally what are my sentiments upon it. I am fully convinced that

the country possesses at the present moment a legislature which answers

all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than

any legislature ever has answered in any country whatever. I will go

further, and say, that the legislature and the system of representation

possess the full and entire confidence of the country—deservedly

possess that confidence; and the discussions in the legislature have a

very great influence over the opinions of the country. I will go still

further, and say, that if at the present moment I had imposed upon me

the duty of forming a legislature for a country like this, in possession

of great property of various descriptions, I do not mean to assert that

I would form such a legislature as we possess now, for the nature of man

is incapable of reaching it at once; but my great endeavour would be to

form some description of the legislature which would produce the same

results. The representation of the people at present contains a large

body of the property of the country, in which the landed interest have a

predominating influence. Under these circumstances I am not prepared

to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble

lord. I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this

nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am concerned, as

long as I hold any station in the government of the country, I shall

always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.”

In the house of commons Mr. Brougham did not wait even till the address

was moved before he gave notice that, on the 16th, he would submit a

distinct proposition for a change in the representation. Sir Robert Peel

professed that he saw difficulties about the question which he was by

no means prepared to encounter. He wished, nevertheless, to say nothing

then which might prevent discussion hereafter, or interfere with its

advance towards a satisfactory termination. These declarations of

ministers spread widely the flames of discontent, which had already been

kindled against government; and the consequences appeared in formidable

combinations, both in and out of parliament, to embarrass ministers, and

thwart their measures.

DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THEIR MAJESTIES’ VISIT TO LONDON.

The embarrassment to which ministers were exposed was greatly increased

by a domestic occurrence. Some time before the meeting of parliament

the king and queen had promised to honour the lord-mayor’s feast at

Guildhall with their presence: great preparations had been made by the

citizens on the approach of that civic festival, and all London was on

tip-toe expectation of the splendid procession. On the 7th of November,

however, all their expectations were disappointed: the lord-mayor

received a note from the home-secretary, stating that his majesty had

resolved, by the persuasion of his ministry, to postpone his visit to a

future opportunity, because, from information recently received, “there

was reason to apprehend that, notwithstanding the devoted loyalty and

affection borne to his majesty by the citizens of London, advantage

would be taken of an occasion which must necessarily assemble a vast

number of persons by night to create tumult and confusion, and thereby

to endanger the property and lives of his majesty’s subjects; and it

would be a source of deep and lasting concern to their majesties were

any calamity to occur on the occasion of their visit to the city of

London.” This announcement filled the metropolis with doubt and alarm.

Men conceived that some atrocious conspiracy had come to light—that

a new gunpowder-plot had been discovered—and that the crisis of the

constitution and of the country had arrived. The funds fell three per

cent.; and in the country every man expected that the next mail would

bring intelligence that London was in a state of insurrection. All,

however, remained calm; and ministers were naturally called upon to

explain the grounds on which they had acted. It appeared that the

principal foundation of their proceedings was a note from some person

in private life, stating that he was apprehensive the Duke of Wellington

would not be very favourably received. Mr. John Key, lord-mayor elect,

wrote to his grace informing him that “in London, as well as in

the country, there was a set of desperate characters,” fond of every

opportunity of producing confusion, and that, according to information

received by him, some of these desperadoes intended to make an attack

on his grace’s person on his approach to the hall; and, therefore,

suggesting that his grace should come strongly and sufficiently guarded.

The Duke of Wellington stated in the house of lords, and Sir Robert

Peel in the commons, that on receiving this letter it was considered

an imperative duty to recommend to his majesty the postponement of his

visit to a future occasion. “But, besides the letter of the lord-mayor

elect to the Duke of Wellington,” remarked Sir Robert, “information had

been received that an attack was to be made on his house in the course

of the night, when the police were at a distance, under the pretence of

calling for lights to illuminate. Any such attack must be accompanied by

riot; and the attempt to suppress such riot by force, when the streets

were filled with women and children, must be accompanied by consequences

which all of us must lament. That, however, is only one of the causes

which I have for believing in the possibility of such an attempt at riot

taking place. Every one is aware that there exists in the public mind

considerable excitement against those authorities which have been

appointed, under the sanction of the house, to maintain the public

peace—I allude of course to the body which is known by the name of the

new police.” In the course of Saturday and Sunday the most industrious

attempts were made in various quarters to inflame the public mind

against the new police. Thousands of printed handbills were circulated

for the purpose of inciting the people against that portion of the

civil force which is entrusted with the preservation of the public

tranquillity. These were not written papers drawn up by illiterate

persons, and casually dropped in the streets, but printed handbills,

not ill adapted to the mischievous purposes which they were intended

to answer. After reading some of these missives, Sir Robert

continued:—“Now, after hearing the inflammatory language of the bills,

I call upon the house to consider how great the likelihood is that,

after the police had returned to their ordinary duties in their

respective portions of the town, a desperate attack would have been made

upon them. If it were made, it would of course be resisted by the civil

force; if the civil force were insufficient to repel it, military aid

would be called in; and then on that night of general festivity and

rejoicing, in the midst of crowds of unsuspecting men, women, and

children, there might be resistance, and if resistance bloodshed,

occasioned by the necessity of supporting civil authorities.” In reply,

Mr. Brougham observed that, so far as the statement made did not proceed

on the unpopularity of the Duke of Wellington, it amounted simply to

this—that it was a bad thing to have a large assembly on the 9th of

November; and for this reason, that though nine hundred and ninety-nine

men out of one thousand might be peaceable and loyally disposed, yet the

odd units, the few who were riotously inclined, might put out the lights

in the streets, might involve the town in darkness, and might afterwards

commence a scene of riot and confusion which could not end without

bloodshed. If this were any objection to his majesty’s attendance at the

civic festival, it was not an objection to which the course of events

had suddenly given birth within the last two or three days. Every one

must have known that such an event as the visit of his majesty to the

city of London must, from its rarity, collect thousands, if not myriads,

to witness it; so that any accident to which the metropolis was exposed

at present, from the collection of a large mass of people together,

must have been as palpable a month ago as at the present moment. In

the course of his speech Mr. Brougham contrasted with severity the

popularity of the king with the hostility exhibited towards the premier.

MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST.

It was now obvious that the duke’s administration had received a

shock from which it could not recover. The opposition made a final and

successful attack upon it on the 15th of November, when the chancellor

of the exchequer stated to the house his arrangement for the civil list,

which he proposed to raise to the annual sum of £970,000. They insisted

that government in many of its departments was extravagant, and, above

all, that the portion which was incurred on the personal account of the

monarch ought to be kept apart from every other item. Sir Henry Parnell

moved, “That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration

the estimates and accounts, presented by command of his majesty,

regarding the civil list.” The debate on this proposition was brief.

Messrs. Calcraft and Hemes, both members of government, opposed the

motion, chiefly on the ground that it had never been customary to submit

the civil list to a committee, and that retrenchment and simplification

had been earned as far as was practicable or prudent. The motion was

supported by Lord Althorp and Messrs. Bankes, Wynn, and Holme Sumner,

three of which members would in other times have been loath to lend

their votes to unseat a Tory ministry; and on a division there appeared

a majority in its favour of two hundred and thirty-three against two

hundred and four, thus defeating ministers. The consequence of this vote

was that on the next day the Duke of Wellington in the lords, and Sir

Robert Peel in the commons, announced that they had tendered, and his

majesty had accepted, their resignations, and that they continued to

hold their offices only until successors should be appointed. They

afterwards declared that they came to the resolution not so much on

account of the vote on the civil list as from anticipation of the result

of a division on Mr. Brougham’s proposition for reform, which stood

for the day on which this announcement was made. But if the civil list

question had not been deemed important enough to justify a resignation,

the majority that decided it showed a settled and stern system of

opposition, which must have convinced ministers that they could no

longer rule the country. At the request of his friends, Mr. Brougham

postponed his motion for reform till the 25th of November, professing to

do so with reluctance, “because he could not possibly be affected by

any change in administration.” He pledged himself to bring forward his

motion on the day appointed, whoever might be his majesty’s ministers.

He repeated the same declaration on a motion made by Sir M. W. Ridley to

postpone the consideration of election petitions till after Christmas;

but two days afterwards Mr. Brougham was gazetted as lord high

chancellor of Great Britain with a peerage.

