This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October.

When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a

motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by

pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims

to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question

of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their

course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of

the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into

criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the

court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;—“That while this

house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into

the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the

country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by

discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself

most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the

principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express

its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of

those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted

the best interests of the country.” The motion was supported by Messrs.

O’Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that,

as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only

thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for

a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation

would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law.

Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable

and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the

majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not

hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be

required to secure a triumphant majority. “The people,” it was said,

“have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons;

why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the

other house?” The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert

Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and

unfounded. If agreed to, it was said, it would only be a repetition of

former votes. Lord Althorp said that the motion was made without any

suggestion on the part of ministers. For himself, unless he felt a

reasonable hope that a measure equally efficient would be brought

forward and carried, he would not remain in office a single hour. The

opponents of reform had gained a great triumph, and might rejoice in

their success; but he did not think that any great triumph would be

eventually gained; he was confident that the measure was only postponed.

If the people of England remained firm and determined, but peaceable,

he hoped and believed that there would be ultimate and speedy success.

There was only one chance of failure; namely, if their disappointment

led them into acts of violence, or to unconstitutional measures of

resistance. The motion was earned by a majority of three hundred and

twenty-nine against one hundred and ninety-eight.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The rejection of the reform bill produced an extraordinary sensation

throughout the country. Meetings were instantly convened in the

metropolis. One was held at the Thatched-house Tavern, consisting of

all the members who had supported the bill in its passage through

the commons. The common-council also promptly assembled; and this was

followed by a meeting at the Mansion-house of merchants and bankers, who

passed resolutions approving of the conduct of government, and pledging

themselves to its support. Petitions were also carried to the king,

praying him to continue his ministers, and have recourse to a new

creation of peers, sufficient in numbers to carry the bill. The

lord-mayor and corporation went to St. James’s with an address to

the throne, and the civic procession was joined in its route by such

numerous bodies with similar addresses, that, before it reached the

palace, it consisted of more than 500,000 persons. Soon after their

arrival the parochial deputies waited on Lord Melbourne, who prudently

advised them to commit their addresses to the county members for

presentation at the levee. This was announced to the multitude by Mr.

Hume, who, while he exhorted them to be firm and united, advised them to

be peaceable, and to disperse immediately, so that no advantage might

be given to the enemies of reform. Mischief, however, was on foot. The

mansions of the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Bristol, and that of

Earl Dudley, were attacked, and were only saved from destruction by the

timely interference of the police. The Marquis of Londonderry and the

Duke of Cumberland were personally attacked in the park; and the latter

would probably have been killed had not the police rescued him. In the

country, also, violence and outrage became the order of the day. At

first they were confined to the counties of Derby and Nottingham, at the

latter of which places the mob set fire to the castle, the seat of the

Duke of Newcastle, one of the sternest opposers of the reform bill. The

house of Mr. Masters, also, in the vicinity, was sacked and pillaged;

and his wife died in consequence of being obliged to seek shelter under

the bushes of a shrubbery in a cold and rainy October night. In both

houses of parliament ministers loudly expressed their disapprobation of

such proceedings; but they were charged by their opponents with having

indirectly encouraged the rioters by the language they had used, and the

connexion in which they had placed themselves with large bodies of

men acting illegally. While the bill was before the lords a meeting of

political unions took place at Birmingham; and this assembly voted

an address to the king, setting forth their alarm “at the awful

consequences” which might arise from the failure of the bill; their pain

at imagining the house of lords so infatuated as to reject it; and their

earnest desire that his majesty would create as many peers as might

be necessary to carry the measure. The most violent and threatening

language was uttered by the speakers at this meeting; and one of the

resolutions agreed to was a vote of thanks to Lords Althorp and

John Russell. This was answered in these courteous terms:—“I beg to

acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the undeserved honour done me by

150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment,

and I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of

faction should prevail against the voice of a nation.” This courteous

reply to a body of demagogues was severely deprecated in the house of

commons, especially by Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Vyvyan, and Sir Charles

Wetherell. In the meantime the spirit of insubordination seemed to

increase. At Croydon the Archbishop of Canterbury was grossly insulted

while presiding over a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the

Gospel; and in Somersetshire the bishop of the diocese was attacked when

engaged in the solemn ceremony of consecrating a new church. Several

other obnoxious prelates were burned in effigy. But these were trifles

compared with the devastation committed at Bristol, when its recorder.

Sir Charles Wetherell, arrived there late in October, on his official

duties. He had no sooner opened his commission than he was attacked with

such violence by the mob, that he was compelled to seek for safety by

flight and disguise. Even his departure did not stop the mad fury of the

populace. The episcopal palace, the mansion-house, the excise-office,

with great part of Queen’s Square, fell a sacrifice to the flames. A

large number of warehouses, also, many of which were filled with wine

and spirits, shared in the conflagration. The soldiers had been sent out

of the city, but they were compelled to be recalled; and as parties of

them arrived, tranquillity was restored. The total number of killed and

wounded amounted nearly to one hundred; and about two hundred were taken

prisoners during the outrages, while others were captured afterwards

with plundered property in their possessions. About the same time

partial disturbances broke out at Bath, Coventry, and Worcester; but

these being vigorously opposed by the municipal and military powers,

were speedily checked. A proclamation was finally issued by his majesty

in council on the 2nd of November, exhorting all classes of his subjects

to unite in suppressing tumults. As winter advanced, however, the alarm

of the executive government increased, and serious apprehensions were

entertained lest the peace of the country should be endangered by the

formidable associations which everywhere existed, and especially by

those in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. These associations began

even to appoint councils and officers, and to assume a regular plan of

organization. The rapid increase of unions at length made it necessary

that some steps should be taken to lay them under restraint; and the

Gazette of the 22nd of November contained a proclamation, declaring

their illegality, and warning all subjects of the realm against entering

into such combinations. About the same time a special commission

was appointed to try the Bristol rioters, and the result was that

eighty-five were convicted: five were left for execution, but four only

suffered the extremity of the law. A military court of inquiry was also

instituted on the conduct of the officers commanding at Bristol, and a

court-martial was appointed on Colonel Brereton and Captain Warrington.

The former, overcome by his feelings, and the weight of evidence against

him, destroyed himself, and the latter rested his defence for his

neglect in suppressing the riots, and preserving the buildings, on the

want of directions from Colonel Brereton, and of assistance from the

city magistrates, the head of whom purposely concealed himself when his

presence was needed; whilst all the aldermen excused themselves for

not accompanying the soldiers, by their inability to ride on horseback.

General Sir Charles Dalbiac, however, the crown-prosecutor, laid it down

as a fundamental principle of the common law:—“That if the occasion

demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the

advice or sanction of a magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to

act on his own responsibility, in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous

assembly; and whatever may be done by him honestly, in the execution of

that object, he will be justified and supported by the common law. That

law acknowledges no distinction between the private citizen and the

soldier, who is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation, and

invested with the same authority to preserve the king’s peace as any

other subject.” Later in the year commissions were issued to try the

rioters at Nottingham and Derby.

During all this time Ireland continued in a most distracted state.

Associations were promoted in the country by Mr. O’Connell for the

repeal of the union, until at length the magistrates dispersed one of

his meetings, and apprehended the great agitator and his accomplices for

illegal acts. True bills were found against them by the grand jury,

and Mr. O’Connell put in a demurrer; but withdrew it, and pleaded not

guilty. After several attempts to delay the trial, he withdrew that

plea, also, and pleaded guilty to the first fourteen counts in

the indictment respecting the holding of meetings in contempt of

proclamations. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, distinctly stated

in the house of commons, in answer to a question put by the Marquis of

Chandos, that he and his accomplices would be brought up for judgment;

but this promise was never fulfilled, and many discussions took place

in parliament, as to whether government had made any compromise with the

agitators. Ministers denied that such was the case; and that they were

not brought up for judgment is perhaps sufficiently accounted for by

the state of both England and Ireland. In the latter country the

disturbances toward the close of the year greatly increased. In the

counties of Clare, Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary, all law was

trampled under foot; murder, robbery, and searching for arms by bodies

of men were the ordinary occurrences of every day. The lord-lieutenant

made a progress through the disturbed counties in the vain hope that

his presence would restore tranquillity; but things remained in the same

state on his return to Dublin as before his departure from thence. More

vigorous measures were afterwards adopted: proclamations were issued in

several counties applying the insurrection act to them, and a special

commission was sent down to try all offenders captured. A great number

of miserable creatures were convicted, but few individuals suffered the

last penalty of the law. But notwithstanding these trials, the outrages

in Ireland lost little of their horrors. The refusal to pay tithes

became general; and many frightful collisions occurred between the

peasantry and the authorities which endeavoured to repress their lawless

proceedings, The law was, in fact, powerless; and whenever the officers

of the law interfered, open war was declared against them.

