The large majorities in the House of Lords were to be ascribed chiefly

to the unparalleled influence of the Duke of Wellington. But the

public at the time were little aware of the difficulties that great

man had to deal with in overcoming the opposition of the king, who was

much under the influence of the Duke of Cumberland. When the storm

of Conservative violence reached its height, after the rejection of

Peel in Oxford, and his return, not without a struggle, for Westbury;

and when, on the 3rd of March, he gave notice that he would draw the

attention of the House to the clause of the Royal Speech referring

to Ireland, the king, greatly excited and alarmed, sent the same

evening to desire that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and

the Chancellor should wait upon him next day. He had already seen the

Chancellor once, and the Duke twice separately. The king received his

three Ministers, when they presented themselves at the palace, kindly

but gravely; he looked anxious and embarrassed while he requested them

to make him acquainted with the details of their Bill. It was explained

to him that it would relieve Roman Catholics from the necessity of

making a declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation; whilst

it so far modified in their case the oath of supremacy, as to omit

all notice of the king's authority in things spiritual. "What!" he

exclaimed, "do you mean to alter the ancient law of supremacy?" It was

to no purpose he was shown that the alteration applied only to Roman

Catholics, who would be dispensed from swearing what they could not

believe; but he appealed to his own coronation oath, in reference to

which he could not recognise the dispensing power of his Ministers.

The king was condescending in the extreme. He seemed deeply grieved

at the dilemma to which they had been brought. He acknowledged that

possibly he had gone too far on former occasions, though he had acted

entirely through misapprehension. But now he trusted that they would

see, with him, that it had become a point of conscience, and that there

was no alternative left him except to withdraw his assent. In the most

respectful manner they acquiesced in his Majesty's determination,

allowing, without a murmur, that he had a perfect right to act as he

proposed. But when he went on further to ask what they intended to do,

the Duke's answer was explicit: they must retire from his Majesty's

service, and explain to Parliament that unexpected obstacles had arisen

to the accomplishment of the policy which they were engaged to pursue.

To this Mr. Peel added, that as the Bill for the suppression of the

Catholic Association had been carried on the understanding that other

and more comprehensive measures would follow, it would be necessary to

make Parliament generally aware of the causes which operated to prevent

the bringing forward of those measures. The king heard all this to an

end, without attempting to interrupt, or argue with, his Ministers.

He admitted, on the contrary, that it was impossible for them to take

any other course, and then bade them farewell, kissing each of them

on both cheeks. They set off from Windsor immediately, and arrived at

Lord Bathurst's, where their colleagues were waiting dinner for them.

They made a full report of all that had occurred, and announced that

the Government was at an end. The party broke up, believing themselves

to be out of office; but early next morning, before any decisive steps

had been taken, a special messenger arrived at Apsley House with a

letter from the king. It was guardedly expressed, for it went no

further than to state that his Majesty had found greater difficulties

than he expected in forming a new Cabinet, and was therefore desirous

that the present Ministry should go on. The moment was critical, and

the position of the Government delicate and in some sense insecure. No

doubt, his Majesty's letter might be read as implying an abandonment

of the objections which he had taken to the policy of his Ministers

overnight, but it was certainly capable of a different interpretation.

It appeared, therefore, to the Duke, that before proceeding further it

would be necessary to come to a clear understanding with the king as to

his Majesty's real intentions, and Mr. Peel concurring in this opinion,

the Duke was requested to write to the king on the subject. He did so,

with all the candour and loyalty which were natural to him; and the

result was an unequivocal declaration from the Sovereign that he would

accept the measures of his Ministers as his own.

With Lord Eldon, however, he held different language, complaining

bitterly of the difficulties in which the Ministers had involved him.

He is represented as struggling desperately in meshes from which he

found it impossible to extricate himself; and, as usual with weak

minds, he threw all the blame of his misery on others. In reference

to an interview, Lord Eldon remarks: "I was not sent for afterwards,

but went on Thursday, the 9th of April, with more addresses. In the

second interview, which began a little before two o'clock, the king

repeatedly--and with some minutes intervening between his repeated

declarations, musing in silence in the interim--expressed his anguish,

pain, and misery that the measure had ever been thought of, and as

often declared that he had been most harshly and cruelly treated--that

he had been treated as a man whose consent had been asked with a pistol

pointed to his breast, or as obliged, if he did not give it, to leap

down from a five-pair-of-stairs window. What could he do? What had

he to fall back upon?" After relating much more in the same strain,

Lord Eldon adds: "Little more passed, except occasional bursts of

expression, 'What can I do? What can I now fall back upon? What can I

fall back upon? I am miserable, wretched. My situation is dreadful;

nobody about me to advise with. If I do give my consent, I will go to

the baths after all, and from thence to Hanover. I'll return no more

to England. I'll make no Roman Catholic peers; I will not do what

this Bill will enable me to do. I'll return no more. Let them get a

Catholic king in Clarence! [I think he also mentioned Sussex.] The

people will see that I did not wish this.' There were the strongest

appearances, certainly, of misery. He more than once stopped my leaving

him. When the time came that I was to go, he threw his arms around my

neck, and expressed great misery. I left him at about twenty minutes

or a quarter before five. I certainly thought when I left him that he

would express great difficulty, when the Bill was prepared for the

Royal Assent, about giving it." The writer adds, sarcastically:--"I

fear that it seemed to be given as a matter of course." Next day, Lord

Eldon wrote to his daughter: "The fatal Bill received the Royal Assent

yesterday afternoon. After all I had heard in my visits, not a day's

delay. God bless us and His Church." At Windsor, on the 13th of April,

the king pronounced over the Bill that he so hated the words--"_Le Roy

le veult_."

The number of Catholics in Britain at the time of passing the Relief

Bill was estimated by themselves at nearly 1,000,000, scattered, in

various proportions, through England, Scotland, and Wales. Of these,

200,000 were resident in London. The most Catholic counties in England

were Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Cheshire,

Northumberland, Durham, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent. In Ireland the

Roman Catholics were estimated at five millions and a half; and the

Protestants, of all denominations, at one million and three-quarters.