FORMATION OF EARL GREY’S ADMINISTRATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831}

The Tories had lent their votes to displace the ministry, but they had

formed no plan, and taken no steps, to ensure to themselves any share

in the succession. Earl Grey was authorised by the king to form a new

administration, of which he himself should be the head; and his lordship

accepted the office on condition that he should have authority to make

parliamentary reform a cabinet measure. The ministry was formed in about

a week, and it consisted of Whigs, and of those who had been formerly

adherents of Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and who had held office

with the leading members of the displaced administration. The greatest

difficulty lay in managing Mr. Brougham, who had just declared that no

change could affect him, by which it was found he meant that no change

would bring him the offer of an office sufficiently high for his

ambition. Earl Grey was afraid to leave him neglected or discontented

in the lower house, and the honourable gentleman was determined not to

sacrifice his importance in that home for any subordinate office. The

negotiation ended in Mr. Brougham being made lord-chancellor—a striking

instance of the most important judicial functions in the empire being

entrusted, as the reward of merely political services, to a man who

possessed splendid talents, but who was unprovided with judicial

learning, and, above all, destitute of habits and capacity in judicial

thinking. No man pitied the fate of Sir James Scarlett, but many thought

the Irish chancellor, Sir Anthony Hart, who had stood impartially

between contending parties, harshly treated in being made to resign for

Lord Plunkett—the new premier considering it necessary to have an Irish

chancellor whom he could fully trust and employ in Irish politics. The

Duke of Richmond was the only leading member of the old Tory party who

entered the new cabinet, and he became postmaster-general. The other

members of government were as follows:—Lord Althorp was appointed to

lead the house of commons as chancellor of the exchequer; the offices of

home, foreign, and colonial secretaries were given respectively to Lords

Melbourne, Palmerston, and Goderich; Sir James Graham was made first

lord of the admiralty; Lord Lansdowne became president of the council,

and Lord Durham privy seal; Messrs. Denman and Home were attorney and

solicitors general; Lord Hill was commander-in-chief; Lord Auckland,

president of the board of trade, and Mr. C. Grant, of the board of

control; Lord Holland, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; the Duke

of Devonshire, lord chamberlain; the honourable Agar Ellis, chief

commissioner of the woods and forests; Mr. E. Grant, judge-advocate;

Lord John Eussell, paymaster of the forces; Mr. Poulett Thompson,

vice-president of the board of trade and treasurer of the navy; Sir

Edward Paget and Sir Robert Spencer, master and surveyor-general of the

board of ordnance; Mr. C. W. Wynne, secretary at war; and Messrs. Ellice

and Spring Rice appointed joint secretaries of the treasury. In Scotland

there were no offices liable to change except those of the lord-advocate

and the solicitor-general, the former of which was given to Mr. Jeffrey,

and the latter to Mr. Cockbum, both of them long-tried friends of the

lord-chancellor, and at the head of their profession. Ireland received,

as its chief governor, the Marquis of Anglesea, with Mr. Stanley

as secretary, Lord Plunkett as chancellor, and Mr. Pennefather,

attorney-general. It was necessary that the new ministers, who had

vacated their seats by taking office, should be re-elected, and this

afforded an opportunity to the radical party of showing their strength.

Thus Mr. Stanley was defeated at Preston by the notorious democrat,

Plenry Hunt. After the new ministry had secured seats, no business of

importance was transacted during the remainder of the year, except the

passing of a regency bill in conformity with the recommendation in the

speech from the throne. This bill had been introduced into the house

of lords on the day when the fate of the late cabinet was sealed in

the commons. It provided that in the event of a posthumous child of the

present queen, her majesty should be guardian and regent of the kingdom;

and that if such an event did not occur, then the Duchess of Kent was to

be guardian and regent during the minority of her daughter, the Princess

Victoria, the heir-presumptive. The princess herself was not to marry

while a minor without the consent of the king, or, if he died, without

the consent of both houses of parliament; and the regency was to be

at an end if the Duchess of Kent, while regent, married a foreigner. A

select committee was appointed on the 9th of December to inquire what

reduction could be made in the salaries and emoluments of offices

held during the pleasure of the crown by members of either house of

parliament, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon

to the house. On the 23rd both houses adjourned to the 3rd of

February—ministers declaring that a long adjournment was necessary,

in order to enable them to prepare the different measures which they

intended submitting to parliament, especially that plan of reform to

which they had pledged themselves on accepting office, and by which

alone they could hope to retain it.

DEATH OF MR. HUSKISSON.

Among the most interesting events of this year may be reckoned the

opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. It was, however,

attended by a lamentable catastrophe. Mr. Huskisson, as one of the

members for Liverpool, accompanied the Duke of Wellington in the

procession; and, neglecting the caution given to visitors against

leaving the carriages, he was knocked down by one of the returning

engines, and his leg was so dreadfully crushed, that amputation could

not be performed. He died of that disorder called tetanus, which

commonly occurs after extensive lacerated wounds. His character is

recorded in the previous pages of this history.

STATE OF FOREIGN NATIONS.

The revolutions in France and Belgium have already been noticed. The

spirit of insurrection displayed in these countries extended itself to

Leipsic, Dresden, Hesse-Cassel, Hamburgh, Berne, Basle, and Poland. In

this latter country, however, the insurrection did not arise from

civil discord, or political machinations, but rather from the harsh and

insulting proceedings of Duke Constantine, its viceroy. It was a light

to guide and warm a noble people to attempt their national redemption

from the hand of a foreign and tyrannical master. A contest took place

in the streets of Warsaw, between the people and the Russian troops,

and the latter were expelled the city. Subsequently the grand duke

was obliged to retire from the frontier, but not till it had been

represented to him that it was the universal wish of the nation that the

constitution should be carried into complete execution; that the promise

of Alexander should be fulfilled, of incorporating with Poland its

ancient provinces now under the dominion of Russia; but that no demands

pointed to the dethronement of the emperor as their king, in whose name

all the changes lately made in the government had been effected. The

Poles, however, being doubtful in what light Nicholas, Emperor of Eussia

would regard their proceedings, prepared for resistance, should he

be determined to treat them as rebels. General Klopicki was named

commander-in-chief of the army, and he soon found himself at the head

of a powerful force. All the Polish regiments joined the cause of the

people; but, divided and mutilated as Poland was, it seemed a hopeless

prospect for a portion of it to engage in a struggle with the gigantic

power of Russia. Fears were also entertained—and they were too soon

realised—that Austria and Prussia, in fear for their plunder, would be

adverse to its cause. Notwithstanding, the Poles made themselves ready

for the contest with stout hearts. To secure energy and promptitude in

their measures, they invested Klopicki, after the manner of the Romans

of old, with dictatorial power. But even in assuming this office, which

was to endure till the chambers of the diet, which were convoked for the

18th of December, could be assembled, the dictator disclaimed any design

on the part of Poland of throwing off its king, or of demanding anything

more than to enjoy under that king, an independent national existence,

with the free constitution which had been promised. “The Poles,” said

Klopicki, “know how to be faithful; and when all Europe abandoned him

before whose victorious eagles the nations had prostrated themselves,

the Polish battalions, firm in the hour of reverses, never ceased till

the last moment to range themselves round the fallen conqueror. But in

the present instance the power of evil had overstepped all bounds; it

was impossible to convey the language of truth to the head of the state;

flatterers, greedy of reward and prodigal of calumnies, gave us

every day new chains instead of liberty. Never was insurrection more

legitimate. No; the king himself will be forced to admit the justice of

our cause, when he comes to know the extent to which he was abused.” But

what could the unhappy Poles have expected from the mercy of the haughty

autocrat Nicholas? They sent two commissioners to St. Petersburg, in

order to attempt to arrange some terms of compromise; but the emperor

refused to listen to their representations, and issued proclamations in

which he threatened to inflict on the Poles the most severe punishment

for what he called “their horrid treason.” The year closed with a storm

thickly gathering over the unhappy country of Poland.

In Spain, Ferdinand deeply offended the Carlists by his abolition of the

salique law in favour of the child, if it should be a female, with which

his queen was pregnant, and thus gave rise to a war which long desolated

the northern provinces of Spain, as well as to the quadripartite treaty,

under which it was hoped that the country might enjoy the blessings of

a constitutional government. When the infant was born, it proved to be

a daughter, and the nation was called upon to proclaim Don Carlos

immediately. A civil war commenced; but the Carlists were at the close

of the year so far subdued as to leave the government in apparent

security. In Portugal, Don Miguel, still cut off from direct

communication with European sovereigns, except his brother of Spain,

continued, by means of special commissions, to take vengeance on those

of his subjects suspected of political delinquencies, and to supply

his wants by the confiscation of their property. Blood had, it is

true, ceased to flow; but a more terrible and lingering destruction was

ensured to his victims by their deportation to servitude in the African

settlements. In the beginning of the year about fifty persons, whose

only offence was that of being suspected of being malcontents, were

shipped off for Angola. These unhappy men, though of good families,

and respectable characters, were chained up with the most abandoned

ruffians, robbers, and assassins, and doomed to the same punishment. In

the middle passage, they were even stowed away in the smallest compass

possible, like the slaves of Africa, while the best places were assigned

to the malefactors; magistrates, members of the cortes, and other

reputable persons occupied the most deadly and pestilential berths.

Out of respect for their former situation in life, and pity for their

present sufferings, they were for some time spared the fatigues of hard

labours; but the superintendent soon received orders to discontinue this

lenity. Nor were the political prisoners confined in the dungeons at

Lisbon much better treated. They could scarcely obtain trials, and when

declared innocent, they could not gain their liberty. The treatment they

received may be seen from a petition which those confined in the castle

of St. Julian presented to Miguel against their jailer:—“The prisoners

of the tower of St. Julian have been lodged in the worst cells,

subterraneous, dark, exposed to rain and all weathers, and so damp that

it has frequently been necessary to strew the ground with furze, to

enable them to walk on it. They have occupied apartments only nine yards

long and three yards wide; and these being crowded, the temperature has

been raised to such a degree as to cause cutaneous eruptions, and other

complaints. Among these sufferers are the Spanish bishop, Dr. Diego

Munoiz Torrero, Doru. Ant. Pinho, and J. Ant. Cansado, these latter

being already declared innocent by the commissioners. In one of these

cells a complete inundation has occurred more than once, leaving a

continual dampness, and causing a consequent deterioration of health.