[Illustration 482.jpg BRISTOL FROM ROWHNAM FERRY]

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 3rd of October the chancellor of the exchequer laid his view of

finance for the year before the house of commons. This was the second

statement within the year; for the original budget was a failure,

and his lordship had been driven to the necessity of changing his

operations. His present statement was that the total amount of

receipts for the present year would be £47,250,000, and the expenditure

£46,756,221. He had, he said, to allow for £200,000 more received from

the account of the last year, so that he would take the surplus of

revenue over expenditure at £493,000. He begged to observe that

this surplus was larger than he had anticipated in February last,

notwithstanding he had not succeeded in carrying several of the taxes he

had proposed. In the customs there had been a falling off this quarter;

but he had grounds for concluding that it would not continue. In regard

to the sinking-fund, he said, that, at the commencement of each quarter,

he had taken an average of the four preceding quarters, and that sum he

had applied to the reduction of the debt in the succeeding quarter, if

the revenue was not clearly falling. The act allowed the commissioners

for the reduction of the national debt to apply the surplus to the

purchase of exchequer-bills, as well as stock; and since the revenue had

been diminished so much by the reduction of taxes, the surplus had been

applied in the purchase of such bills. He had done this in order to

diminish the number of securities in the hands of the bank; and although

the plan was operose, the effect was, that the debt was not reduced,

unless there was a real surplus of revenue.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The king prorogued parliament on the 20th of October, in person. On the

one all-absorbing topic, that of reform in parliament, he remarked:—“In

the interval of repose which may now be afforded to you, I am sure it is

unnecessary for me to recommend to you the most careful attention to the

preservation of tranquillity in your respective counties. The

anxiety which has been so generally manifested by my people for the

accomplishment of a constitutional reform in the commons house of

parliament, will, I trust, be regulated by a due sense of the necessity

of order and moderation in their proceedings. To the consideration of

this important question the attention of parliament must necessarily

again be called at the opening of the ensuing session; and you may

be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such

improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for

securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in

combination with those of the other orders of the state, are essential

to the support of our free constitution.” Parliament was prorogued to

the 22nd of November, but subsequently by proclamation to the 6th of

December.

CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV.

The coronation of William IV. took place on the 8th of September. The

ceremony was shorn of the grotesque pageantry of chivalric times, and

was confined to the interior of the abbey. The royal procession moved

in state carriages from St. James’s Palace, and was escorted by the

cavalry. His majesty was saluted with hearty cheers from the multitude,

such as greeted his father in the most palmy days of his reign. His

majesty, the first naval king that ever sat on the British throne, was

dressed in an admiral’s uniform. As the procession passed, the bands

which were stationed at different points played the national anthem,

which tended to excite the enthusiasm of the people. In conformity

with precedents, the coronation was distinguished by the grant of new

honours. Three marquesses, four earls, and fifteen barons were created;

and this increase of the peerage was afterwards succeeded by the

addition of twenty-eight names to the list of baronets of the United

Kingdom, for the express purpose of carrying the reform bill.

OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, ETC.

The ceremony of opening new London Bridge took place on the 1st of

August. It was honoured by the presence of their majesties, who partook

of a banquet in a pavilion erected on the bridge. On the day following,

another exhibition of royalty took place in the procession of their

majesties to the house of lords, that the king might give his assent

to the queen’s dower bill. On the same day, in consequence of a royal

message, delivered by Earl Grey, the importance of making a further

provision to support the honour and dignity of the Princess Victoria,

as presumptive heiress of the crown, was taken into consideration. It

appeared that, in consequence of Prince Leopold’s election to the throne

of Belgium, £6000 per annum, which he had hitherto allowed his sister

and niece, had been withdrawn. Lord Althorp made a similar statement

in the commons; and he proposed an addition of £10,000 per annum to the

income of the duchess, which resolution was agreed to _nem. con_.

RAVAGES OF THE CHOLERA.

While the country was in the disturbed state described in previous

pages, its confusion was increased by the appearance of the cholera

morbus. This frightful malady first appeared on the banks of the Ganges,

in 1817. The early manifestations of it consisted in violent vomitings

and discharges of the bowels. After this, spasmodic contractions,

beginning in the fingers, gradually extended themselves to the trunk;

the pulse sank; the skin became cold; the lips, face, neck, hands, and

feet, and soon after the thighs, arms, and surface assumed a leaden,

blue, purple, black, or deep brown tint, according to the complexion

of the individual, or the intensity of the attack. The fingers and

toes were reduced in size; the skin and soft parts covering them became

wrinkled, shrivelled, and folded; the nails assumed a bluish, pearly

white hue; the larger superficial veins were marked by flat lines of a

deeper black; the pulse became small as a thread, and sometimes totally

extinct; the voice sunk into a whisper; the respiration was quick,

irregular, and imperfect; and the secretion of urine was totally

suspended. Death took place often in ten or twelve, and generally in

eighteen or twenty hours after the appearance of well-founded symptoms.

Many were the thousands who perished by this visitation in India; the

cities of Decca and Patna, the towns of Balasore, Burrishol, Burdavan,

and Malda suffered greatly, and throughout the Gangetic Delta the

population was sensibly diminished. The scourge was extended eastward

along the coast of the Asiatic continent, and through the islands of

the Indian Ocean, to China and to Timor. Before the end of 1827, it had

traversed the Molucca islands, and the island of Timor, and continuing

for several years to ravage the interior of China, it had, by 1827,

passed to the north of the great wall, and had desolated some places

in Mongolia. In the meantime, also, it extended to the west. Bombay,

Persia, Asiatic Turkey, Russia, Poland, Austria, and Prussia, all

experienced the dreadful visitation, from 1818 to 1831. Precautions had

been taken in England, by enforcing quarantine regulations, to protect

the country from the malady; but notwithstanding, in the month of

October of this year, it made its appearance in Sunderland. Before the

close of the year, it found its way from Sunderland and Newcastle to the

suburbs of the metropolis. At first its outrages were generally confined

to the victims of intemperance; but it soon began to attack patients

of all descriptions, and to spread from the capital into the provinces.

Scarcely any part in the empire, eventually, escaped the fearful

scourge, but its inflictions, probably by reason of the habits of the

people, and the nature of the climate, were less violent than in the

other nations which it had visited. A board of health was established,

which made a daily report of cases. Concerning the disease, there was

great contrariety of opinion among medical men. The main points on which

they differed were as to whether the disease was contagious or not;

whether it was the Asiatic cholera or a new complaint; whether it was

imported or indigenous; and whether it partook of the properties of

the plague, or was to be regarded as a transient scourge. The ratio of

deaths in England was found to be about one to three. Some places were

entirely free from its ravages, although it was raging near, which gave

rise to an opinion that its propagation was extended by currents in the

air.

“God proclaims His hot displeasure against foolish men,

That live an atheist life; involves the heaven

In tempests; quits his grasp upon the winds,

And gives them all their fury; bids a plague

Kindle a fiery boil upon the shin,

And putrefy the breath of blooming health.

He calls for famine, and the meagre fiend

Blows mildew from between his shrivelled lips,

And taints the golden ear.

He springs his mines,

And desolates a nation at a blast.”