By the removal of the disabilities eight English Catholic peers were

enabled to take their seats by right in the House of Lords. The

Catholic baronets in England were then sixteen in number. In Ireland

there were eight Roman Catholic peers; in Scotland, two. The system of

religious exclusion had lasted 271 years, from the passing of the Acts

of Supremacy and Uniformity in 1559.

During the excitement that followed the passing of the Emancipation

Act incessant attacks were made upon the character of the Duke of

Wellington. Perhaps the most violent of these was published in the

_Standard_ by the Earl of Winchilsea, one of the most ardent of the

anti-Catholic peers, who charged the Premier with disgraceful conduct.

The offence was contained in a letter addressed by Lord Winchilsea to

Mr. Coleridge, secretary to the committee for establishing the King's

College, London. He said he felt rather doubtful as to the sincerity

of the motives which had actuated some of the prime movers in that

undertaking, "when he considered that the noble duke at the head of

his Majesty's Government had been induced on this occasion to assume

a new character, and to step forward himself as the public advocate

of religion and morality." He then proceeded:--"Late political events

have convinced me that the whole transaction was intended as a blind

to the Protestant and High Church party; that the noble duke, who

had, for some time previous to that period, determined upon breaking

in upon the Constitution of 1688, might the more effectually, under

the cloak of some outward show of zeal for the Protestant religion,

carry on his insidious designs for the infringement of our liberties,

and the introduction of Popery into every department of the State."

The Duke having obtained from Lord Winchilsea an avowal of the

authorship, demanded a retractation or apology, which was refused. The

matter was then referred to friends, and a hostile meeting was agreed

upon. "It is," says Mr. Gleig, "a curious feature in this somewhat

unfortunate occurrence, that when the moment for action arrived it

was found that the Duke did not possess a pair of duelling-pistols.

Considering the length of time he had spent in the army, and the

habits of military society towards the close of the last century, that

fact bore incontestable evidence to the conciliatory temper and great

discretion of the Duke. Sir Henry Hardinge, therefore, who acted as his

friend, was forced to look for pistols elsewhere, and borrowed them at

last--he himself being as unprovided as his principal--from Dr. Hume,

the medical man who accompanied them to the ground. The combatants met

in Battersea Fields, now Battersea Park. Lord Winchilsea, attended by

the Earl of Falmouth, having received the Duke's fire, discharged his

pistol in the air. A written explanation was then produced, which the

Duke declined to receive unless the word 'apology' was inserted; and

this point being yielded, they separated as they had met, with cold

civility."

[Illustration: THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S DUEL WITH LORD WINCHILSEA.

(_See p._ 300.)]

[Illustration: LORD ELDON. (_After the Portrait by Sir Thomas

Lawrence._)]

A third Bill yet remained to be carried, in order to complete the

Ministerial scheme of Emancipation, and supply the security necessary

for its satisfactory working. This was the Bill for disfranchising

the forty-shilling freeholders, by whose instrumentality, it may

be said, Emancipation was effected. It was they that returned Mr.

O'Connell for Clare; it was they that would have returned the members

for twenty-three other counties, pledged to support his policy. It

is true that this class of voters was generally dependent upon the

landlords, unless under the influence of violent excitement, when they

were wrested like weapons from their hands by the priests, and used

with a vengeance for the punishment of those by whom they had been

created. In neither case did they exercise the franchise in fulfilment

of the purpose for which it was given. In both cases those voters were

the instruments of a power which availed itself of the forms of the

Constitution, but was directly opposed to its spirit. Disfranchisement,

however, in any circumstances, was distasteful to both Conservative

and Liberal statesmen. Mr. Brougham said he consented to it in this

case "as the price--almost the extravagant price"--of Emancipation; and

Sir James Mackintosh remarked that it was one of those "tough morsels"

which he had been scarcely able to swallow. The measure was opposed by

Mr. Huskisson, Lord Palmerston, and Lord Duncannon, as not requisite,

and not calculated to accomplish its object. But although Mr. O'Connell

had repeatedly declared that he would not accept Emancipation if the

faithful "forties" were to be sacrificed, that he would rather die on

the scaffold than submit to any such measure, though Mr. Sheil had

denounced it in language the most vehement, yet the measure was allowed

to pass through both Houses of Parliament without any opposition worth

naming; only seventeen members voting against the second reading in

the Commons, and there being no division against it in the Lords.

Ireland beheld the sacrifice in silence. Mr. O'Connell forgot his

solemn vows, so recently registered, and, what was more strange, the

priests did not remind him of his obligation. Perhaps they were not

sorry to witness the annihilation of a power which landlords might

use against them and which agitators might wield in a way that they

could not at all times control. There had been always an uneasy feeling

among the prelates and the higher clergy at the influence which Mr.

O'Connell and the other lay agitators had acquired, because it tended

to raise in the people a spirit of independence which rendered them

sometimes refractory as members of the Church, and suggested the idea

of combination against their own pastors, if they declined to become

their leaders in any popular movement. The popular leaders in Ireland,

however, consoling themselves with the assurance that many of the class

of "bold peasantry" which they had glorified would still enjoy the

franchise as ten-pound freeholders, consented, reluctantly of course,

to the extinction of 300,000 "forties." They considered the danger

of delay, and the probability that if this opportunity were missed,

another might not occur for years of striking off the shackles which

the upper classes of Roman Catholics especially felt to be so galling.

When Emancipation was carried, the Catholics did not forget the

claims of Mr. O'Connell, who had laboured so hard during a quarter of

a century for its accomplishment. A testimonial was soon afterwards

got up to reward him for his services. Mr. C. O'Laughlin, of Dublin,

subscribed £500; the Earl of Shrewsbury 1,000 guineas, and the less

grateful Duke of Norfolk the sum of £100. The collection of the

testimonial was organised in every district throughout Ireland, and a

sum of £50,000 sterling was collected. Mr. O'Connell did not love money

for its own sake. The immense sums that were poured into the coffers

of the Catholic Association were spent freely in carrying on the

agitation, and the large annuity which he himself received was mainly

devoted to the same object. One means, which had no small effect in

accomplishing the object, was the extremely liberal hospitality which

was kept up, not only at Derrynane Abbey, but at his town residence in

Merrion Square; and he had, besides, a host of retainers more or less

dependent upon his bounty.