Besides this dreadful state, sir, the governor has ordered the windows

to be closed, to shut out the few spans of light of the heavens, and the

fresh air, the only remaining part of it being from the fissures of

the door, whereto the prisoners apply in turn their mouths, to breathe

particles of that air which the Almighty spreads so unsparingly to all

animals and living beings. Another cell, called the principal one, from

below, is also inhabited, and so dark that, let the sun be as brilliant

as possible, six lights will not suffice to lighten it, being twenty

steps below the surface of the ground. Such, sir, has been the

habitations of your prisoners, not for the space of a few days, but for

eighteen, twenty, and twenty-three months; whereas several other better

cells are occupied by only three or four prisoners.” The petition

further stated that the food given to them was of the most revolting

kind; and that those who were sick were thrust into solitary

confinement, in dungeons without light, without water, food, or bed,

and filled with vermin. But the heart of Miguel was steeled against this

petition. It was in vain that complaints were poured into his ears;

nor did the death of his mother, who had been blamed for much of this

cruelty, and who this year was called to her account at the bar of an

offended Maker, make any change in the proceedings of a disposition

which her maxims had deadened to the voice of mercy. Earl Grey, on

assuming the reins of government, very properly refused to make an

alliance with such an infamous usurper; notwithstanding, he was blamed

for this line of policy by the members of the late administration.

Towards the close of the year, indeed, there were signs of a rupture

between the two countries. Part of the Portuguese navy was employed in

an attempt to blockade Terceira, where the regency, in the name of the

young queen, was still ruling. Miguel made the non-success of these

vessels a pretext for seizing some English ships; and threats from the

government were resorted to before he would give up the pretended prizes

to their owners. Then the usurper relinquished his prey, and war was

averted.

The administration of Greece, during the present year, remained in the

hands of Capo d’Istrias and his partisans. The allied powers, however,

were occupied in attempting to make arrangements for the permanent

settlement of its government. The crown was tendered by them to Prince

John of Saxony, who declined it. Several candidates were then passed

over in favour of the pretensions of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and

the sovereignty was unanimously offered to him; but, though he had been

once anxious for the prize, he also finally rejected it. The causes of

his rejection of it were these:—Early in the year the prince wrote to

Capo d’Istrias to announce his acceptance of the sovereignty, and to

communicate to the Greek community the efforts he had made, and was

still making, to obtain from the allied sovereigns as many advantages as

possible for the new state. The count, however, did not like the idea

of relinquishing his power; and he transmitted letters and documents

expatiating on a variety of objections to the arrangements of the

allies, and on the dissatisfaction which they had produced throughout

Greece. These letters and documents excited the apprehensions of

the prince; and the horrors of an embarrassed administration, and of

discontented, unruly subjects, prevailed over the glittering radiance of

a crown. At the same time the illness of George IV., which was likely to

terminate fatally, opened to him new prospects. The question, therefore,

regarding the new boundaries of the kingdom, and the separation of

Candia from its territory, formed a ready pretext for his rejection

of the offer. The three allied courts endeavoured to change his

determination; but their efforts were unsuccessful; he definitely

declined the crown.

Before the revolution of July, the French government had sent a powerful

fleet and army, under the command of General Bourmont, against the dey

of Algiers. Bourmont was successful; the dey capitulated, and retired

to Naples, leaving the head of the piratical states in the hands of

the conquerors. The expedition was principally undertaken to obtain the

glory of a military exploit which had baffled the most powerful nations

of Europe, and of thus creating popularity for the despotic ministers

of Charles X. But no exploit could raise them in the estimation of

the people; monarch and statesmen alike were overthrown; and when the

expatriated dey heard of the event, he exclaimed, “Allah! Allah! God

is great, and the avenger of injustice.”

In Belgium, where Prince Leopold finally obtained a crown, the progress

of military events was interrupted by foreign interference. The kingdom

of the Netherlands had been created by Great Britain, Austria, Russia,

Prussia, and France, which powers held themselves bound to look after

their work. Some of them wished to compel the Belgians to submit by

force. The Rhenish provinces of Prussia were directly opposed to the

infection of that spirit which had severed the United States; the

Germanic confederation was already attacked by formal claims on

Luxembourg; and the King of the Netherlands had appealed to the allied

powers to preserve the throne which they had created. On the other

hand, it was certain that the new government of France would favour

the independence of Belgium, and its people would desire nothing

more ardently than a pretext for war, which might terminate in the

restoration of these provinces to her dominion. One party in Belgium,

indeed, openly declared that her interests demanded a reunion with

France; and that there was no doubt that she would receive the

protection of that power in case any of the allies should attempt to

preserve her connexion with Holland. To avoid war, therefore, the allies

agreed to interpose their good offices; and as their first object was to

stop hostilities, a protocol, signed at London on the 4th of November,

bound all parties to negotiation rather than to have recourse to

the sword. These negotiations involved many difficulties, and were

counteracted by many conflicting interests; but their result, as will be

seen, was the erection of Belgium into an independent kingdom.

CHAPTER XLI.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

_State of the Reform Question..... Meeting of Parliament.....

Introduction of the Reform Bill..... Debate on the Motion

that the Bill be read a Second Time, &c. Motion of

Adjournment pending the Ordnance Estimates carried against

Ministers..... Prorogation and Dissolution of

Parliament..... The Budget..... Proposed Change in

Taxes, &c. Arrangement of the Civil List..... General

Election..... Meeting of Parliament: The Reform Question

renewed in Parliament, and carried in the Commons.....

Rejection of it by the Lords..... Consequences of its

Rejection..... Financial Statements..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... Coronation of William IV...... Opening of

the New London Bridge..... Ravages of the Cholera.....

Foreign Affairs..... Meeting of Parliament..... New Reform

Bill..... State of Ireland_

STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

{A.D. 1831}

It has been seen that the ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of

Wellington were pledged to apply themselves forthwith to what was termed

the reform of the representation; that is, to strengthen and enlarge the

democratic part of the constitution. While they were occupied in this

work, the details of which were as yet unknown, meetings were held in

all parts of the country, for the purpose of getting up petitions in

support of their policy. The prayers of the petitions were various, and

in many cases very indefinite. Thus one set of petitioners prayed that

the right of suffrage should be equalised and extended; but whether they

meant such an extension and equalisation as would convert the government

into a democracy, or some more modified degree of change, did not

appear. Others said that a real, substantial, and effectual reform in

the representation of the people had become necessary; but what reform

they actually wanted was all conjecture. Some petitions, however,

plainly declared what species of reform the petitioners required.

These demanded the annihilation of all influence on the part of the

aristocracy in returning members of the house of commons; the shortening

the duration of parliaments; the extension and equalisation of the

elective franchise; and vote by ballot. Another set of petitions

recommended a reform of property as well as of representation, actually

demanding that the possessions of the church should be seized, and

appropriated to “the necessities of the state.” In other petitions, the

petitioners, apparently at a loss to conceive what kind of reform was

required, were satisfied with announcing that the country was ruined,

and that it could only be restored by reform; at the same time gravely

leaving it to his majesty’s ministers to declare what change would

best answer the purpose. But, besides petitions in favour of reform,

permanent political associations had begun to be formed in different

parts of the country, for the purpose of organising large numbers of

individuals into one body, to act on the mind of the public, and to

press the question upon government. These associations took the name

of Political Unions; and they had a regular array of officers, with a

council, which transacted the ordinary business. Their objects were to

push on changes to any extent possible; to insist on whatever they chose

to demand, as a right which could not justly be refused; to repress

opposing opinions in their neighbourhood; and to make even the

government feel that they existed in order to dictate, not to obey. The

whole kingdom was indeed in a ferment; and not only the correction of

abuses, but immediate relief from national calamities, was confidently

expected by the multitude in a reform of parliament. It was to prove

a balm for all their sufferings—the commencement of a golden era of

prosperity.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 3rd of February.

Hitherto ministers had veiled in profound secrecy the plan of reform

which they intended to produce. The question was introduced on this day

by Earl Grey; but it was only to state that ministers had succeeded in

framing a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the

bounds of a just and well-advised moderation; that it had received the

unanimous assent of the government, and that it would be introduced into

the house of commons at an early period.

INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on

the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet

minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and

strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by

stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind

of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of

complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure

which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished

to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with

those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor

with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be

wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the

plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which,

as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had

been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people,

which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by

individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly,

against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of

complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement,

in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members

to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable

unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension

of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those

places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part,

their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to

disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all

boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true,

said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the

wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but

we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose

that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand

inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to

parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and

get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not

to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out

altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of

population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present

privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was

therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded,

according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four

thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of

these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent

four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the

disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred

and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial

plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable

towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then

twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in

future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that

Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member

for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more

than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone,

were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new

constitution was as follows:—The cities, boroughs, and counties which

were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being

ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be

altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those

which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the

number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout

the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons

paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the

premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly

value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for

counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been

renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns;

and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per

annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not

to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident

elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no

alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders.