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

In France, this year was likewise distinguished by tumults. In Paris and

Lyons especially there were great disturbances; and at the latter place

the riot of workmen advanced to such a height that the Duke of Orleans,

accompanied by Marshal Soult, was dispatched thither with extraordinary

powers to quell the revolt. In the Netherlands, after Prince Leopold had

accepted the crown, which he did in the month of June, Holland, on the

1st of August, declared the armistice to be at an end, and prepared

to enforce by arms the rights which Europe had, on a former occasion,

declared to belong to the king of that country. A Dutch army entered

Belgium, and routed the Belgian forces at Hasselt and Louvain, which

latter city it captured. This army, however, subsequently retired before

a large French force which arrived at Brussels for the defence of the

country. The marches of the Dutch and French armies became a subject of

debate, in consequence of which the French troops were recalled. Another

set of articles was framed by the conference, which declared that the

acceptance of them should be compulsory. Belgium readily accepted them,

but they were rejected by Holland. After this, a treaty was signed

between the five powers and Leopold, who was recognized by them as King

of Belgium; but the Dutch plenipotentiaries entered a strong protest

against this instrument, feeling a certainty of being aided in their

pretensions by some of the contracting powers, and by a strong party

even in Great Britain. The state of possession however, at the close

of the year, remained undisturbed; the King of Holland having declared

that, although he would not desist from his military armaments, he would

employ them at present only for the purposes of defence. In Spain, this

year two attempts at insurrection were made; but they were followed

by defeats, arrests, and executions. In Portugal, where Don Miguel’s

cruelties continued unabated, the hopes of the constitutionalists were

revived in the return of Don Pedro, with his daughter. Donna Maria, to

Europe, and his preparations for a descent on Portugal. Don Miguel made

every exertion to put the forts of the Tagus into a state of complete

preparation to repel the expected attack; but all his efforts were

weakened by the want of money; and at the close of the year his usurped

throne was in danger of being overthrown. Insurrections were also, this

year, prevalent in Italy. They occurred in Parma, Modena, and the Papal

States, and were put clown by Austrian interference. Greece, during the

same period, for whose pacification the powers of Europe had laboured so

long, was a scene of violence and war. The popularity of Capo d’Istria,

either from his too great attachment to Russian interests, or from the

jealousy and discontents of the chiefs, unused to control and jealous

of power, had rapidly declined. In consequence of this he became

suspicious and tyrannical; and before the year closed he lost his life

by assassination. This year was fatal to the liberty of Poland. Driven

to insurrection by the faithless and tyrannical conduct of Nicholas,

betrayed by France, deserted by England, and persecuted in their low

estate by Austria and Prussia, the Poles, after heroically struggling

with the armies of Eussia, were finally subdued. Warsaw was captured;

the Polish armies disbanded; the nobles degraded; and thousands of every

rank, age, and sex subjected to the most cruel punishments, and the

nationality of the country destroyed, so far as human ingenuity could

accomplish so fell a destruction. Poland rose for a desperate struggle

against the Russian giant, and astonished the world with its prowess;

but it proved unequal to stem the crushing movements of the Muscovites.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

The British parliament reassembled on the 6th of December. During

the recess, ministers had been urged by their reforming adherents to

reintroduce the reform bill without delay; and it became evident, from

his majesty’s speech, that this subject would become the absorbing topic

of the next session. His majesty distinctly stated his views on the

subject of reform in the opening of the speech, thus:—“I feel it to

be my duty, in the first place, to recommend to your most careful

consideration the measures which will be proposed to you for a reform in

the commons house of parliament; a speedy and satisfactory settlement of

this question becomes daily of more pressing importance to the security

of the state, and to the contentment and welfare of my people.” The

other parts of the speech referred to the distress which prevailed; to

the appearance of the cholera morbus; to the agitation prevailing in

Ireland; to the Portuguese affairs; to the separation of the states of

Holland and Belgium; to a convention entered into with the king of the

French for the suppression of the slave-trade; to the estimates; and to

the recent riots. The address did not produce any division, but several

parts of it were objected to in both houses. In the lords, the principal

matter of discussion was found in those parts of the royal speech

which regarded the foreign policy of the government, the opposition

particularly objecting to that part of the address in answer to it

which expressed satisfaction that an arrangement had been made for the

separation of the states of Holland and Belgium. At the suggestion of

Lord Harrowby the paragraph was slightly altered, so as to meet the

views of all parties. In the commons, Sir Charles Wetherell brought

under notice that part of the speech which related to the riots at

Bristol, in the course of which he made some severe remarks on the

libels of the press, which had charged him with being the author of

those events; the charge was false, he said, in all its parts, and known

to be false by those who made it. Sir Robert Peel proposed the same

alteration in that part of the address that related to the affairs of

Holland and Belgium, which Lord Harrowby had suggested in the upper

house, and it was adopted. In his speech, besides adverting generally

to the other topics in the address, he protested against a precedent now

established, that of assembling parliament for the dispatch of business

without giving the usual notice. He admitted that, by the letter of the

law, government was entitled to call parliament together after fourteen

days’ notice; yet it was laid down by the highest authority that, up

to the period when the old law was altered, it was deemed of high

importance that forty days’ notice should be given of the meeting of

parliament. Of the allusion in the speech and address to the necessity

of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the reform question, Sir

Robert said that he would not object to it, as ministers had declared

that it was not intended to express any pledge. He would candidly avow,

however, that he despaired of seeing the question brought to a speedy

and satisfactory settlement. In the different discussions on the reform

bill, ministers had agitated principles which did not admit of any

satisfactory settlement. It was his conscientious belief, indeed, that

the principles of the bill were so many impediments to the settlement

of the question, which the ministers themselves had not the capacity

to remove. In reply, Lord Althorp justified the short notice on which

parliament had been called together, by the circumstances of the

country. Mr. Hume made some remarks on the distress of the country,

which he connected with the paper currency, and he moved this

amendment:—“That in the present critical and alarming state of the

country, when trade and manufactures were reduced to such difficulties

by the withdrawing of, and narrowing the circulation, without a

proportionate reduction of taxation, by which the means of all but those

who lived upon the taxes were reduced one-half in value, the greatest

distress existed; that these were aggravated by the baleful system

called free-trade, by which a competition of foreign silks, gloves, and

other articles was permitted with our own manufactures; that by these

means the people were driven to desperation and frenzy, and that to

these causes were to be attributed those incendiary proceedings going

on in the country; that for these reasons the house do adjourn, to give

time to ministers to prepare a suitable address, taking proper notice of

the state and condition of the country.” Mr. Hume said that he did not

move this amendment to get rid of the address, but to give ministers

time to consider whether they would not depart from the practice of

making the address a mere echo of the speech. No member, however, would

second the amendment, and therefore it fell to the ground.

NEW REFORM BILL.

On the 12th of December, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved for

leave to bring in a new reform bill. He first called upon the house to

remember Earl Grey’s declaration on the rejection of the former bill

in the house of lords—namely, that he remained in office only with

the view of bringing forward another and no less efficient measure of

reform. The principles of the two measures, he said, were the same—any

alterations which had been made left its efficiency unimpaired. He

conceived that, as a resolution had been passed by the house of commons

in favour of the last measure, it was only necessary to explain the

alterations in the present bill, which alterations regarded the manner

of carrying into effect principles already adopted by the house.

These principles consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed and

inconsiderable boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent

towns; and the introduction of a general new electoral qualification.