There was one irritating circumstance connected with the Emancipation

Act: the words, "thereafter to be elected," were introduced for the

purpose of preventing O'Connell from taking his seat in virtue of the

election of 1828. The Irish Roman Catholics considered this legislating

against an individual an act unworthy of the British Senate--and,

as against the great Catholic advocate, a mean, vindictive, and

discreditable deed. But it was admitted that Wellington and Peel

were not to blame for it; that on their part it was a pacificatory

concession to dogged bigotry in high places. Mr. Fagan states that

Mr. O'Connell was willing to give up the county of Clare to Mr. Vesey

Fitzgerald, and to go into Parliament himself for a borough, adding

that he had absolutely offered 3,000 guineas to Sir Edward Denny for

the borough of Tralee, which had always been regularly sold, and was,

in point of fact, assigned as a fortune under a marriage settlement.

Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, however, rather scornfully rejected the offer,

and Mr. O'Connell himself appeared in the House of Commons on the 15th

of May, to try whether he would be permitted to take his seat. In the

course of an hour, we are told, the heads of his speech were arranged,

and written on a small card. The event was expected, and the House

was crowded to excess. At five o'clock the Speaker called on any new

member desiring to be sworn to come to the table. O'Connell accordingly

presented himself, introduced by Lords Ebrington and Duncannon. He

remained for some time standing at the table, pointing out the oaths he

was willing to take, namely, those required by the new Act, and handing

in the certificate of his return and qualifications. His refusal to

take the oaths of supremacy and abjuration having been reported to the

Speaker, he was directed to withdraw, when Mr. Brougham moved that he

should be heard at the bar, to account for his refusal. But on the

motion of Mr. Peel, after a long discussion, the consideration of the

question was deferred till the 18th. The _Times_ of the next day stated

that the narrative of the proceeding could convey but an imperfect

idea of the silent, the almost breathless attention with which he was

received in the House, advancing to and retiring from the table. The

benches were filled in an unusual degree with members, and there was

no recollection of so large a number of peers brought by curiosity

into the House of Commons. The Speaker's expression of countenance and

manner towards the honourable gentleman were extremely courteous, and

his declaration that he "must withdraw," firm and authoritative. Mr.

O'Connell, for a moment, looked round as one who had reason to expect

support, and this failing, he bowed most respectfully, and withdrew.

On Monday, the 18th of May, O'Connell took his seat under the gallery.

Seldom, if ever before, were there in the House so many strangers,

peers, or members. The adjourned debate was resumed, and it was

resolved that he should be heard at the bar. To the bar he then

advanced, accompanied by his solicitor, Mr. Pierce Mahony, who supplied

him with the books and documents, which had been arranged and marked to

facilitate reference. His speech on that occasion is said to have been

one of the most remarkable for ability and argument he ever delivered.

It should be observed that his claim to enter the House without taking

the oaths was supported from the first by the opinion of Mr. Charles

Butler, an eminent English barrister, and a Roman Catholic; but law and

precedent were against him, and he could not be admitted. The House

ordered the Speaker to make out a new writ for Clare.

Thus baffled, he returned to Dublin, where he met with an enthusiastic

reception. A meeting was held the next day to make arrangements for

insuring his return for Clare. On the 1st of June O'Connell started

for Ennis. All the towns he passed through turned out to cheer him on,

with green boughs and banners suspended from the windows. He arrived

at Nenagh in the night, and the town was quickly illuminated. Having

travelled all night, he retired to rest at Limerick; and while he

slept the streets were thronged with people anxious to get a glance

at their "Liberator." A large tree of Liberty was planted before the

hotel, with musicians perched on the branches playing national airs.

The Limerick trades accompanied him in his progress towards Ennis,

where his arrival was hailed with boundless enthusiasm, and where a

triumphal car was prepared for him. Thus terminated a progress, during

which he made twenty speeches, to nearly a million of persons. On the

30th of July O'Connell was a second time returned for Clare, on this

occasion without opposition, and the event was celebrated with the

usual demonstrations of joy and triumph.

Thus was O'Connell driven into a new course of agitation. He did not

conceal, even in the hour of his triumph, that he regarded Catholic

Emancipation as little more than a vantage ground on which he was to

plant his artillery for the abolition of the Legislative Union. After

the passing of the Emancipation Act he appealed as strongly as ever

to the feelings of the people. "At Ennis," he said, "I promised you

religious freedom, and I kept my word. The Catholics are now free,

and the Brunswickers are no longer their masters; and a paltry set

they were to be our masters. They would turn up the white of their

eyes to heaven, and at the same time slily put their hands into your

pockets.... What good did any member ever before in Parliament do

for the county of Clare, except to get places for their nephews,

cousins, etc.? What did I do? I procured for you Emancipation." "The

election for Clare," he said, "is admitted to have been the immediate

and irresistible cause of producing the Catholic Relief Bill. You

have achieved the religious liberty of Ireland. Another such victory

in Clare, and we shall attain the political freedom of our beloved

country. That victory is still necessary to prevent Catholic rights

and liberties from being sapped and undermined by the insidious policy

of those men who, false to their own party, can never be true to us,

and who have yielded not to reason, but to necessity, in granting us

freedom of conscience. A sober, moral, and religious people cannot

continue slaves--they become too powerful for their oppressors--their

moral strength exceeds their physical powers--and their progress

towards prosperity is in vain opposed by the Peels and Wellingtons of

society. These poor strugglers for ancient abuses yield to a necessity

which violates no law, and commits no crime; and having once already

succeeded by these means, our next success is equally certain, if we

adopt the same virtuous and irresistible means." His new programme

embraced not only the Repeal of the Union, but the restoration of the

franchise to the "forties."