The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the

ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be

duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections,

as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the

duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be

taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline

of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only

alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to

those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be

united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of

boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn,

and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one

member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to

the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise,

which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds

belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members

for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the

citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced,

both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses

worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for

nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a

vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to

the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To

some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction

with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be

conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and

thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole,

Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland

the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds’

qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of

the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens:

Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each,

thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general

result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create

a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties

would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about

110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland,

perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with

property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this

body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support

parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful

termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be

an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated

at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in

the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to

be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his

character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in

society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the

political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said,

that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total

number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage.

There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which

diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the

opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to

transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting

for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against

him—namely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration

of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballot—his lordship

concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the

representation of the people in England and Wales.

This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited

opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of

itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of

it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement

and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it

was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium,

and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would

soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question.

Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied

upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those

used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared

that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded

his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual

arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents

and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds

that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures,

he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member

for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and

Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The

baronet’s speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative

declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed

the bill “Russell’s purge!” which afforded much amusement to honourable

and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken

up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were

expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to

the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly

quoting Hume’s History of England for illustrations of his arguments.

This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a

heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord

Palmerston, who, in a most statesman-like oration, reviewed the whole

question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy

and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech

produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel

revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It

was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers

by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either

the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was

specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was

to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The

Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert

effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of

Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid

upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved

nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords

Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood,

Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and

Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel,

who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr.

O’Connell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the

immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of

insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without

reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in

reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell

replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those

for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not

brought in till the 14th—a delay which gave occasion to some members

of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers

were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which

had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state

as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the

bill, in which one or two alterations and corrections had been made,

was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not

known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate

without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that

they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of

party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had

taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition

reserved themselves for the second reading—a stage at which, according

to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is

usually decided.

DEBATE ON THE MOTION THAT THE BILL BE READ A SECOND TIME, ETC.

From the moment that the general outlines of the plan of reform proposed

by ministers had been discussed in parliament, public excitement daily

increased. The bill contained few of those changes for which violent

reformers had long clamoured; yet these persons professed to receive

it with joy. The secret of their conduct was easy to be understood; for

though the bill gave less than they wished or demanded, it granted more

than they had expected. They were told, moreover, by their leaders,

whose hopes lay in the future, that as ministers had determined to go no

further, all would be lost unless government were strenuously supported

by those who conceived a change desirable. From these causes they

agreed to forget the defects of the bill, and to be silent regarding

the ballot, universal suffrage, and annual parliaments. The ministerial

measure became their standard; “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing

but the bill,” became their watchword; and ministers were invested for

a time with a species of infallibility. No part of their measure was

wrong, and their conduct was not to be questioned. The manufacturers of

petitions again set to work; and the same places which had petitioned

a month before for much more, now prayed that the bill might pass

untouched and unimpaired. Men, in fact, who had craved reduction

of taxation and retrenchment of expenditure—who had desired a more

democratic house of commons as the only means of securing those good

objects, now conjured the house to enact a measure of which even its

patrons declared that it would neither reduce taxation or expenses. The

number of petitions was large, but the majority of the names attached

to them were from the lowest classes of society, to whom ministers

had declared no power could be given. But all this petitioning, though

regular, constitutional, and powerful, did not promise to be effective.

Ministers had threatened convulsions as the consequences of refusing

the bill, and the reformers resolved to support them by opinions which

indicated its approach, and exhibitions of mob force which might be used

as its means. Language of an intimidating nature was constantly used

at their assemblies, and in petitions, against all who should dare to

oppose the bill, which intimidation served the purposes of the reformers

in two ways: on the one hand, many who were averse to the violent

changes proposed were driven into acquiescence from the apprehension

that resistance would produce confusion; and on the other hand, those

who would actively have resisted the change were overawed from any

public expression of their sentiments. The menaces of the reformers

were even accompanied with a display of the means of executing them.

Everywhere the political unions boasted of the numbers they could bring

into the field. Ten thousand men, said Colonel Evans at a reform meeting

held in London, are ready to march hither from Beigate to support his

majesty’s ministers if they should be defeated; and the chairman of the

Birmingham union openly declared that it could supply two armies, each

of them as numerous and brave as that which had conquered at Waterloo,

if the king and his ministers required them in the contest with the

boroughmongers. Nor was the press idle in this critical state of

affairs; that daily supplied the fuel by which the excitement was kept

up, preaching, in some instances, doctrines subversive of all order and

government. Individuals who distinguished themselves in opposing the

change were attacked with every species of calumny that enmity could

invent; the property of the church and the rights of the peerage were

held out as illegally amassed treasures, which the people, in the

exercise of their rights, would soon have the pleasure of pillaging; and

pretended lists of the names of pensioners and placemen were circulated,

in which were to be found the names of men who had never received one

farthing from the purse of the state. Even parliament itself was the

object of incessant and absurd attack, and privilege seemed no longer to

exist.

Such was the state of the public mind when, on the 21st of March, the

second reading of the bill was moved. The debate lasted only two days.

It was commenced by Sir R. Vyvyan, one of the members for Cornwall, who

moved that the bill should be read that day six months. He declared that

the bill affected no interests of his own, but it was a measure full

of danger to the institutions of the kingdom, and which, therefore,

his conscience bound him to oppose. The motion was seconded by Mr.

Cartwright, who stated that Mr. Hume had actually written to the radical

reformers of Glasgow, entreating them not to say a word about the

ballot. Mr. Sheil, an Irish agitator, repeated the usual arguments in

favour of the bill, dwelling at great length on the disfranchisement

of the Irish boroughs at the time of the union, and the later

disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, as justifying

in principle everything that was now proposed. He treated as ridiculous

the idea that the bill could be dangerous either to the crown or to the

aristocracy. There was variance between the logic of the non-reformers

and their sarcasms. The syllogisms were overthrown by their satire, and

their arguments evaporated in their vituperation. This bill would

wrench despotism from oligarchy, but it would not touch the legitimate

influence of property, and birth, and station, and all the other

circumstances which create a title to respect. It would take power from

individuals, and give it to a class; it would cut off the secret and

subterraneous conduit-pipes through which aristocratic influence was

now conveyed to that house, and would make it flow in a broad, open,

constitutional, and natural channel. Mr. Charles Grant followed on the

same side. The solicitor-general said that the whole argument against

the bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was something in

the British constitution inconsistent with change, and that to make

an alteration would be to effect its destruction. The history of this

country, however, and its institutions, showed that there had been

an almost uninterrupted series of conflicts between the principle

of democracy and despotism, with alternations of success, and the

inevitable consequences of that, a system of perpetual change. The

present bill, therefore, was in every point of view in perfect harmony

with the whole current of our legislation. In six years after the

Revolution, he said, the triennial act was passed, distinctly admitting

on the part of the legislature of that period that the Revolution

was not a settlement to be permanently unchangeable. Neither was the

triennial act itself treated with undeviating respect, for, in the year

1715, its repeal was sanctioned by some of the very men who had brought

about the Revolution; then the septennial act was passed, and another

great change effected in the constitution of parliament. Did any one at

that period hold that the septennial bill was a revolutionary measure?

So far from any such character being imputed to it, the measure had

always been treated as one within the constitution of parliament to

enact. Sir Edward Sugden complained that the solicitor-general had gone

back to the bill of rights, instead of attempting to explain and justify

this bill of wrongs. It was perfectly true that the septennial act did

not spring from the Revolution; it was brought in by Whig ministers

for the same purpose for which the present bill was brought in by Whig

ministers—as the only means by which they could retain their places.

Mr. Pendarvis warmly supported the bill; and Mr. Cavendish declared his

intention of voting for it, although his constituents at Cambridge had

petitioned against it; many of them, he said, were not hostile to the

whole measure, but objected to the new qualification as being too

low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his

constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the

bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally

in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been,

during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the

noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of

Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs,

and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be

introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he

had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members,

and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on

the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present

lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or

were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case,

and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and

returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his

experience but three members had been called to account by that house

in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the

representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster

of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his

unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring

that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house

divided on Sir B. Vyvyan’s motion, when there appeared for the amendment

three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord

John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six

hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of

ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations,

and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in

the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion,

although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That

committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the

bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by

Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining

the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for

comities would be left to freeholders, as they already stood; but that

leaseholders of fifty pounds a year, under leases of twenty years,

would be added to them. Clergymen likewise were to vote, if they were

freeholders to the extent of fifty pounds; and householders who occupied

a house let at the yearly rent of ten pounds per annum. The machinery of

the bill was to be nearly the same with that proposed for England; and

the necessary result of the measure would be to take the franchise out.

of the hands of the corporations, who had hitherto monopolised it; and

Mr. Stanley thought that no one could deny its propriety. The English

bill, he said, in continuation, made no change in the election of the

members for the universities; but an alteration was to be made in regard

to the University of Dublin. In future it was to return two members

instead of one; and the number of electors was to be increased by

bringing back the right of voting to what it had originally been.

At Oxford and Cambridge the masters of arts had always voted; but in

Dublin, a subsequent charter having excluded scholars from receiving

their _stipendia_ after the expiry of the five years, it had been held

by a forced construction that they lost their right to vote for the

university-member after the same period, though they still continued

to be scholars. The present bill would restore the original right, by

extending their academic franchise to all persons who at any time had

been scholars of the university, provided they placed their names on the

books, as claimants of the right, within six months after the passing of

the act. Mr. O’Connell admitted that the bill would prove a great boon

to Ireland, and would produce an effective constituency; but there were

parts of it which he hoped would be altered. In the first place, he

thought that a greater number of members ought to be given to Ireland.