As regards the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs, the former bill had

taken the census of 1821 as the rule, and had fixed on a certain amount

of population, disfranchising all those whose population did not at that

time reach the amount. Since that time a new census had been taken. This

census could not be thrown out of view, but, at the same time, it was

liable to objection, having been taken after a particular point of

population had been fixed as that of disfranchisement, it was not

improbable that pains had been taken to raise certain boroughs above

the line of disfranchisement. Ministers had, therefore, rather taken

the number of houses than that of inhabitants, it being less likely that

improper practices would be adopted in regard to the former than to the

latter. It had been found difficult, he continued, to draw a line which

should mark where the census should be attended to, and where it was

to be disregarded. Ministers had used every effort to obtain a correct

account of the size and importance of the boroughs which were to be

abolished; and on the data they had obtained schedule A of the new bill

was to be founded. The drawing of the line at which disfranchisement

should stop, he said, must necessarily be arbitrary, whether the

population, the houses, or the amount of the assessed taxes, or the

number of boroughs, was to be taken into consideration. It had appeared

to ministers that the number which had been fixed last session to be

disfranchised was proper, and therefore they proposed to strike off

fifty-six, the number which stood in schedule A of the former bill. The

consequence of this was that some of the boroughs which formerly escaped

disfranchisement in consequence of the population of their parishes

being large, though the boroughs themselves were inconsiderable, would

now be placed in schedule A, whilst others would be raised out of it,

and placed in schedule B. Another part of the disfranchising clauses of

the bill regarded the boroughs in schedule B, which were to be deprived

of only one of their two members. Ministers had now resolved to give

an additional member to a certain number of boroughs in this schedule,

taking the number to be included in it to be forty-one, as it had been

fixed last session, and dividing the rest of the twenty-three members,

with two exceptions, among the newly enfranchised towns which, under the

late bill, were to have only one representative.

Of the twenty-three members required to fill up the numbers of the

house, it was proposed that ten should be given to the most considerable

towns in schedule B, one to Chatham, so as to render it independent of

Rochester, and another to the county of Monmouth, from which there had

been several petitions, stating that there was only one district of

boroughs in that county, although its population exceeded 100,000. The

rest of the twenty-three, he continued, were given to the large towns to

which the late bill gave one representative each. The consequence of

all this was, that there would be only thirty boroughs in schedule B,

instead of forty-one, and that in schedule C. instead of twelve members,

there would be forty-two: instead of ninety-six places, as by the old

bill, there would be only forty-nine returning one representative each.

His lordship next proceeded to the ten-pound qualification clause. As it

stood in the last bill, he said, the right of voting in boroughs was

to be enjoyed by occupiers of houses assessed to the house-duty, or

poor-rates at ten pounds, or rented, or of the annual value of the same;

but then this right was afterwards limited thus:—that no one whose

landlord compounded for the rates should be entitled to vote unless he

claimed to be rated in his own name, and that no one should be entitled

to vote for airy premises, unless he had occupied them for twelve

calendar months, and had not been in the receipt of parochial relief

during that time. He now proposed that every one who occupied a lease

of the value of ten pounds should have a right to vote in behalf of it,

provided he was rated,—not that he should be rated at ten pounds, but

that he should be assessed to the poor-rates, and then the only question

to be decided would be, whether he was the occupier of a house or a

warehouse of the stated value. It would also be enacted, that any person

who was not rated to the poor-rates might demand to be placed upon them,

and being so placed upon them, might claim to be put on the registry.

In other matters, his lordship said, connected with the right of voting,

the present bill would be found to differ from the last, though most of

what stood in the latter was still allowed to remain. Thus the former

bill had allowed the right of voting to freemen during the lives of

those now in possession; the present bill did the same, but it went a

step further, in preserving the rights of freemen, acquired by birth

or servitude, for ever. Another change related to officers, about which

some difficulty arose in the committee on the late bill: it was

this, that in any case where his majesty might grant a charter

of incorporation to any of the new boroughs to be created by the

bill,—such as those in schedule C,—it was intended that the mayor or

other chief officer of such corporation should be returning officer of

such borough. It was thought much better, he said, to unite the voters

in such boroughs in a corporate form on liberal principles, the same as

those of London and other places, than to leave them the right of voting

without such corporate form. Another right reserved in the bill related

to the rights of freeholders in cities being counties in themselves.

Freeholders were of three classes: some voted in the county at large;

others only for the county of the city or borough; and others did not

vote for either. It was intended that the voters for counties at large

should remain undisturbed, and those who voted for the county of the

city would also be allowed to continue that vote, but those who by the

former bill were not to be allowed to vote for either place would now be

allowed to vote for the county in which the city or borough happened

to be situated. Lord John Russell added in conclusion, that by the late

bill commissioners were appointed to make inquiries, and to ascertain

the limits of boroughs, and that the reports of these commissioners

would be laid before parliament, for it to determine the limits of

each. In consequence of the inquiries of these commissioners a mass of

information had been obtained, which he hoped to be able to lay before

the house soon after the Christmas recess. There were other alterations

of minor importance, he said, in the bill, and some verbal changes, but

it was not necessary to allude to them, as the discussion of these would

be more proper in the committee. Sir Robert Peel said that in one thing

there must be an unanimous feeling on all sides—that of gratitude at

the escape which the country had had from the bill of the last session,

a danger which he had not till now fully appreciated. The new bill, he

contended, was a full and complete answer to the calumnies of which they

had heard so much in the last session against the factious delays, as

they were then called, of those who sought to introduce some of those

very modifications now adopted by the noble lord who brought forward the

former measure. There was scarcely an amendment in schedule A which had

been offered from the opposition side of the house which had not been

adopted. The principle of population was abandoned; and the preservation

of the rights of freemen, which the opposition had vainly struggled to

introduce last session, was now voluntarily urged by the noble lord, as

an improvement in his new plan of reform. He would not stop to inquire,

he said, why when five boroughs were taken out of schedule A as many

more should be added, so as to make the number fifty-six; nor would he

now examine why the number of boroughs having but one member each should

be reduced from sixty-nine to forty-nine; nor would he enter into any

inquiry as to the cause of the change in the right of voting in cities

and counties; he left all these matters for future discussion;—but

he must congratulate himself and his friends on the effect of the

opposition which they made to the last bill. He was not surprised that

the noble mover should have been so severe on the last bill; but he must

say, that he was not prepared for such a sacrifice to the manes of the

late parliament as the adoption of the resolution of General Gaseoyne,

by keeping up the number of members undiminished. After all that had

been said, both in and out of the house, as to the nature and the object

of the opposition, it was declared to be the deliberate conviction of

the king’s government, that the objections which the opposition took

were well founded. He rejoiced for the sake of the character of those on

that side of the house with whom he had the honour to act, that such a

triumphant refutation was brought forward of the charges which had

been made against them. He rejoiced, also, not only on account of the

amendments which had been made in the details of the bill; but because,

if the house should determine, on the second reading of the bill, to

adopt the principle of the measure, and to make so extraordinary and

extensive a change in the frame and constitution of the government of

this country, he could not help thinking that when they approached the

discussion of the details, there would be a disposition on the part

of the majority of the house to follow the course of ministers, and to

introduce more amendments into the measure. Lord Althorp, on the

other hand, said that he could not recollect a question moved from the

opposition side of the house with respect to any of the alterations

which had since been made in the bill. Ministers had given their

attention to every reasonable suggestion with regard to the details of

the bill, and some of those alterations now proposed might have been

pressed upon their consideration; but he did not remember that an

opportunity had been given them last session to adopt such resolutions.

The bill having been rejected, ministers had employed the interval

which had since elapsed in endeavouring to remove all objections to the

details of the measure, and in introducing such improvements as were

consistent with its great principle; and yet, because they had done so,

the right honourable baronet taunted them with unstable conduct. The

giving up the clause regarding commissioners, he asserted, was the

necessary consequence of the fact of the commissioners having now made

their inquiry. Great alterations were said to have been made in schedule

A: fifty-one boroughs out of fifty-six remained as before. The ten-pound

clause, again, it was admitted, had not suffered from the alteration

which had been introduced in it: the fact was, the clause had been

merely simplified in its wording and provisions; in its practical effect

it was precisely similar to that contained in the late bill. Some of

the Irish members complained that injustice was done to Ireland in

not allowing her a greater number of members: twenty-three additional

members, it was said, had now been given to England, and eight to

Scotland; and yet Ireland was still to receive only the one hundred

and five which had originally been allotted her under very different

circumstances. The bill, however, was read a first time without a

division, and the second reading was fixed for the 16th; after which,

Lord Althorp stated that the house would adjourn for the Christmas

holidays.

On the 16th, on the motion being made that the bill be read a second

time, Lord Porchester moved an amendment that it should be read a second

time that day six months. He had hoped, he said, that ministers would

have framed a bill which would have been generally acceptable. The

debate which followed was continued by adjournment on the 17th. Sir E.

Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that

the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and

equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though

some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better.