The Roman Catholic prelates, however, seem to have been satisfied with

the achievement of Emancipation, and to have received the boon in a

very good spirit. There was one of their number who, more than all

the rest, had contributed to the success of the work. This was Dr.

Doyle, so well known as "J.K.L.," unquestionably the most accomplished

polemical writer of his time. In January, 1830, the Catholic bishops

assembled in Dublin, to deliberate, according to annual custom, on

their own duties and the interests of their Church. Dr. Doyle, at the

close of these deliberations, drew up a pastoral, to which all the

prelates affixed their signatures. It gave thanks to God that the Irish

people not only continued to be of one mind, labouring together in

the faith of the Gospel, but also that their faith was daily becoming

stronger, and signally fructifying among them. Having drawn a picture

of the discord that had prevailed in Ireland before Emancipation, the

pastoral went on to say that the great boon "became the more acceptable

to this country, because among the counsellors of his Majesty there

appeared conspicuous the most distinguished of Ireland's own sons, a

hero and a legislator--a man selected by the Almighty to break the

rod which had scourged Europe--a man raised by Providence to confirm

thrones, to re-establish altars, to direct the councils of England at

a crisis the most difficult; to stanch the blood and heal the wounds

of the country that gave him birth." The pastoral besought the people

to promote the end which the legislature contemplated in passing

the Relief Bill--the pacification and improvement of Ireland. It

recommended that rash and unjust oaths should not be even named among

them, and deprecated any attempt to trouble their repose by "sowers of

discord or sedition." The bishops rejoiced at the recent result of the

protracted struggle, not more on public grounds than because they found

themselves discharged from a duty which necessity alone allied to their

ministry--"a duty imposed on us by a state of times which has passed,

but a duty which we have gladly relinquished, in the fervent hope that

by us or our successors it may not be resumed."

The success of the Duke of Wellington in carrying Emancipation was

fatal to his Government. Almost to a man the Tories fell from him,

and he found no compensation in the adhesion of the Whigs. The

latter were glad that their opponents had been induced to settle the

question, a result which they had long desired, but had not the power

to accomplish. Their gratitude, however, for this great service to

the public was not sufficiently warm to induce them to enlist under

the banner of the Duke of Wellington, though they were ready to come

to his assistance, to protect his Government for a time against the

violent assaults of the party whose feelings and prejudices he had so

grievously outraged. All parties seem, indeed, to have been exhausted

by the violence of the struggle, and there was no desire to attempt

anything important in the way of legislation during the remainder

of the Session. There was nothing extraordinary in the Budget, and

it was accepted without much objection. The subject of distress

among the operatives gave rise to a debate which occupied two days,

and a motion for inquiry into its causes was rejected. The trade

which suffered most at the time was the silk trade. It was stated

that, in 1824, there were 17,000 looms employed in Spitalfields; now

there were only 9,000. At the former period wages averaged seventeen

shillings a week, now the average was reduced to nine shillings. By

the manufacturers this depression was ascribed to the relaxation of

the prohibitory system, and the admission of foreign silks into the

home market. On the other hand, Ministers, and the advocates of Free

Trade, ascribed the depression to the increase of production, and

the rivalry of the provincial towns of Congleton, Macclesfield, and

Manchester. That the general trade had increased was shown by the vast

increase in the quantity of raw silk imported, and in the number of

spindles employed in the silk manufacture. The Government was firm

in its hostility to the prohibitory system, and would not listen to

any suggestion for relief, except a reduction in the duties on the

importation of raw silk, by which the demand for the manufactured

article might be augmented. While these discussions were going on in

Parliament the silk-weavers were in a state of violent agitation, and

their discontent broke forth in acts of lawlessness and destructive

outrage. They were undoubtedly in a very miserable condition. It was

ascertained that there were at Huddersfield 13,000 persons, occupied in

a fancy trade, whose average earnings did not exceed twopence-halfpenny

a day, out of which they had to meet the wear and tear of looms,

etc. The artisans ascribed this reduction to the avarice of their

employers, and they avenged themselves, as was usual in those times,

by combination, strikes, and destruction of property. In Spitalfields

bands of weavers entered the workshops and cut up the materials

belonging to refractory masters. The webs in thirty or forty looms

were sometimes thus destroyed in a single night. The same course was

pursued at Macclesfield, Coventry, Nuneaton, and Bedworth, in which

towns power-looms had been introduced which enabled one man to do the

work of four. The reign of terror extended to Yorkshire, and in several

places the masters were compelled to succumb, and to accept a list of

prices imposed by the operatives. In this way the distress was greatly

aggravated by their ignorance. What they demanded was a restrictive

system, which it was impossible to restore. The result obtained was

simply a reduction of the duties on raw silk.

[Illustration: CAPTAIN WALPOLE INTERCEPTING THE DUKE OF SALDANHA'S

SHIPS. (_See p._ 306.)]

An attempt was made during the Session to mitigate the evils of

the Game Laws, and a Bill for legalising the sale of game passed

the Commons with extraordinary unanimity. In the House of Lords

the Bill met with determined opposition. In vain Lord Wharncliffe

demonstrated the demoralising and disorganising effects of the Game

Laws. Lord Westmoreland was shocked at a measure which he declared

would depopulate the country of gentlemen. He could not endure such

a gross violation of the liberty of the aristocratic portion of the

king's subjects; and he thought the guardians of the Constitution in

the House of Commons must have been asleep when they allowed such

a measure to pass. Lord Eldon, too, who was passionately fond of

shooting, had his Conservative instincts aroused almost as much by the

proposal to abolish the monopoly of killing hares and pheasants, as by

the measure for admitting Roman Catholics into Parliament. The Bill was

read a second time, by a majority of ten; but more strenuous exertions

were called forth by the division, and the third reading of this Bill

to mitigate an iniquitous system was rejected by a majority of two.