He objected, likewise, to the arrangement concerning the university,

because it still left to the franchise an exclusive character; no Roman

Catholic could vote there, because he could not become a scholar of a

Protestant university; scholarships, therefore, ought to be thrown open

to all classes of the community. Nor did the Irish counties receive

justice. Many counties in England, because their population extended to

200,000, were to receive two members each, while in Ireland there

were twelve counties, with a population above that point, whose

representation was not to be increased. In reply to the demand for

opening the university-scholarships to Catholics, and making all masters

of arts voters, the Irish solicitor-general announced that the charter

did not allow it. At Oxford and Cambridge the charters gave the rights

to the masters, but at Dublin it was only given to the fellows and

scholars, and it was the principle of the bill to preserve vested rights

and settled institutions, as far as could be done consistently with an

efficient reform. Mr. Bankes, and Sir C. Wetherell, and Mr. Hardinge,

argued, that the giving of additional members to Ireland, as well

as Scotland, was unjust towards England, and inconsistent with the

fundamental principles of the two legislative unions. They also

complained of the effects which the bill would inevitably produce upon

the Protestants of Ireland. If the bill passed, it would be impossible,

they said, for an Irish Protestant to be returned to parliament, unless

two-thirds of the Catholic population chose to vote for him. It would

be a virtual exclusion of all Protestants from the representation of

Ireland; not one would be elected unless he became an agitator, pledged

himself to all that was demanded, and basely pandered to the passions

and views of the Catholic electors. The chancellor of the exchequer, in

reply to these objections, stated that the bill did not interfere with

the unions, any more than the union with Ireland had violated the union

with Scotland; and that as to the different circumstances in which Irish

Protestants might find themselves, he and his colleagues entertained

no apprehensions of their opponents being able successfully to raise

against them a no-popery cry; the public mind was too enlightened to be

affected by such idle clamours. The bill was allowed to be read a first

time; and the second reading was fixed for the 18th of April.

When the house met, on the 12th of April, after the Easter recess, Lord

John Eussell communicated certain alterations which it had been found

necessary to make in the schedules of boroughs to be disfranchised,

in consequence of inaccuracies discovered in the population returns of

1821, on which the whole plan had been founded. Lord John Russell

also declared that, although ministers had not changed their opinion

regarding the propriety of reducing the numbers of the house, and would

try to carry that clause in the bill, still “they were not prepared to

say that this was a question of such essential and vital importance,

that, if the feelings of the house were strongly shown in a desire to

keep up the present number, they might not be induced to relax their

determination on that point. If it should appear to be the sense of

the house that the whole number of six hundred and fifty-eight members

should be retained, the government would not feel that they were

altering a vital or essential part of the measure by agreeing to that

proposition.” On the following day Mr. Stanley, when adverting to the

same topic, to prevent any misconception that ministers, though they

might consent to retain the numbers, would leave them to the boroughs,

stated, that they were determined to adhere in all circumstances to

the disfranchisement of every borough whose population did not reach a

particular standard, and the partial disfranchisement of every borough

falling beneath a certain other standard; the number of members to be

added should be given to such populous towns as might be considered in

that event to have a fair claim to representation.

On the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that the house should

resolve itself into a committee on the reform bill. In doing so he

stated the alterations which had been recently made in it by ministers.

According to his statement, it appeared that five boroughs had been

transferred from schedule A to schedule B, and allowed to retain one

member, and that seven of those in schedule B were allowed to retain

their two members, in consequence of its having been ascertained that

the population returns had not accurately represented the number of

inhabitants. On the other hand members were to be added to the following

counties: namely, Bucks, Berks, Cambridge, Dorset, Hereford, Hertford,

Oxford, and Glamorgan. Members were also to be added to the following

towns: namely, Oldham, Buly, Bochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and

Stoke-on-Trent: Halifax was restricted to the township, and to return

only one member, the parish being twenty-five miles in extent. Sons of

freemen entitled to the privilege of freemen, and apprentices having

entered into indentures in the same manner, were to retain their

franchise on taking out their freedom, being resident, and registered

under the provisions of the bill. General Gaseoyne moved as an

instruction to be given to the committee, “That it is the opinion of

this house, that the total number of knights, citizens, and burgesses

returned to parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called

England and Wales, ought not to be diminished.” This motion was designed

to get rid of the bill altogether, and it produced a violent and

contentious debate. Mr. Sadler, who seconded it, delivered a long,

argumentative, and learned speech against the general principles of

the whole plan of reform. He was followed by the chancellor of the

exchequer, who declared that he was quite sure that the amendment

was put with a view of destroying the bill. It was impossible to

misunderstand it: it was the first of that series of motions by which it

was intended to interfere with the progress of the committee, and which,

if agreed to, would be fatal to the bill. The debate was adjourned till

the next day. On that occasion, of the members who opposed it, some did

not see how an agreement to the amendment could be considered hostile to

the principle of the bill, even if it were carried; and not one, except

ministers themselves, pretended it would be a good reason for abandoning

the whole bill. Mr. Bulwer, for instance, thought that this question

regarding the number of members would make no difference in the general

character of the measure, and Mr. J. Campbell hoped that the bill

would go on, though the amendment should be carried. Mr. Wynn, who had

resigned office because he was opposed to the bill, also thought that

this motion was not of much consequence one way or the other. Sir George

Warrington, though opposed to the bill, would resist the amendment, on

the idea that the effect of it would be, if the bill went on, to prevent

the giving of additional members to Scotland. Sir George Clerk said,

that he, also, would vote against it if he anticipated any such results;

but he saw no reason that it should be so. Sir Robert Wilson, one of the

most zealous of all the reformers, expressed great surprise at the

view which ministers, after all that had passed, chose to take of this

amendment. In voting for it he was not voting against increasing the

representation of either Scotland or Ireland, nor did he believe that

the fate of the bill depended in the slightest degree on the success or

the failure of the present motion. Mr. Stanley, however, declared that

this discussion would decide the fate of the bill. The amendment, he

said, was concocted in a spirit of hostility to the bill, and brought

forward to embarrass ministers. He warned those honourable members,

who, while they professed themselves friendly to reform, supported this

amendment, that it would decide the fate of the bill, and that by their

votes on this occasion they would be judged by their constituents and by

the country. In giving their votes, he added, they would either vote for

or against the carrying of that question, for the carrying of which, if

now lost, an opportunity so favourable might not soon again return, and

that the result of that night’s division would be, either to carry that

great question, or to defeat the hopes of the people of this country.

Sir James Graham, on the same side, remarked that he did not say if this

amendment was carried, ministers would abandon the bill; but he did say,

that if it should be, it would be a matter of very grave consideration,

whether the bill would be so impugned, that they ought not to attempt

to carry it through its other stages. General Gaseoyne expressed his

surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the

sixty-two members was inconsistent with the essence and principles of

the bill. If I understood the noble lord who brought in the bill, right,

in a conversation which I had with him only yesterday, he distinctly

admitted to me that my amendment would not touch the principle of the

bill. Lord John Russell replied that the amendment now moved was a

different one to that to which General Gaseoyne alluded: and thus ended

this debate. On a division, the amendment was carried by two hundred

and ninety-nine against two hundred and ninety-one, being a majority of

eight against ministers.

MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST

MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General

Gaseoyne as one likely to destroy the bill of reform which they had

introduced into parliament. It was evident from the beginning that a

majority of the present house could not be relied on by its supporters.

Ministers, however, did not seem at first determined to have recourse

to a dissolution. On the 20th, nothing transpired except that Mr. Hume

declared that he would offer no opposition to the ordnance estimates,

because, after the vote of last night, he was anxious to assist

ministers in getting through the necessary business, in order that a

dissolution might take place. On the following day, Lord Wharncliffe,

in the upper house, asked Earl Grey whether ministers had advised his

majesty to dissolve parliament, and whether it had been resolved

that that course should be adopted. Earl Grey declined answering the

question; and his interrogator then gave notice that he would next

day move an address to the king, praying that his majesty would be

graciously pleased not to exercise his prerogative of dissolving

parliament. The same question was put in the commons by Sir R. Vyvyan,

and Lord Althorp replied, that it was not his duty to answer the

question. The discussion on the propriety of a dissolution was continued

till the morning of the 22nd, and an adjournment on the ordnance

estimates was then moved till the next sitting. This was strenuously

resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer, on the ground that the

topic which had occupied so much time was not a question before the

house; and that he wished to get on with the report of the committee of

supply on the ordnance estimates. On a division, however, ministers were

left in a minority of twenty-two. It was clear from this that ministers

had more to decide on than the reform question, and that they had to

straggle not merely for their bill, but their places. On the next day,

therefore, they resolved to dissolve parliament.