There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for

the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency

of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted

that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for

the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as

if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to

theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but

the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first,

and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the

refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he

continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not

mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement

might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the

responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there

was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate

in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers

must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more

auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed,

nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore,

the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of

the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair

means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be

carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now

set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to

all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the

opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected

their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public

peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart

Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments

entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which

might, to a great extent, have met the ‘wishes of those who, like

himself, were disposed to mitigate their opposition, if it could be done

without sacrificing the principles for which they contended. He had been

disappointed: and, therefore, notwithstanding the improvements made in

the bill, he could not give it his support. He was satisfied that in

principle, and in some of the details, this bill was dangerous: yet if

members on the other side would declare their willingness to admit of

further amendments, he would not be indisposed to give up the point of

disfranchisement to a considerable extent, as being the point on which

the popular feeling was most strongly excited; provided that, on the

other hand, concessions were made in parts of the bill on which the

public did not feel so strongly. Lord John Russell contended that

it signified little whether they took away this or that number of

nomination-boroughs; the time was gone by when any government could be

earned on by means of their operation. It must be carried on under the

control of the intelligent and respectable part of the community,

which control would be provided by the bill. If the bill passed into

operation, he had no doubt that men would be returned of sound views,

and entitled to the confidence of the country. Sir C. Wetherell, on the

other hand, maintained that while the present was the most unfit of all

seasons to agitate reform, in consequence of the violent excitement into

which the country had been thrown, that excitement itself was mainly

attributable to ministers, who had fostered it for the express purpose

of carrying the bill. Sir Robert again combated the details of the bill,

arguing that they tended to the destruction of the British constitution.

He added, in conclusion, “This bill, therefore, I shall oppose to the

last, believing, as I do, that the people are grossly deluded as to the

practical benefits which they have been taught to expect from it; that

it is the first step, not directly to revolution, but to a series of

changes which will affect the property, and alter the mixed constitution

of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the house of

lords; and that it will force on a series of further concessions. I

will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will

be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because the opposition now made

will oppose a bar to further concessions hereafter. If the whole of the

house were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist

future changes. On this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any

well-considered reform of any of our institutions, which the well-being

of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution,

because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it, which

are founded in prejudice, perhaps, as well as in higher sources of

veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this;

and I will wield all the power I possess to oppose the gradual progress

of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to

yield; for if we make those concessions, it will only lead to establish

the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may

be enabled to establish a republic full, I have no doubt, of energy—not

wanting, I have no doubt, in talent; but in my conscience I believe

fatal to our mixed form of government, and ultimately destructive of all

those usages and practices which have long ensured to us a large share

of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the

proudest kingdom in the annals of the world.” The bill was supported by

Sir H. Willoughby, Lord William Lennox, Messrs. Bulwer and Slaney, and

other members, who all insisted on the absolute necessity of yielding,

and of yielding precisely what was contained in the bill, because all

the principles therein contained, and the extent to which they should be

applied, had been submitted to the people, and had been adopted by them,

with a determination which rendered resistance useless. On the other

hand, the bill was opposed by Lord Mahon, Sir E. H. Inglis, and other

members. It was stated that most members of the house had seen an

address to the inhabitants of Leeds, signed “Thomas Babington Macaulay,”

in which that gentleman stated that he by no means considered the bill

as final, but that he looked upon it only as a step towards a more

extended suffrage. The house divided on the morning of the 18th, which

was Sunday, and the motion for the second reading was carried by a

majority of three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and

sixty-two. Immediately after the division, the house adjourned for the

Christmas holidays, till the 17th of January.

CHAPTER XLII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

_Reform Bill passed by the Commons..... Debates on the Reform

Bill in the Lords..... Disturbed State of the Nation.....

Re-assembling of Parliament..... Failure of the Attempts to

form a New Administration..... Ministers Recalled.....

Reform Bill passed..... Irish and Scotch Reform Bills

passed..... Bill to Prevent Bribery at Elections, &c.

Committees on Irish Tithes..... Financial Statements.....

Committee on the Charter of the East India Company, &c.

The Affairs of the West Indies..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... General Election..... Resignation of the

Speaker..... State of Ireland..... State of the Continent_

REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

{A.D. 1832}

When parliament reassembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed

their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th.

Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the

house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been

put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord

Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On

the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee,

Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of

imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and

the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was

unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number

of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they

came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see

whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker

moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the

24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went

into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said,

that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought

best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house

in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or

fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different

from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their

own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments

that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the

opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should

be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the

number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding

session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same

number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the

lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little

risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them,

while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to

satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the

former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker’s motion was negatived; and

then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which

enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send

only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no

reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the

ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient

principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs

in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion

was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to

various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different

places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much

opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of

the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without

opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the

division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority.

On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the

right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall

“be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in

this present parliament,” Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the

present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should

have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning

officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction

the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he

thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the

objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause

for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much

discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of

it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal

support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part

of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with

the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which

aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and

that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient

institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause

in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in

consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will;

while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the

former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing

contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert

Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to

suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right

of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill,

and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from

property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual

possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or

borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities

or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and

propose that each county should return four members. He offered this

suggestion _bona fide_, as an alteration that would simplify the

operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an

amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely

to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that

it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus

contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither

tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural

voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected.

As for Sir Robert Peel’s proposition, there was the great objection

which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a

distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more

immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the

consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs,

which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties,

would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an

overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result

with Sir Robert Peel’s proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on

the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the

possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough,

and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should

be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was

likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three

members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was

denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness

or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was

in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as

an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on

tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum.

Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now,

although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to

get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause

altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported

by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted

for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part

of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the

qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt

and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the

formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the

mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion.

By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different

clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been

agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should

be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice

would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs

should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether

the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were

correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and

yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if

the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for

schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in

the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the

game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were

added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise

added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the

line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide

what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the

assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and

yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the

schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained.

Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect

to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed.

Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and

they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties;

but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where

the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no

reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it

was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and

calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no

division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and

the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an

amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by

the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had

committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been

introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its

disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A;

but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain

in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised

was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place.

No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other

not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman

Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a

corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory

of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was

decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead

of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in

England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members,

moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred

to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the

motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He

conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering

what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims

to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population,

wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted

that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted

it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the

success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by

sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of

boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr.

Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee

proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to

form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the

committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places

hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in

considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer

eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy,

Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that

to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great

excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the

rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be

omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord

Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from

being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John

Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand,

maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was

required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that

the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would

attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion

of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and

sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of

schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to

return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include

Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the

report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved

to allow the latter place a member of its own: “treating it,” he said,

“rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough.” By the

9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was

considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions

on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the

objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in

which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third

reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that

it should be read a third time that day six months.

The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a

debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and

against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill

was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two

hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen

for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment

which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool,

and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived

without a division.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

When the reform bill had been thus carried through the commons a second

time, the reformers began again to be apprehensive of its fate in the

upper house, and to bring again into operation their various engines

of clamour and intimidation. It was industriously reported abroad that

ministers had been armed with a _carte blanche_ for the creation of

peers, in order to carry the measure; but though they did not deny it,

it does not appear that any such power had been delegated to them. At

all events the bill was laid before the house of lords without a single

peer having been created, and it was read a first time on the 26th

of March. The most important part of its reception consisted in the

speeches of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had led the opposition

of last session, but who now declared their intention to vote for the

second reading. The Bishop of London was also so impressed with the

dangers hanging over the country, that he resolved to follow this

example. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of

Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Londonderry, expressed their undiminished

aversion to the measure. The second reading was moved on the 9th

of April, and the debate was continued up to the 13th. Before the

discussion commenced, the Duke of Buckingham gave notice that if there

should be, as he trusted there would be, a majority against the second

reading of this bill, he would bring in, after the Easter recess, a bill

for the purpose of giving representatives to such of the large towns

therein to be named, whose importance entitled them to representation;

and also for the purpose of joining and consolidating the representation

of certain boroughs which now elected members, so as to make room for

the new representatives without adding to the members of the house of

commons, and to extend the franchise in such a way as to prevent its

abuse in boroughs. In proof of his sincerity, his grace moved the

insertion of this notice on the journals of the house.