Lord Eldon's familiarity with the principles of equity did not enable

him to see the wrong of inflicting damage to the amount of £500,000 a

year on the tenant farmers of the country, by the depredations of wild

animals, which they were not permitted to kill, and for the destruction

caused by which they received no compensation.

On the 24th of June Parliament was prorogued by commission. The Royal

Speech expressed thanks for the attention that had been given to the

affairs of Ireland, and the settlement of the Catholic question,

which the king hoped would tend to the permanent tranquillity of that

country, and to draw closer the bonds of union between it and the rest

of the empire. It was announced that diplomatic relations had been

renewed with the Porte, for which ambassadors from England and France

had taken their departure. But it was with increased regret that his

Majesty again adverted to the condition of the Portuguese monarchy.

He repeated his determination to use every effort to reconcile

conflicting interests, and to remove the evils which pressed so heavily

on a country the prosperity of which must ever be an object of his

solicitude. The condition of that country was, indeed, most deplorable

under the lawless despotism of Dom Miguel, who, on the abdication of

his brother Dom Pedro in favour of Doña Maria da Gloria, had been

appointed regent, but had subsequently assumed the royal title, and

driven his niece from the country. He overruled the decisions of

the courts of justice regarding political prisoners, and inflicted

the punishment of death by his own mere arbitrary order, when only

transportation had been decreed by the judges. He crowded the prisons

with the most distinguished supporters of constitutional government,

confiscated their property, and appropriated it to his own use. Yet

this monster would have been acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington.

Had the Duke been free to follow the dictates of his own judgment, he

would have at once resumed the diplomatic relations which had been

broken off between the two states. But Britain was committed to the

young queen by the policy of the preceding Administration; and the

Duke, though he believed that policy to be unwise, could not break

through it in a moment. It was not without difficulty, however, that

Britain maintained her neutrality between the contending parties. The

Portuguese refugees endeavoured, under various false pretences, to

avail themselves of British hospitality, for the purpose of conveying

arms and ammunition, and bodies of troops into Portugal, to restore

the queen. They asserted that they were sending them to Brazil, but

really conveyed them to Terceira, one of the Azores, where Doña Maria

had been proclaimed. The consequence was that 4,000 Portuguese troops,

which were lying at Plymouth, were ordered to disband, and Captain

Walpole, with a squadron, was sent to watch the Portuguese ships in the

Atlantic, in order to avoid the imputation of violating the neutrality.

His orders were to proceed to the Azores, to intercept any vessels

arriving at those islands, and "should they persist, notwithstanding,

in hovering about or making any attempt to effect a landing, you are

then to use force to drive them away from the neighbourhood." Walpole

intercepted four vessels, containing a force of 650 men under the

command of the Duke of Saldanha. They declined to bring-to, whereupon

he fired a shot which killed one man and wounded another. Saldanha

thereupon declared that he considered himself Walpole's prisoner,

and turned his vessels towards Europe. Walpole, in great perplexity,

followed him, until he was within 500 miles of Scilly, when they parted

company and Saldanha went to Havre. These proceedings were regarded

with indignation in Great Britain, the enemies of the Government

asserting that, in spite of their declarations of neutrality, they had

proved themselves partisans of Dom Miguel. Debates were raised in both

Houses, Lord Palmerston in the Commons making his first great speech

in condemnation of the Duke's foreign policy. It is significant that

Wellington should have written to Lord Aberdeen in a private letter:

"In respect to Portugal you may tell Prince Polignac that we are

determined that there shall be no revolutionary movement from England

or any part of the world."

Parliament having been prorogued, the members retired to their

respective counties and boroughs, many of them out of humour with

themselves and with the Government which they had heretofore

supported, and meditating revenge. An endeavour was made in the

course of the summer to renew the political connection between the

Duke of Wellington and Mr. Huskisson. The friends of the existing

Administration felt the weakness of their position, deprived of their

natural support, and liable to be outvoted at any time. The Tories had

become perfectly rabid in their indignation, vehemently charging the

Duke with violation of public faith, with want of statesmanship, with

indifference to the wishes and necessities of the people, and with a

determination to govern the country as if he were commanding an army.

Their feelings were so excited that they joined in the Whig cry of

Parliamentary Reform, and spoke of turning the bishops out of the House

of Lords. It was to enable the Premier to brave this storm that he was

induced by his friends to receive Mr. Huskisson at his country house.

The Duke was personally civil, and even kind, to his visitor; but

his recollections of the past were too strong to permit of his going

farther. In the following Session negotiations were made with the other

Canningites, but without success, as they had thrown in their lot with

the Whigs.

The year 1829 was distinguished by disturbances in Ireland, as well

as distress in England. The 12th of July, the anniversary of the

battle of the Boyne, was celebrated with unusual manifestations of

defiance by the Orangemen. The country seemed armed for civil war.

In the county Clare there was a conflict between the Protestants and

Catholics, in which one man was killed, and seven or eight wounded on

each side. In Armagh there was a fight, in which ten men lost their

lives. In the county Fermanagh 800 Roman Catholics, armed with scythes

and pitchforks, turned out and attacked the Protestants, killing four

persons and wounding seven. The same party rose in Cavan, Monaghan, and

Leitrim, threatening something like civil war. In Tipperary society was

so convulsed that the magistrates met, and called upon the Government

for a renewal of the Insurrection Act, and for the passing of a law

rendering the possession of fire-arms a transportable offence.

Such was the state of affairs at home and abroad during the recess of

1829. The Government hoped that by the mollifying influence of time

the rancour of the Tory party would be mitigated, and that by the

proposal of useful measures the Whig leaders would be induced to give

them their support, without being admitted to a partnership in power

and the emoluments of office. But in both respects they miscalculated.