When the house met on the 22nd, the presentation of a petition connected

with parliamentary reform furnished occasion in the commons for another

discussion on that subject. Sir R. Vyvyan inveighed strongly against

the desperation with which ministers were believed to be urging on a

dissolution in the present state of the country. He was called to order

by Sir Francis Burdett; but the speaker declared that Sir B. Vyvyan was

not out of order. A scene of indescribable confusion ensued, in which

the authority of the speaker was for some time set aside. At length Sir

B. Peel was enabled to address the house. He referred to the scene which

had been exhibited, and made a disingenuous use of it, declaring that it

was a specimen of what might be expected in a reformed house of commons,

whereas the disturbance was created by those who were desirous, _per fas

et nefas_, to obstruct the measure before the house. Sir Robert, in a

strain of unhappy invective, reiterated his previous denunciations of

all reform.

Sir Robert was interrupted by the sergeant-at-arms, who knocked at the

door, and the usher of the black rod, who suddenly appeared to summons

the speaker and the members, to the house of peers, to hear the

prorogation of parliament.

In the upper house proceedings had been of a similar nature to those in

the commons. Lord Wharncliffe had scarcely risen to move for an address

to his majesty against the dissolution, when the Duke of Richmond rose

to complain that all the peers were not sitting in their proper places,

as usual on such occasions. This gave rise to a scene of noise and

confusion, in which one noble lord was heard to say that ministers were

taking the crown off the king’s head. Lord Wharncliffe, being at length

allowed to proceed, stated that, without wishing to provoke discussion

on the subject, he was anxious that it should be entered on the journals

of the house, that he in his place yesterday did give notice that

he would move an humble address to his majesty not to exercise his

undoubted prerogative of dissolving parliament. His lordship then made

a motion to that effect. The lord-chancellor said, that he had never yet

heard it doubted that the king possessed the prerogative of dissolving

parliament at pleasure; still less had he ever known a doubt to exist on

the subject at a moment when the lower house has thought fit to refuse

the supplies. The near approach of his majesty was now announced, and

Lord Shaftesbury was called to the chair amid discordant noises which it

was difficult for him to subdue. Lord Mansfield addressed the house, but

was interrupted in his speech by the entrance of the king, and the house

of commons having been summoned, his majesty prorogued parliament in

these words:—“My lords and gentlemen,—I have come to meet you for the

purpose of proroguing this parliament with a view to its dissolution.

I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of

ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be

most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of

making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear

to require, and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of

the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and

prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the

people.” Parliament was prorogued to the 10th of May, and a proclamation

appeared the next day announcing its dissolution, and directing a new

election, the writs of which were made returnable on the 14th of June.

The dissolution of parliament was hailed by the people with great joy.

Illuminations were got up on every hand. That in London was authorised

by the lord-mayor; and the consequence was that, in the west end of the

town, the rabble vented their fury on the houses of all those members of

parliament who had expressed sentiments unfavourable to the bill, and

in whose windows no candles were placed. Many people, doubtless,

illuminated their houses lest they should become obnoxious to the mob;

yet these illuminations were made use of by the reformers to keep up

their incessant cry, that the inhabitants of the country, from one end

to the other, were animated by one universal feeling of enthusiasm for

the reform bill, and for the act which got rid of a parliament that

refused it. It has been well remarked that, in political disputes,

to place candles in windows is no proof of political opinion, or of

anything else than a prudent desire to avoid the outrages of a mob.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL

LIST.

The other business of this session related chiefly to financial matters.

The budget was opened on the 11th of February by Lord Althorp, who

estimated the charge for the year at £46,850,000; while the revenue, on

account of the many taxes repealed, would yield only £47,150,000, and

thus give an excess over the charge of only about £300,000. This, he

said, did not afford much room for the reduction of taxation; but still

he thought that something might be done, especially by reducing those

imposts which pressed on the industry of the country; by relieving trade

from fiscal embarrassments; and by introducing, in many cases, a more

equal distribution of taxes. Lord Althorp avowed that he had taken his

principles and general views from Sir Henry Parnell’s work entitled

“Financial Reform.” He divided the taxes into three classes:—first,

taxes on commodities of which there would be an increased consumption

and revenue; secondly, taxes which, instead of being equally and

impartially distributed amongst all classes, pressed more severely

on one part of the community; and thirdly, those taxes which, besides

interfering with commerce, took more out of the pockets of the people

than was furnished to the revenue. Under the first head, his lordship

explained that he intended to reduce the duty on tobacco, and on

newspapers, stamps, and advertisements; under the second, that of

sea-borne coal, which he proposed to repeal altogether; and under

the third, the duties on tallow and candles, calicoes, glass, &c.

The estimated loss of the reductions in the whole was £3,170,000, a

reduction which the revenue could not sustain. The next point was,

therefore, how to make good this loss without imposing an equal burthen

on the people. Lord Althorp proposed to equalise the duties on foreign

wines, and foreign European timber and exported coals; and to place

duties on cotton, steam-boats, and the _bona fide_ sale or transfer

of landed property. The estimated revenue from these sources was

£2,740,000; while on the other hand, the amount of taxes repealed or

reduced was £4,080,000; so that the country gained £1,340,000, while it

was stated the public services would not suffer. This financial project

of Lord Althorp was vehemently attacked by all parties in the house. The

experiment, it was said, was a dangerous one, and the probability was,

that it would be necessary to raise by exchequer-bills a sum to meet

the charges of the year; thus gratifying the country for a time by

an apparent relief from taxation, only to produce the necessity of

afterwards imposing heavier taxes on the people. The experiment was

represented as the less justifiable, as not one shilling was included in

the budget as being applicable to the diminution of the national debt.

It was always believed by some that the budget was not one of reduction,

but of mere transposition. Some taxes were reduced, but others were

imposed to make up the loss. At all events, it was said, the budget was

merely a pretext of doing something, while in truth it did nothing,

or did mischief. An attack was especially made on the tax proposed on

transfers in the public funds, and Lord Althorp was induced to abandon

it. Ministers were also defeated on a division in regard to a proposed

diminution of duties on Baltic timber, and an augmentation of those

grown in Canada. The tax on steam-boat passengers was likewise

abandoned, and an increased duty on our colonial wines, which his

lordship consented to reduce. Finally, the proposed duty on the

importation of raw cotton was reduced, and the whole affair produced a

strong impression of the practical inefficiency of the government. Under

any other circumstances, indeed, ministers could not survive the defeats

they had experienced; but the anchor of reform saved the ship in which

they had embarked, albeit it was a crazy one, from foundering in the sea

of politics.

Ministers were not more skilful in the arrangements of the civil list.

The late ministry had gone out of office after a vote by which the house

of commons declared its opinion that the civil list should be referred

to a select committee. When these arrangements were considered, it

appeared that the most material changes made after the abolition of

certain offices, were the reduction of the pension list in future to the

sum of £75,000 per annum, and the subtraction of £460,000 from the

civil list, to be placed under the control of parliament. On hearing the

statements of the chancellor of the exchequer, the members of the late

government expressed their satisfaction that the present ministers, so

loud against expenditure when out of office, and pledged to retrenchment

when they came in, had been driven to acknowledge that they found it

impossible to carry economy further, in the matter of the civil list,

than had been done by their predecessors. The new estimate, they said,

was identically the same with the former, except as to the principle,

whether a certain portion of the amount should be kept constantly under

the control of parliament. The system of retrenchment proposed was by

no means satisfactory to Messrs. Hume, Hunt, and others of the radical

school. Ministers, they said, had not adhered to their promises of

retrenchment in framing the estimates, especially in regard to the

pensions. It was of no use to tell the people that most of these

pensions were charitable; charity begins at home; and the house was

bound to be just to the people before being generous to poor peers, or

the poor relations of wealthy peers. Another point on which ministers

had to encounter stern opposition from their old allies, was a proposal

which they made for an increase in the army of 7680 men. No opposition,

however, was offered to a resolution moved in consequence of a royal

message, assigning to the queen, in case she should survive his majesty,

£100,000 per annum, with Marlborough House and Bushy Park as town and

country residences.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The election of the new parliament took place in the midst of general

excitement. This was very auspicious for the ministry. The declared

intention of the dissolution had been to obtain from the people a house

of commons pledged to support the reform bill. The only test by which

candidates were tried, was their determination to support that measure.

Nor was it sufficient to save a candidate from the storm which raged

all over the country, that he should be willing to reform the

representation. It was demanded of him that he should support the

particular measure which the ministry had proposed. It was to be “the

bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” Candidates who had long

represented places were told by the electors that they could no longer

vote for them, not because they were against the bill, but that they

were against the king; they did not know much about it, but it was the

king’s, and it must pass. The official influence of the ministry was

put forth unsparingly and unblushingly. In some instances, indeed, it

defeated its own object. Thus, in Ireland, two pledged supporters of

the bill were elected for the city of Dublin. The losing candidates

petitioned against the return, and it came out in the proceedings before

the committee, that the vice-regal government had interfered directly to

ensure the success of the sitting members. The consequence of this was

that the committee found the sitting members were not duly elected; and,

on a new election, two members were returned who were hostile to reform.