In moving the second reading of the reform bill, Earl Grey said, that he

considered himself almost relieved from entering into discussion of its

principles, because there were few of their lordships who did not now

recognise those principles, and admit that some degree of change

was necessary. After briefly mentioning the nature of the bill, its

interesting object, the large majority that had sent it from the commons

to the lords, and the support it had received from the people, he

proceeded to notice the Duke of Buckingham’s intended motion for

reform. His very notice, he said, admitted all the three principles

of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extension of the right

of voting. He felt, therefore, justified in calling on the house to

sanction the second reading of a measure founded upon a basis which was

acknowledged to be just, even by those who opposed the measure itself;

inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of proposing in the committee

such alterations in its details as might appear necessary and expedient.

The noble earl next proceeded to notice the alterations introduced into

the bill, and to defend the ten-pound qualification from objections

that had been raised against it. He concluded with an appeal to their

lordships on the unjust attacks made on him for having proposed a

measure which, in his opinion, was required by that duty which he owed

to his sovereign and his country. He especially called their lordships’

attention to the awful silence on the part of the people now prevailing,

and taking place of that outcry which first marked the progress of the

bill. Silence, he said, might perhaps lead some to imagine that they

were not viewing this measure with the same feelings of interest; but he

cautioned their lordships against forming such an opinion. “Though the

people are silent,” he added, “they are looking at our proceedings

this night no less intensely than they have looked even ever since the

question was first agitated. I know that it is pretended by many that

the nation has no confidence in the peers, because there is an opinion

out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separated from

those of the people. On the part of this house, however, I disclaim all

such separation of interests; and therefore I am willing to believe that

the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still

existing in their bosoms.” Lord Ellenborough opposed the motion for the

second reading, and moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a

second time that day six months. His lordship admitted that the bill

had passed the commons by a large majority, and that the majority was

seconded by a large body of the people: but when he recollected

how often material alterations had been made in the bill; that the

qualification clause had been remodelled eleven times; that a town had

been enfranchised at the very last moment; that among forty-six boroughs

of the original bill there had been forty-seven changes; and that

no such sweeping alteration had ever been made in the established

constitution of a great country, he could not see any reason for

adopting this last emanation of an ever-changing mind. There could be no

doubt that there were many respectable persons whose opinions ought to

be held in proper regard, who were anxious that some change should

take place in our system of parliamentary representation. He contended,

however, that if this bill passed it was clear, from the constituency

which would be created by it, that parliament must be prepared to go

further. It would be impossible, he said, to resist the demands of the

most numerous and most necessitous class in the state: concession must

proceed until universal suffrage was established. Lord Melbourne spoke

briefly in favour of the bill, and the Bishop of Durham opposed it.

At the same time, the latter said, he by no means considered that the

rejection of the present measure implied a rejection of reform

_in toto_; it was the duty of ministers to have proposed a measure

calculated to satisfy both the party that was anxious for reform, and

the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while

they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party.

Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections

to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament

worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the

house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made

regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a

subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their

lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched,

though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its

present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had

changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he

said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made

up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it

expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as

possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in

the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment

in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he

had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people

from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their

lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing

such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand,

the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the

rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for

rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it.

The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he

supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops.

The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the

former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote

for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this

change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished

opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the

sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a

man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the

considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contrary, the opinion

which more than another he was anxious to express was, that they should

not treat the present bill as they had treated the last; that though

they had then acted right in rejecting the bill, they would not

be warranted to do so again; and that they could not hope again

successfully to resist a measure which the house of commons had

sanctioned a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which

the people of England had expressed a decided opinion. It was for this

reason that he had prepared a resolution by which the house would pledge

itself, in the then next session, to take into serious consideration

some plan for extending the franchise to his majesty’s subjects, and for

correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of

the constitution. He was on the point of moving this resolution, when

he was persuaded by some noble friends that to do so then would do more

harm than good; that it would be better to wait till the excitement of

the public mind had been somewhat allayed before a more moderate measure

of reform than that brought forward by ministers should be submitted

to parliament. He yielded to the suggestion, hoping that the interval

between the two sessions would afford the public and their lordships

time to consider maturely the merits of the question, and that both

would see that, if the ministers’ plan were adopted, it would prove

injurious to all existing interests. In this he had been disappointed;

there had been time enough to allow a reaction to have manifested

itself; but it could not be denied that, notwithstanding the potent

objections which had been urged against the bill, no such reaction had

occurred. On these grounds, with others, his lordship said he would vote

for the second reading. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, who

said that he could not shift into the course which the Earl of Harrowby,

and those who thought with him had adopted. Why he could not, he

explained at great length; and he afterwards descanted at large upon the

objections which he had to the bill itself. It was bad, he said, because

it went to overturn the whole established system of representation;

it destroyed for the mere pleasure of reconstructing: it totally

revolutionised the representation of Scotland, and put an end to all the

arrangements which, three years ago, had been entered into for the final

settlement of the catholic question. It put an end, also, to that

most valuable principle of our existing constitution—the principle of

prescription—which sanctioned the descent, and secured the possession

of all kinds of property in this country. It went to destroy a number of

boroughs—some holding by prescription, and some by charter—and for no

reason whatever, except that such was the will of the minister of the

day. Lord Wharncliffe, who had moved the amendment which threw out the

former bill, had now come to the conclusion that the danger of rejecting

the bill was greater than that of taking it into consideration; and

that, by going into committee they might get rid of those parts of it

against which a strong objection was felt; and, at all events, would be

enabled more thoroughly to weigh its provisions. The effect of rejecting

the bill, in his opinion, would be to place all those who voted against

the second reading in a perilous situation with the country. The Duke of

Buckingham opposed the bill. His grace introduced no new argument,

but urged the house at all costs to resist reform in every shape. He

severely animadverted upon the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury, for

attacking the constitution and the ministers of the protestant religion.

The Bishops of Lincoln and Llandaff, who had opposed the last bill, now

announced their intention of voting for the second reading; at the same

time they did not pledge themselves to adopt the measure as a whole. On

the other hand, the Bishop of Exeter announced his intention of giving

the bill his decided opposition. His speech gave occasion to an angry

episode, founded on a somewhat common occurrence. It was generally

believed that the Times newspaper, which had recently distinguished

itself by great abuse in favour of the bill, was not altogether excluded

from the confidential communications of ministers. The Bishop of Exeter,

in descanting on the tone and the temper of the press, spoke of some

articles in this journal as “breathing the inspiration of the treasury.”

On the following evening Lord Durham, son-in-law of the premier,

assuming that he was the party pointed at, attacked what he called “the

bishop’s gross and virulent invective—his malignant, calumnious, and

false insinuations—his well-known powers of pamphleteering slang.” Here

the noble lord was called to order, and the Earl of Winchelsea moved

that the words “false insinuations” and “pamphleteering slang” should

be taken down. After some observations from Earl Grey, Lord Holland, and

the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not

the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the

imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour

of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his

majesty’s ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he

said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that

there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution,

in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the

depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on

society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always

endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant

places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions,

he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in

their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives,

and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity

of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it

might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now

to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being

consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their

judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire

to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the

public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own

industry, they had as deep a stake in the country’ as any noble baron

who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes

were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships.

Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country

to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who

depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic,

who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small

proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly

incomes—revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than

could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their

estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were

voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments

in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might

beat government on different clauses; but all that was done in the

committee might be undone on bringing up the report. Lord Eldon, on the

same side, said that no man was or could be an enemy to reform; but, he

thought, the first duty of every peer was to consider whether what

was proposed was or was not reform; whether it was a measure which the

people ought to expect, and which would confer any additional happiness

on those for whom it was intended. He had opposed reform for forty

years, because he had seen no plan which, in his opinion, would improve

the condition of the people: and this last was so vicious in its

principles and details, that it would be impossible to carry it

into effect with any safety to the institutions of the country. Lord

Tenterden likewise declared his continued hostility to the bill; and he

went so far as to say that he would never enter the doors of the house

again if the bill should be carried, “after it had become the phantom

of its departed greatness.” The Bishops of Rochester and Gloucester

likewise expressed their determination to vote against the bill; and the

latter took occasion to animadvert, with pointed but just severity, on

the attack which had been made by the Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury on

the ecclesiastical bench. The Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion,

and Viscount Goderich spoke in favour of it. They were followed by the

lord-chancellor, who referred to the petitions which had been addressed

to the house, the resolutions adopted at public meetings of merchants

and bankers, and the composition of the majorities and minorities in the

house of commons, to show that the opinion of property, as well as

of members, was in favour of the measure, and that the feeling of the

people had in no degree subsided. Lord Lyndhurst said that he had not

heard or seen anything to convince him that he had acted erroneously

in voting against the principles of the former bill; and as the present

bill was admitted to be the same, he should vote against the second

reading. Earl Grey, in his reply, repeated the answers which had already

been put forward to the views taken of the bill by its opponents, and

denied the charge of having excited the country. On the subject of the

threatened creation of peers, which had been so frequently alluded to,

his lordship said that the best writers on the constitution admitted

that, although the creation of a large number of peers for a particular

object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet in some

cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two houses, it might be

absolutely necessary. For many reasons he was averse to such a scheme;

but he believed it would be found that in a case of necessity, like that

which he had stated, a creation of peers would be justifiable, and in

accordance with the most acknowledged principles of our constitution. On

a division, the second reading was carried in favour of ministers by a

majority of nine, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-four against

one hundred and seventy-five.

After the reform bill had been read a second time, the lords broke up

for the Easter recess. Previous to their breaking up, however, the

Duke of Wellington thought proper to enter a protest against the second

reading on the journals. This protest embodied all the objections

urged against the bill; and it was signed by seventy-four other peers,

including the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester. The committee was

appointed the first day after the Easter recess.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The interval which elapsed before the reassembling of parliament was a

very memorable one in the annals of the country. Every association and

political union, tremblingly alive for the fate of the bill, was on the

alert, it being conceived that it was in imminent clanger of being lost

in committee. At Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield,

Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, as well as throughout the south

of England, meetings were held, at all of which resolutions were passed

expressing confidence in Earl Grey and his colleagues; and petitions

were got up to the king and the house of lords, beseeching them to

pass the bill unmutilated. In the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and

Stafford, all the associations agreed to meet at the foot of Newhall

Hill, and an immense assembly was collected on the day appointed, when a

petition to the house of lords was carried, “imploring them not to drive

to despair a high-minded, generous, and fearless people; nor to urge

them on, by a rejection of their claims, to demands of a much more

extensive nature; but rather to pass the reform bill into a law,

unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions, more especially

uninjured in the clauses relating to the ten-pounds franchise.” At

Birmingham, the council of the union declared its sittings permanent

until the fate of the bill should be decided. In the metropolis, an

extraordinary assembly of the national union took place. Mr. Hume was

in the chair, and various resolutions were agreed to, all urging the

necessity of the bill being passed without alterations; while a

petition to the house of lords stated that, in case of its mutilation or

rejection, “there was reason to expect that the payment of taxes would

cease; that other obligations of society would be disregarded; and that

the ultimate consequence might be the utter extinction of the privileged

orders.”

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled after the Easter recess on the 7th of May. The

house of lords then went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt

having been made by the opposition to move any obstructions to it.

In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the house would probably be

inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the commons;

namely, to dispose of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules

for future consideration. He proposed that the number fifty-six should

not be specified, but that their lordships should come to a successive

vote on each individual borough as part of the clause. He thought this

the best method of obviating objections which had been made to the

clause as it now stood. Lord Lyndhurst, however, thought it would be

still more convenient to postpone the consideration of the first

clause altogether. If this were done, he should likewise propose the

postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course for the

purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places

to be enfranchised—a matter which, he thought, ought to be discussed

before the house entered on the question of disfranchisement. His

lordship admitted that he considered the second reading of the bill to

have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement,

and extension of suffrage; but he contended that the house was not

fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these

principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying

that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and

looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were

abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to

suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory

to intelligent reformers. He observed, that Lord John Russell had

said on a previous day, “Let us first agree as to what towns shall

be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of

disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose.” He

would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question

of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the

extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have

carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore,

he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be

postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had

proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any

intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six.

There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were

proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and

therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with

the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the

fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a

different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to

be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative

of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by

Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the

Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not

to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it

expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and

fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle

avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure

likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition

was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the

second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of

the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the

second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt

with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house

contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If

ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if

the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the

proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the

object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that

no such intention was entertained; if it were, he would not support

it. It was his belief that the amendments which would be proposed would

comprise the whole of schedule A. Earl Grey, however, asserted that

nothing could have been devised better calculated to defeat the bill

than this amendment; and he would state at once that, if it were

carried, he would consider it fatal to the bill. He was pledged to the

principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of

the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to

listen to any suggestions which might be made with a view of preventing

injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the

extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. His lordship

also stated that he would resist with the most fixed determination any

proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the

effect of raising the qualification. These things being fixed, he was so

far from considering the proposed motion of little consequence, that it

appeared to him of the greatest importance. If it did not subvert the

principle of the bill, it materially affected it; and therefore it

was impossible that he should give it his assent. He was unable

to understand why enfranchisement should be proceeded with before

disfranchisement; he might reverse the proposition, and say, that the

amount of enfranchisement could not be ascertained till the extent of

disfranchisement was settled. A noble lord had expressed a hope that

ministers would confide in the peers on the other side of the house, to

grant a proper measure of reform to the people; had he observed any such

disposition, no one would have been more ready than himself to have met

it in a proper spirit; always recollecting that he was irrevocably fixed

to the bill. Another noble lord had said, that if any alteration should

be proposed which would defeat the principles of the bill, ministers

might reckon upon many coming over to them from the opposite side: he

could not rely on such a hope consistently with his duty to his king,

his country, and himself. It was his opinion that if the present motion

should be carried, there would be a difficulty in bringing the bill to

a successful issue; and if it should, it would then be necessary for him

to consider the course he should be constrained to adopt. At length the

house divided, and ministers were left in a minority, the votes for

Lord Lyndhurst’s amendment being one hundred and fifty-five, and those

against it, one hundred and sixteen.

On this defeat of ministers, Earl Grey immediately moved that the

house should resume; and stated that he would then move that the further

consideration of the bill be postponed till Thursday, the 10th. Lord

Ellenborough expressed his regret that ministers should interpose

delay; and took the opportunity of detailing the amendments which his

party, after serious consideration, intended to propose. These consisted

in a disfranchisement of one hundred and thirteen boroughs, their

privileges to be distributed among other places; a prohibition of

persons to vote for counties in respect of property situated

in boroughs; the adoption of a clearer and more certain mode of

ascertaining the genuineness and value of holdings; and the retention,

not only of the ten-pound qualification, but of scot and lot where it

existed.

Having postponed the further consideration of the bill, Earl Grey and

the lord-chancellor proceeded to Windsor, and tendered his majesty the

alternative of either arming the ministers with the powers they deemed

necessary to enable them to carry through their bill—namely, a creation

of peers—or of accepting their resignation. The ministers seem to have

expected that he would have adopted the former alternative; but the king

hesitated on account of the great number requisite, and the danger of

such a precedent. He did not give his answer till the next day, when

he informed Earl Grey that he had determined to accept his resignation

rather than have recourse to the only alternative which had been

proposed. Ministers then resigned _en masse_; and on the 9th Earl

Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, announced that the

ministry was at an end, and that they held their offices only till their

successors should be appointed. Earl Grey in doing so moved that the

order for going on with the committee next day should be discharged; and

he did not think it necessary to name another day for that purpose. The

Earl of Carnarvon strenuously resisted this proposition: the house would

not do its duty, he said, to the country or the sovereign, if it left

them in this extraordinary state, by suspending so important a subject

as reform. The motion for taking the committee on the following Monday

was agreed to.