The Duke met Parliament again on the 4th of February, 1830. It was

obvious from the first that neither was Tory rancour appeased nor Whig

support effectually secured. The Speech from the Throne, which was

delivered by commission, was unusually curt and vague. It admitted

the prevalence of general distress. It was true that the exports in

the last year of British produce and manufacture exceeded those of

any former year; but, notwithstanding this indication of an active

commerce, both the agricultural and the manufacturing classes were

suffering severely in "some parts" of the United Kingdom. There was

no question about the existence of distress; the only difference was

as to whether it was general or only partial. In the House of Lords

the Government was attacked by Earl Stanhope, who moved an amendment

to the Address. He asked in what part of the country was it that the

Ministers did not find distress prevailing? He contended that the

kingdom was in a state of universal distress, likely to be unequalled

in its duration. All the great interests--agriculture, manufactures,

trade, and commerce--had never at one time, he said, been at so low an

ebb. The Speech ascribed the distress to a bad harvest. But could a

bad harvest make corn cheap? It was the excessive reduction of prices

which was felt to be the great evil. If they cast their eyes around

they would see the counties pouring on them spontaneously every kind

of solicitation for relief; while in towns, stocks of every kind had

sunk in value forty per cent. The depression, he contended, had been

continuous and universal ever since the Bank Restriction Act passed,

and especially since the suppression of small notes took effect in

the beginning of the previous year. Such a universal and continued

depression could be ascribed only to some cause pressing alike upon all

branches of industry, and that cause was to be found in the enormous

contraction of the currency, the Bank of England notes in circulation

having been reduced from thirty to twenty millions, and the country

bankers' notes in still greater proportion. The Duke of Wellington,

in reply, denied that the Bank circulation was less than it had been

during the war. In the former period it was sixty-four millions,

including gold and silver as well as paper. In 1830 it was sixty-five

millions. It was an unlimited circulation, he said, that the Opposition

required; in other words, it was wished to give certain individuals,

not the Crown, the power of coining in the shape of paper, and of

producing a fictitious capital. Capital was always forthcoming when

it was wanted. He referred to the high rents paid for shops in towns,

which were everywhere enlarged or improved, to "the elegant streets and

villas which were springing up around the metropolis, and all our great

towns, to show that the country was not falling, but improving." After

the Duke had replied, the supporters of the amendment could not muster,

on a division, a larger minority than nine. In the House of Commons the

discussion was more spirited, and the division more ominous of the fate

of the Ministry. The majority for Ministers was only fifty-three, the

numbers being 158 to 105. In the minority were found ultra-Tories, such

as Sir Edward Knatchbull, who had proposed an amendment lamenting the

general distress, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Sadler, and General Gascoigne, who

went into the same lobby with Sir Francis Burdett, Lord John Russell,

Mr. Brougham, Mr. Hume, and Lord Althorp, representing the Whigs and

Radicals; while Lord Palmerston, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Charles Grant, and

Sir Stratford Canning represented the Canning party. No such jumble of

factions had been known in any division for many years.

The Liberals seem to have been strongly inclined to the opinion that

the Duke of Wellington, having won the great victory of Emancipation,

should retire from the field--that he was not fit to lead the van of

progress in Parliament. "The Prime Minister of England," exclaimed

Sir Francis Burdett, "is shamefully insensible to the suffering and

distress which are painfully apparent throughout the land. When,

instead of meeting such an overwhelming pressure of necessity with

some measure of relief, or some attempt at relief, he seeks to stifle

every important inquiry--when he calls that a partial and temporary

evil which is both long-lived and universal,--I cannot look on such

a mournful crisis, in which the public misfortune is insulted by

Ministerial apathy, without hailing any prospect of change in the

system which has produced it. What shall we say to the ignorance

which can attribute our distress to the introduction of machinery and

the application of steam, that noble improvement in the inventions

of man to which men of science and intelligence mainly ascribe our

prosperity? I feel a high and unfeigned respect for that illustrious

person's abilities in the field, but I cannot help thinking that he

did himself no less than justice when he said, a few months before he

accepted office, that he should be a fit inmate for an asylum of a

peculiar nature if he ever were induced to take such a burden upon his

shoulders." On the other hand the Opposition was nearly as disorganised

as the Government, until Lord Althorp was selected to lead it in the

Commons.

On the 12th of February Sir James Graham moved for the reduction of the

salaries of all persons holding offices under Government, in proportion

to the enhanced value of money produced by the Bank Restriction Act,

which added to the weight of all fixed payments while it lowered

wages and the price of provisions. "Hence," he said, "the miserable

state to which the people of this country were now reduced, and the

necessity for rigid, unsparing economy; and in that system of economy

one great source of retrenchment must be the reduction of the salaries

of those who had their hands in the public purse. Justice requires,

necessity demands it." Ministers did not dare to resist this motion

openly. They evaded it by an amendment, which was unanimously adopted,

for an Address to the king, requesting him to order an inquiry to be

made into all the departments of the Civil Government, with a view

of reducing the number of persons employed in the various Services,

and the amount of their salaries. On the 15th Mr. Hume attempted to

carry retrenchment into the Army and Navy, moving a resolution to the

effect that the former should be reduced by 20,000 men, and the latter

by the sum of a million and a half. All the reductions he proposed

would have effected a saving of eight millions annually. But neither

the Whigs nor the Canning party were disposed to go such lengths. The

motion was, therefore, defeated, the minority consisting solely of

Radical reformers, who mustered fifty-seven on the division. Another

assault on the Government was led on by Mr. Poulett Thompson, who

moved for the appointment of a Committee for a Revision of the system

of Taxation with a view to saving expense in the mode of collecting

the revenue. The motion was resisted by Mr Peel on the ground that

such important duties should not be delegated to a fraction of the

members of the House. The motion was rejected by a large majority. A

few days later, however, Ministers sustained a damaging defeat in the

Committee of Supply on the Navy estimates. Two young men, who had been

public servants for a few months only, Mr. R. Dundas and Mr. W. S.