The tumult and license which usually characterise a general election

were more than ordinarily rampant and intolerant. Anti-bill candidates

and their supporters were exposed to the most lawless violence wherever

they dared to show themselves on the hustings, and were denounced on

the one hand as oppressors of the people, and on the other as disloyal

opponents of the people. In some instances the life, as well as the

property of unpopular men was sacrificed; and in Scotland especially,

the elections were controlled by the violence of riotous mobs. At the

election for the county of Lanark, the late member was attacked with

stones and missiles, from the gallery of the church in which the

election took place; and when he was re-elected, those who voted for him

were detained prisoners for some hours, until the military arrived to

shield them from lawless violence. At Dumbarton, also, the successful

candidate for the county was obliged to conceal himself in a garret,

till the mob, believing he had escaped, dispersed. From the excitement

and violence which everywhere prevailed, it was not surprising that the

great majority of the elections terminated in favour of the reforming

candidates. Out of the eighty-two county members for England, with

the exception of about twelve, all were pledged to support the bill.

Ministers, indeed, completely succeeded in obtaining a house of commons

fashioned after their own mind: the great majority of the members were

pledged to implicit obedience to the will of the people.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 14th of June; being opened by commission till the

preliminary forms necessary to be gone through in the house of commons

should have been completed. On the 21st. after Mr. Manners Sutton had

been re-elected speaker without opposition, and all the members were

sworn in, his majesty opened the session in person. In his speech his

majesty remarked: “I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of

resorting to your advice and assistance, after the dissolution of the

late parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of

ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the

representation, I have now to recommend that important question to

your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that in any

measures which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully

adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the

prerogative of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament,

and the rights and liberties of the people are equally secured.” No

amendment was proposed to the address in the upper house. The discussion

chiefly turned on the dissolution of parliament, the inattention of

government to the security of property during the London illuminations,

and the arts used to inflame the public mind during the election. The

same topics were also discussed in the commons, and the address was

carried there without opposition.

The house of commons having been elected for the purpose of passing a

measure of reform, no time was lost in bringing it forward. Lord John

Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation

of England on the 24th of June. No debate took place on this occasion:

Sir R. Peel having stated that he did not wish to divide the house on

the first reading, or to have a long debate without a division. At his

suggestion the second reading was postponed from the 30th of June to the

4th of July. In the meantime the Irish and Scotch bills were brought in

and read the first time: the former on the 30th of June, and the latter

on the 1st of July. On the appointed day for the second reading of the

English reform bill an animated debate took place. Sir John Walsh moved

that the bill should be read that day six months. The debate which

followed this amendment continued three nights; and it consisted chiefly

of a repetition of the views, arguments, and anticipations which

had been brought out at such great length in the former parliament.

Ministers and their supporters, however, found new matter for triumph

in the evidence with which the general election had furnished them, that

the people were generally for reform. All doubt or hesitation was at an

end: the voice of the people had decided, not merely that there must

be reform, but that it must be that kind of reform contained in the

ministerial bill. This voice had been pronounced unanimously, for the

returns from close boroughs and particular counties could not be taken

into account in estimating the will and the wishes of those who formed

the people. The opposition on the other hand contended, that the

argument drawn from the mere fact of a popular clamour having been

raised in favour of this measure, was fit only for legislators who

had been invested with that character on no other terms than those of

pledging themselves to discharge the humble duty of delegates, and not

to act according to any opinions which they might form on the measures

proposed by government. No man, it was said, could deny the violent

excitement which had taken place, and few would maintain that large

bodies of electors were the fittest persons for deciding on the merits

of so complicated and delicate a question; and every man must concede,

that least of all could the decision of such assemblages be regarded

when made under the influence of agitation, sedulously cherished by

false pretexts, and supported by groundless anticipations. Nor could the

returns, it was argued, be considered as manifesting the opinion of the

country on this plan of reform. They had been influenced, it was said,

by considerations not connected with the merits of the proposition; and

by identifying it with consequences, to which even its most rational and

candid friends admitted that it never would lead. It was asked, Where

had been the unanimity in favour of reform before the promulgation of

the present measure, and the triumphs of the democracy of France? How

little ministers could trust to reason and calmness among the people,

and how much they reckoned on everything that was the reverse, was clear

from the delicacy and respect with which they treated bodies that ought

to have been unknown to them as a government, except for the purpose

of checking their pretensions. Ministers had resolved not to intrust

ten-pound voters who paid weekly; and this having displeased

the Birmingham Political Union, they addressed a letter to the

prime-minister on the subject, and that noble lord honoured them with

the most friendly recognition. The speech of Mr. Macaulay, a nominee of

Lord Lansdowne for the borough of Calne, in favour of the bill, elicited

much applause. He remarked:—“The country and their children for ages

to come will call this the second bill of rights; the greater charter

of the liberties of England. I believe that the year 1831 is destined

to exhibit to mankind the first example of a great, complicated, and

deeply-rooted system of abuses removed without violence, bloodshed, and

rapine; all forms observed, the fruits of industry not destroyed, and

the authority of the law not suspended. These are things which may well

make Englishmen proud of the age and country in which they live. These

are things which may make them look forward to a long series of tranquil

and happy years, during which nothing will disturb the concord of a

popular government and a loyal people; of years in which, if war

should be inevitable, it will find the people a united nation: of years

pre-eminently distinguished by the mitigation of public burdens, by the

prosperity of industry, by the reformation of jurisprudence, and by all

the victories of peace: in which, far more than in military triumphs,

consist the true prosperity of states and the glory of statesmen. It is

with such feelings and hopes that I give my most cordial assent to this

measure of reform, a measure which, in itself, I think desirable,

but which in the present temper of the public mind is indispensably

necessary to the repose of empire and the stability of government.” The

debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended his plan: and on a

division the second reading of the measure was carried by a majority of

three hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and thirty-one.

It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 12th of

July, when Lord Maitland, one of the members for Appleby, rose to oppose

the disfranchisement of that borough, on the score of a mistake in the

population returns. He moved that his constituents should be heard at

the bar by themselves and their counsel against the bill, in so far as

it affected them, and in support of the allegations in their petition.

Ministers declared that they would resist such an inquiry. They asked,

whether the progress of this great measure was to be stopped to enter

into the examination of a particular case of so insignificant a borough

as Appleby? Members would be heard in committee in regard to this and

every other borough; but if the house was to hear counsel in the case

of Appleby, they might likewise be called on to hear them in the case of

the other condemned boroughs, and that would be vexatious. The house

had the information furnished by the population returns, which ministers

deemed sufficient: if witnesses were examined at the bar, they must

necessarily, if they had not been engaged in taking the census, be

unable to furnish any other evidence; and if they had been so engaged,

they would furnish the same evidence. A stormy debate followed,

several members maintaining that there never had been an instance of so

arbitrary and unconstitutional an attempt as ministers were now making.

The second reading had carried the principle of the bill; but these

petitioners were not objecting to the principle, but simply maintaining

that, adopting this principle, the rule laid down by the bill itself,

and founded on matters of fact, could not apply to them. Ministers,

however, were deaf to all remonstrances; and the motion was negatived,

although several supporters of the bill ventured to vote in the

minority, feeling that the petitioners were justly entitled to show

cause why they should not be disfranchised, and that justice would

not be done if the motion were rejected. This motion being lost, a

new discussion arose before the speaker left the chair, on the general

principles and tendencies of the bill. As many members wished to express

their sentiments, and the majority seemed impatient to cut all argument

short, Mr. Gordon moved for an adjournment. The chancellor of the

exchequer, however, asserted that he would have no further general

argument on the bill after that night; and, notwithstanding the motion

was ably defended, it was negatived. Repeated motions for adjournment

were made, and were as repeatedly negatived; but as the minority still

kept to their point, and seven o’clock in the morning was approaching,

the chancellor of the exchequer said, that if the house would allow him

to go into committee _pro forma_, the chairman might report progress,

and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, when the discussion might go on as

before. This was agreed to, and the house then adjourned. On the

13th, when the motion was made for the speaker leaving the chair, some

discussion took place on the general principles of the bill; but it was

very brief; and the house then discussed the measure clause by clause.

The discussion on the several clauses continued from the 13th of July to

the 15th of September, the opposition combating every point foot to foot

with ministers. Amendments were moved as to the general principles

of the bill, and as regards particular boroughs; but ministers were

triumphant in almost every instance of importance. An amendment, moved

by the Marquis of Chandos, that the right of voting should belong-to

all occupiers of land paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds, was,

however, earned by a majority of eighty-four; and it was incorporated

with the original clause, which gave a right of voting for counties to

leaseholders for a certain period, and a defined rent. The committee

finished its labours on the 7th of September; and the bill, as amended,

was reported to the house. The third reading was carried without a

debate, on the 15th of September, by a majority of fifty-five; but on

the motion that the bill do pass, a debate arose, which continued during

the 19th, 20th, and 21st of September. Mr. Macaulay, with brilliant

eloquence, admonished the peers to look to the deserted halls of France,

and take warning not to oppose popular lights. Mr. Croker who seemed

to make a point of rising to address the house after Mr. Macaulay,

ridiculed the idea of the peers of England being deterred by fear from

the performance of their duty, and reminded Mr. Macaulay that if the

halls of France were deserted, it was because the French nobility were

so foolish as to make any concessions to popular clamour. Mr. Stanley,

then in the noon of his reputation, replied with his usual debating

power to Mr. Croker, and carried the sympathies, if not the opinions

of the house. Useless and angry recrimination entered largely into the

remainder of the debate, in which Mr. Wynn and Sir Charles Wetherell

especially figured. The personal influence of Lord Althorp and Sir

Robert Peel allayed this angry spirit.

REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.