In the commons, on the announcement of the resignation of ministers,

Viscount Ebrington gave notice that he would next day move an address to

the king on the state of public affairs, and that he would likewise

move a call of the house, that he might “guard against backsliders and

time-watchers,” and show the people who were their honest and consistent

representatives and who were not. In pursuance of this notice, on the

10th of May his lordship moved, “That an humble address be presented to

his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty the deep regret felt

by this house at the change which has been announced in his majesty’s

councils by the retirement of those ministers in whom this house

continues to repose unabated confidence. That this house, in conformity

with the recommendation contained in his majesty’s most gracious speech

from the throne, has framed and sent up to the house of lords a bill

for a reform in the representation of the people, by which they are

convinced that the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both

houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are

equally secured. That, to the progress of this measure, this house

considers itself bound in duty to state to his majesty that his subjects

are looking with the most intense interest and anxiety; and they cannot

disguise from his majesty their apprehension that any successful attempt

to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest

disappointment and dismay. This house is therefore compelled, by warm

attachment to his majesty’s person and government, humbly, but most

earnestly, to implore his majesty to call to his councils such

persons only as will cany into effect, unimpaired in all its essential

provisions, that bill for the reform of the representation of the

people, which has recently passed this house.” The motion was opposed by

Mr. Baring, who, before proceeding to speak against it, expressed a

hope that Lord Althorp would give some explanation of the nature of

that advice which ministers had tendered to the king, and his majesty’s

refusal of which had led to their resignation. Lord Althorp declined

answering, and Mr. Baring then went on to say that the house was thus

left in utter ignorance. He asked on what facts, therefore, was the

proposed address to be rested? Lord Althorp, in reply, said, that he had

no objection to state plainly that the advice which ministers had given

to the king was, that he should create as many peers as would enable

them to carry the reform bill through the house of lords in all its

efficiency. It was true he had treated a similar proposition to Lord

Lyndhurst’s, when made in the house of commons, as a matter of small

importance; but after the decision to which the lords had come, there

was no hope left of carrying the measure. From that moment the bill

had passed into the hands of its declared enemies; and ministers had to

choose between two alternatives,—either to resign immediately, or to

tender such advice as would place them in a situation in which they

might be responsible for the further progress of the bill; they had

adopted the latter alternative, and their advice having been rejected,

all that was left them was to resign. Mr. Hume, in supporting the

proposition, stated that it did not go far enough. Lord Morpeth

supported, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. The latter said,

that the first resolution implied a complete confidence in the existing

government. He could not consent to this; with reference to the

general course they had taken, he could not say that they deserved his

confidence. With respect to the reform question, and with reference

to some other points, he was decidedly opposed to the course which the

government had pursued. Mr. Macaulay, in supporting the proposition,

contended that the house had a right, with respect to the prerogative of

the sovereign in the choice of his ministers, as with regard to all the

other prerogatives of the crown, to offer its respectful advice. The

prerogative vested in the crown of creating peers, for the purpose

of carrying any public question, was a valuable and useful power, the

existence of which was absolutely necessary, in order, on important

questions, to obviate great and pressing inconveniences. He argued,

also, that there existed a strong necessity for counterbalancing, by a

creation of peers from the Whig party, the number of peers which, during

the last forty years, had been made from the Conservative party. There

could not be a strong objection to the creation of fifty peers in one

day, when no objection had been raised to the creation of two hundred in

the course of a generation by the one party that held power during that

period. He heartily concurred in the advice which ministers had given to

the king, and he regretted it had not been taken: unless ministers were

recalled, the reform bill would be lost. On a division, the resolutions

were carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-eight against two

hundred and eight.

FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS

RECALLED, ETC.

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed

throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies

in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a

dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him

to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent

to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which

styled itself “a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster,” assured the

king, that, unless their advice was complied with, “tumult, anarchy,

and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with

the extinction of the privileged orders,” The national political union

resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed,

no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the

treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of

commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground

that it was taken from “that admirable resolution adopted by the house

of commons in 1642.” The national union also resolved “that the

betrayal of the people’s cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or

his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that

meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the

kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the

people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from

the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house

of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the

supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the

lords of the treasury.” The common-council met at Guildhall, and

passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and

disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers,

that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform

Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a

refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity

of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till

the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and

passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that “they viewed with

distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical,

to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised

or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform.” The speeches at

this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government,

without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington

was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself

escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the

advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords,

however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men

who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of

every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of

Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were

held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington.

At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey’s resignation had no sooner

arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at Newhall Hill, and a petition

was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that

the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: “Your

petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of

England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition,

and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will

be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any

circumstances that may arise.” Some of the inhabitants defied the laws

of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the

effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed.

Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar

language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland

and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more

alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May.

The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of

the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of

the people, felt, and their determination of having “the bill, the whole

bill, and nothing but the bill,” be the cost what it might. At a public

meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, “that military were

marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations

were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of

slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military

yoke?” He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against

them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were

some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and

shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted

by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned

the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal

protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member

was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed

there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also,

was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the

theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an

administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation

of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman

to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had

rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation

of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that

“extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on

which such a ministry must be based.” Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his

majesty’s commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington.

The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and

openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large

sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his

majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less

that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king’s service, he

was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some

consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the

first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the

office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry

through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty’s

declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an “extensive reform” he assumed

to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a

condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly

had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of

no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated

the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and

they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came

forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington’s motion interposed

insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry

was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill;

office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter

hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident

from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst,

therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with

which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the

necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On

the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day

received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date

to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to

the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the

presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective

and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on

the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in

accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the

17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington

and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter.

The Duke of Wellington remarked:—“When his majesty found that he could

not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his

confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other

than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman,

whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics,

to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an

administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive

reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his

majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power

to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it

my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was

myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers

had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being

rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most

influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to

aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late

administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my

advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but

certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking

office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified

for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in

office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most

strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance

was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle

of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first

steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there

was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness

towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public

men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the

adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own

views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will

add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far

from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with

which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place,

my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for

myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official

capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government.” Lord

Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly

complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now

reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. “As far as I am

myself concerned,” he said, “I despise these calumnies. They may wound,

however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so

far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of

others, I hold them in the utmost scorn.” Several noble lords, although

they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been

explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been

high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day

because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had

neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise

that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in

violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and “dinned

their lordships’ ears” with denunciations of the measure, and

declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the

destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently.

There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and

imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended

from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and

representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring

that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own

ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships’ table,

unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon

said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons

assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had

hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their

opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power

and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the

two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had

been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved

that “the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged.” He

added:—“Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work.”

The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of

Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were

to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of

having received the king’s request to that effect, and in consequence

of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry

through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did

remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under

these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood

continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office

depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a

power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act

and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill.

In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser.

He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise

have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course

would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than

render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable.

But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was

by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an

opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form.

Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this

infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation

came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while

he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that

their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body

which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was

denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer

every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in

what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord

Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course

he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct

to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the

immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be

understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from

the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the

bill? Earl Grey replied, “I do not feel myself called on to answer the

questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already

stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the

expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future

stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any

right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that

I wish to be bound only by what I state myself.” Lord Wharncliffe

rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he

should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their

lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for

any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he

hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord

Wharncliffe’s question, whether it was intended to create peers? but

the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put,

and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee

on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the

intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was

assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir

Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a

circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty’s wish that

they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves

from the house when any important part of the measure to which they

could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that

his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of

a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the

majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a

time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of

the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or

forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to

this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house

of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was

made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another

address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended

to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity

of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a

new administration.

REFORM BILL PASSED.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and,

as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house.

The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst’s

suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that

which was in the noble mover’s mind. Schedule C was voted at the first

sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower

Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord

Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three

districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill

now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly

helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with

him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed,

with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred

and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now

ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships

having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion

regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by

commission on the 7th of June.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.