Bathurst, Junior Commissioners of the Navy, had been pensioned off on

the reduction of their offices, the one with £400 and the other with

£500 a year. The arrangement was attacked as a gross job and defended

upon principle, and Ministers after mustering all their strength were

beaten by a majority of 139 to 121, on the motion that those pensions

should be struck off. Several other motions, brought forward with a

view of effecting retrenchments, were rejected by the House. This

movement in the direction of financial reform, no doubt, received an

impulse from the resentment of the leading Whigs, whose claims to take

part in the Government were ignored by the Duke. But this remark does

not apply to the efforts of Mr. Attwood and Mr. Baring, who moved that

instead of a gold standard there should be a gold and silver standard,

and that the Act for prohibiting the issue of small notes should be

repealed. They strengthened their case by an appeal to the facts of the

existing distress and commercial depression arising from a restricted

currency. On the part of the Government, however, it was argued that a

double standard of gold and silver would cause a loss of five per cent,

to creditors if debtors were to pay in the silver standard--that the

whole country would be a scene of confusion and ruin--that silver never

was in practice the standard of the country, and that it never had been

actually in a state to be used as a legal tender. Latterly the law had

enacted that it should not be a legal tender beyond twenty-five pounds.

By weight, indeed, it was a legal tender to any amount, but practically

it had become so depreciated that there was no such thing as a standard

by weight. Mr. Attwood's resolutions on the currency were negatived

without a division.

[Illustration: MR. ALEXANDER'S LEVES IN KING'S BENCH PRISON. (_See p._

310.)]

Though the Duke of Wellington defended him-self against the persevering

attacks of the financial reformers, he was busy making retrenchments

in every department of the Public Service. So effectually did he

employ the pruning-hook, that although the income of the previous year

had fallen short of the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

by £560,000, he was able to present to the House this year a surplus

of £3,400,000 available for the reduction of taxation, still leaving

an excess of income over expenditure of £2,667,000 applicable to the

reduction of debt. There was, consequently, a large remission of

taxation, the principal item of which was the beer duty, estimated

at £3,000,000. At the same time, in order to enable the Chancellor of

the Exchequer to meet these reductions, an addition of one shilling

a gallon was made to the duty on English spirits and of twopence on

Irish and Scottish spirits. This Budget helped to clear the political

atmosphere and brought a brief gleam of popularity to the Government.

The Duke got full credit for an earnest desire to economise, and it

was acknowledged by the Liberal party that he had given the most

important financial relief that the nation had experienced since

the establishment of peace. Notwithstanding, however, the general

satisfaction, and the loud popular applause, the pressure of distress

was not sensibly alleviated. The burden indeed was somewhat lightened,

but what the nation wanted was greater strength to bear financial

burdens, a revival of its industrial energies, and facilities for

putting them forth with profit to themselves and to the country.

Remissions of taxation were but the weight of a feather, compared to

the losses sustained by the action of the currency. For while the

reductions only relieved the nation to the extent of three or four

millions, it was estimated that the monetary laws, by cutting off

at least fifty per cent. from the remuneration of all branches of

industry, commercial and agricultural, had reduced the incomes of the

industrial classes to the extent of a hundred and fifty millions yearly.

Among the other causes which contributed to the unpopularity of the

Duke of Wellington and the weakness of his Administration was the

prosecution by the Attorney-General of Mr. Alexander, the editor of the

_Morning Journal_. A series of articles had appeared in that paper,

which were considered so virulent and libellous, so far surpassing the

bounds of fair discussion, that the Duke felt under the same necessity

of ordering a prosecution that he had felt to fight the duel with Lord

Winchilsea. It was regarded as an inevitable incident of his position,

one of the things required to enable him to carry on the king's

Government. He obtained a victory, but it cost him dear: a sentence

of fine and imprisonment was inflicted upon his opponent, and the

_Morning Journal_ was extinguished; but, in the temper of the times,

the public were by no means disposed to sympathise with the victor in

such a contest. On the contrary, the victory covered him with odium,

and placed upon the head of the convicted the crown of martyrdom. Mr.

Alexander was visited daily in the King's Bench prison by leading

politicians, and a motion was made in the House of Commons with a view

to incriminate the Government who ordered the prosecution. In another

instance also, but of a nature less damaging, the Government received a

warning of its approaching downfall. Mr. Peel, anxious to mitigate the

severity of the criminal code, and to render it less bloody, proposed

to inflict the penalty of death only on persons committing such

forgeries as could not by proper precautions be guarded against. It was

a step in the right direction, but one too hesitating, and stopping

short of the firm ground of sound policy. Sir James Mackintosh,

therefore, on the third reading of the Bill, moved a clause for the

abolition of the penalty of death in all cases of forgery, which was

carried by a majority of 151 against 138. Thus the Session wore on,

in a sort of tantalising Parliamentary warfare, with no decisive

advantages on either side till the attention and interest of Parliament

and the nation were absorbed by the approaching dissolution of George

IV. and the dawning light of a new reign.

For many years the king had been scarcely ever free from gout, but its

attacks had been resisted by the uncommon strength of his constitution.

Partly in consequence of the state of his health, and partly from his

habits of self-indulgence, he had for some time led a life of great

seclusion. He became growingly averse from all public displays and

ceremonials, and was impatient of any intrusions upon his privacy.

During the spring of 1829 he resided at St. James's Palace, where

he gave a ball to the juvenile branches of the nobility, to which

the Princess Victoria and the young Queen of Portugal were invited.

His time was mostly spent within the royal domain at Windsor, where

his outdoor amusements were sailing and fishing on Virginia Water,

or driving rapidly in a pony phaeton through the forest. He was

occasionally afflicted with pains in the eyes and defective vision. The

gout attacked him in the hands as well as in the feet, and towards the

end, dropsy--a disease which had been fatal to the Duke of York, and to

his sister, the Queen of Würtemberg--was added to his other maladies.