The reform bill having been carried in the commons, on the next day Lord

John Russell, attended by many of its supporters, delivered the bill

to the lord-chancellor in the house of lords. The bill was read a first

time, and, on the motion of Earl Grey, was directed to be read a second

time on the 3rd of October. In the meantime the reformers vigorously

employed all the means in their power to intimidate the peers into

submission. Political unions again sent forth their addresses and

petitions, and meetings were convened to warn them of “the tremendous

consequences of rejecting the bill,” and to inform them how “deeply and

fearfully the security of commercial, as well as of all other property,

was involved” in passing it without delay. In a meeting held in the

common-hall of London, Colonel Torrens remarked:—“Let the peers refuse

this bill if they dare; and if they do, dearly will they rue their

obstinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl’s story. She presented

her oracles to the court of Tarquin, and they were rejected. She burned

a portion, and again offered them, but they were again rejected. After

diminishing their number still further, she once more returned, and

the remaining volumes were gladly purchased at the price which she had

originally demanded for the entire. We, however, mean to reverse the

moral, for should the present bill be defeated, we shall bring their

lordships another bill, demanding a little more; and then, should they

still dare to resist the might, and insult the majesty of the people of

England united as one man, we will come forward with a bill of reform in

which their lordships will find themselves inserted in schedule A.” Such

language as this was used from one end of the country to the other, and

the press and orators alike endeavoured to intimidate the peers into

submission. They were to have no direct influence in the deliberations

of the commons, and now they were to have no deliberate voice in their

own house. Such was the state of public feeling when, on the 3rd of

October, Earl Grey moved the second reading of the bill. After

some prefatory remarks, he said, that being called to form a new

administration, he stated to his majesty that the only condition on

which he would accept office was that he should be allowed to bring

forward the question of parliamentary reform as a measure of government.

That condition was sanctioned by the monarch, assented to by the

commons, and hailed with joy by the people. Earl Grey next went into the

details of the bill, an account of which is given in the previous pages.

He added: “You are asked to give up that which is odious, unjust, and

unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this house

may be shaken. The influence which your lordships possess in the

representation of sixty-five old boroughs may be taken from you by this

bill, but the peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of

their influence in the representation—on the contrary, that influence

is increased.” Earl Grey proceeded to contend that the measure had

received the approbation of the country. He was, he said, one of the

last men in that house who would grant anything to intimidation, and

he would say, “Resist popular violence, and do not give way to popular

commotion,” but here there was neither violence nor commotion. The

opinion of the people was fairly and unequivocally expressed, and

no government could turn a deaf ear to it, and least of all could a

government founded on free principles take such a step. The time was

passed for taking half-measures; their lordships must either adopt this

bill, or they would have in its stead something infinitely stronger and

more extensive. The measure was brought forward at the recommendation of

the crown; it had been carried by an overwhelming majority of the other

house, and it was supported by the prayers of millions, who respectfully

knocked at their lordships’ door, and asked, for that which they

considered to be the restoration of their just rights. Were their

lordships prepared to reject a bill so supported, and that, too, on its

second reading? He would venture for a moment, he continued, to address

himself to the right reverend prelates who sat near him. While he

assured that body that no man was more sincerely attached than he was to

the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the church—no man

held in higher veneration the purity of its doctrine and discipline—no

man was more ready to admit the zeal, and learning, and piety of those

who presided over it,—let him at the same time ask, that if this bill

be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, and if its fate

should thus within a few votes be decided by the votes of the heads of

the church, what would then be their situation with the country? Those

right reverend prelates had shown that they were not indifferent or

inattentive to the signs of the times; they had introduced measures for

effecting some salutary reforms in matters relating to the temporalities

of the church, let them be implored to follow up the same course. The

eyes of the country were upon them; he called upon them to “set their

house in order,” and prepare to meet the coming storm—to consider

seriously what would be the opinion of the country should a measure on

which the nation had fixed its hopes be defeated by their votes. They

were the ministers of peace; he hoped that the result of their votes

would be such as might tend to the tranquillity, peace, and happiness

of the country. Earl Grey concluded his speech by saying that he

was prepared to stand or fall by this measure; the question of his

continuance in office for one hour would depend on the prospect of

being able to carry through that which he considered important to the

tranquillity, safety, and happiness of the country. Lord Wharncliffe

addressed the house against the measure, defending nomination, not

because it was made by peers or other influential individuals, but

because its effect in the house of commons was that it acted as a check

on those places which were popularly represented. He further argued,

that if a house of commons were once elected on the principles of this

bill, it would cramp the crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and

create a body in that house so irresistible as to make their lordships’

decisions on all public questions a dead letter. The house of commons

would become too much the image of the people. The dangers, indeed,

which at this moment surrounded their lordships proved the accuracy of

his argument. They had now a popular house of commons—a delegate house

of commons; that house had passed this measure, and their lordships

were told that nothing was left for them but to record and register the

decree of the house of commons. He moved, therefore, that “this bill

be rejected.” Lords Mulgrave and Mansfield followed..... the former

in support of, and the latter against the bill. After which Lord

Wharncliffe, lest his motion should be interpreted as an insult to the

house of commons, begged leave to withdraw his motion, and to propose in

its stead that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After

some discussion this alteration was allowed, and the debate was resumed

by Lord Winchilsea, who opposed the bill. Lord Melbourne supported the

measure, and the Duke of Wellington opposed it. After some introductory

remarks, the duke referred to language which Earl Grey had uttered

concerning the house of commons in 1817. His words were—“Constituted as

it now is, I in my conscience believe that the house of commons is, of

all institutions, in all countries of the world, the best calculated

for the general protection of the subject.” In 1830 he (the Duke of

Wellington) had pronounced an opinion in parliament on the subject of

reform, of which the noble earl disapproved. What he said was, that he

approved of the constitution of parliament; and if he were to invent a

constitution for parliament over again, he would endeavour to frame one

like it, in which property should preponderate. The noble earl had said

that it was this sentence which had created the spirit of reform

now pervading the country. It was not so; the spirit of reform had

originated with the French revolution. Ever since the American war, the

minds of the people had been occasionally disturbed by the spirit of

reform; and when any insurrection grew up in Europe, a desire for reform

was sure to be exhibited. Concerning the measure before the house,

the noble duke asked whether it was founded on the principles of the

constitution? He thought not; he thought the bill violated both the

principles and practice of the constitution. It went to establish a

new system of representation in every county, borough, and town in the

United Kingdom, with the exception of the two universities. The town

representation would be placed in the hands of close, self-elected

committees, like that which had appointed itself in the metropolis

at the close of the last session, and which dissolved itself only

in consequence of the notice which its proceedings had attracted in

parliament. The undue enlargement of the powers of the town constituency

would entirely destroy the balance of the agricultural representation of

the counties. The towns already exercised an extraordinary influence in

the election of county representatives, and the evil would be aggravated

tenfold by the clause of the bill which gave votes to leaseholders and

copyholders. The noble duke entered into the details of the measure at

great length, and concluded by eulogising the constitution as it now

existed. Under it, he said, we enjoyed the largest commerce, and the

most flourishing colonies in the world. There was not any country in

the universe in which so much happiness, so much prosperity, and so much

comfort, were diffused amongst all the various classes of society; none

in which so many and such large properties, both public and private,

were to be found as in England. There was not a position in Europe in

any degree important for military purposes, or advantageous for trade,

which was not under our control, or within our reach. All these great

and numerous advantages we possess, he added, under the existing system;

but it will be impossible to retain them if we once establish a wild

democracy, a complete democratic assembly under the name of a house of

commons. On the two following evenings the principal speakers for the

bill were Lords Lansdowne, Goderich, and Plunkett; and against it, Lords

Dudley and Ward, Haddington, and Carnarvon. The fifth and last night of

the debate was begun by Lord Wynford, who was followed by Lord Eldon,

who condemned the measure as subversive of the right of property as

well as of the monarchy, and of every principle acknowledged by the

constitution. Lord Eldon concluded his speech by warning their lordships

of the danger of conceding the terms required; and by declaring that

if the measure passed, there would be an end to the monarchy. The

lord-chancellor, after taking a review of the courses taken by the

opponents of the bill, denied that the bill was founded upon population,

and not property. Lord Lyndhurst resisted the bill because it appeared

to him inconsistent with the prerogative of the crown, and with the

authority of their lordships; but, above all, because it was detrimental

to the rights and liberties of the people. The bill was opposed by Lord

Tenterden and the Archbishop of Canterbury, both of whom expressed their

belief that it would have a mischievous tendency. The Duke of Sussex

supported it; but the Duke of Gloucester, although desirous of temperate

reform, opposed it, as he conceived it to be a scheme for a new

constitution. Lord Grey, in reply, complained that the opposition to the

measure seemed to be carried on, less with a view to defeat the bill,

than to drive its advocates from office. He repeated that he was pledged

to this measure, or to one of equal extent; and said, that if a more

moderate scheme would satisfy the people, he would not be the person

to introduce such a measure. As to what course he should follow if

defeated, he could not say; but he should be culpable if he were to

resign his office and abandon his king, so long as he could be of use to

him; for he was bound to him by gratitude as great as ever subject

owed a sovereign. The house at length divided; and the bill, which had

occupied so much of the attention of parliament during this session,

and for which the people had long been earnestly striving, was lost by

a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and

fifty-eight.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}