In April the disease assumed a decisive character; and bulletins began

to be issued. The Duke of Clarence was at Windsor, and warmly expressed

his sympathy with the royal sufferer. The Duke of Cumberland, and

nearly all the Royal Family, expressed to Sir William Knighton their

anxiety and fears as to the issue. This devoted servant was constantly

by the side of his master. On the 27th of May Sir William wrote to Lady

Knighton: "The king is particularly affectionate to me. His Majesty is

gradually breaking down; but the time required, if it does not happen

suddenly, to destroy his originally fine constitution, no one can

calculate upon." We are assured that Sir William took every opportunity

of calling his Majesty's attention to religious subjects, and had even

placed unordered a quarto Bible, of large type, on the dressing-table,

with which act of attention the king was much pleased, and frequently

referred to the sacred volume. A prayer was appointed for public use

during his Majesty's indisposition, which the Bishop of Chichester

read to him. "With the king's permission," wrote this learned prelate,

"I repeated it on my knees at his bedside. At the close, his Majesty

having listened to it with the utmost attention, three times repeated

'Amen,' with the greatest fervour and devotion. He expressed himself

highly gratified with it, and desired me to convey his approbation of

it to the Archbishop of Canterbury."

About a week before the king died the physician delicately announced

to him the inevitable catastrophe, when he said, "God's will be done."

His sufferings were very great, and during the paroxysms of pain his

moans were heard even by the sentinels in the quadrangle. On the night

of the 25th of June his difficulty of breathing was unusually painful,

and he motioned to his page to alter his position on the couch. Towards

three o'clock he felt a sudden attack of faintness, accompanied by

a violent discharge of blood. At this moment he attempted to raise

his hand to his breast, and ejaculated, "O God, I am dying!" Two or

three seconds afterwards he said, "This is death." The physicians were

instantly called, but before they arrived the breath of life was gone.

A _post mortem_ examination showed ossification of the heart, which

was greatly enlarged, and adhering to the neighbouring parts. The

liver was not diseased; but the lungs were ulcerated, and there were

dropsical symptoms on the skin, on various parts of the body. The king

was an unusually large and, at one time, well-proportioned man; but

he afterwards became very corpulent. He died on the 26th of June, in

the sixty-eighth year of his age and the eleventh of his reign, having

been Prince Regent for ten years. During his last illness the bulletins

had been unusually deceptive. The king was anxious to put away the

idea of dissolution from his own mind, and unwilling that the public

should know that his infirmities were so great; and it was said that

he required to see the bulletins and to have them altered, so that he

was continually announced as being better till the day of his death.

His message to both Houses on the 24th of May, however, put an end to

all delusion on the subject. He wished to be relieved from the pain and

trouble of signing Bills and documents with his own hand. A Bill was

therefore passed to enable him to give his assent verbally, but it was

jealously guarded against being made a dangerous precedent. The stamp

was to be affixed in the king's presence, by his immediate order given

by word of mouth. A memorandum of the circumstances must accompany the

stamp, and the document stamped must be previously endorsed by three

members of the Privy Council; the operation of the Act was limited to

the existing Session. The three Commissioners appointed for affixing

his Majesty's signature were Lord Farnborough, General Sir W. Keppel,

and Major-General A. F. Barnard.

Mr. Walpole has summed up the character of George IV. in words alike

of terrible conciseness and of unmitigating truth--" He was a bad son,

a bad husband, a bad father, a bad subject, a bad monarch, and a bad

friend."

CHAPTER VIII.

REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.

Character of the new King--Position of the Ministry--Discussion in

the Lords on a Regency--Brougham's Speech in the Commons--The King

in London--Brougham's Slavery Speech--The Dissolution--Sketch of

the July Revolution--Its Effects in England--The Elections--Their

Results in England and Ireland--Death of Huskisson--Disturbances in

England--The King's Speech--Declarations of Grey and Wellington on

Reform--Broughams Notice--Effect of the Duke's Speech---Agitation

in Ireland--And against the Police--Postponement of the King's

Visit to the Mansion House--Resignation of Wellington's

Ministry--Grey forms a Ministry--Brougham's Position--The

Ministry--Grey's Statement--Agricultural England--Cobbett and

Carlile--Affairs in Ireland--Lord Anglesey--His Struggle with

O'Connell--O'Connell's Prosecution dropped--The Birmingham

Political Union--Preparation of the Reform Bill--It is entrusted

to Lord John Russell--The Budget--The Bill introduced--The

First Reading carried--Feeling in the Country--The Second

Reading carried--Gascoigne's Amendment--A Dissolution agreed

upon--Scene in the Lords--The Press--The Illuminations and

Riots--The New Parliament--Discussions on the Dissolution and

O'Connell--The Second Reform Bill--The Second Reading--The Bill

in Committee--It is carried to the Lords--Debate on the Second

Reading--The Bill rejected--Popular Excitement--Lord Ebrington's

Resolution--Prorogation of Parliament--Lord John Russell's

Declaration--The Bristol Riots--Colonel Brereton.

William IV. was welcomed to the Throne with great acclamation. Called

"The Sailor King," he was endowed with many of the personal qualities

which make the sailor's character popular with Englishmen. He had been

Lord High Admiral, and in that capacity he had lately been moving about

the coasts, making displays and enjoying _fêtes_, although this was

thought by some to be unseemly in the Heir Presumptive to the Throne,

at a time when its occupant was known to be in a very infirm state

of health. Heavy bills connected with these vainglorious displays

were sent to the Treasury, which the Duke of Wellington endorsed with

a statement that such expenses were not allowed. Although opinions

differed about William very much, not only between the friends of

Reform and the Conservatives, but between the leaders of the Liberal

party themselves, he was esteemed the most popular king since the

days of Alfred. William was certainly a more exemplary character

than his brother. He had indeed formed an attachment to a celebrated

actress, Mrs. Jordan, by whom he had a numerous family, one of whom was

subsequently admitted to the ranks of the nobility with the title of

Earl of Munster, and the others were raised to the dignity of younger

sons of a marquis. He had, however, been married for several years to

the Princess Adelaide, of Saxe-Meiningen, who became Queen of England,

and adorned her exalted station by her virtues and her beneficence.

They had two children, both of whom died in infancy; and as the king

was in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and the queen was not young,

there was no longer any hope of a direct succession to the Throne.

Altogether, Charles Greville's verdict on the king--"something of a

buffoon and more of a blackguard"--is excessively severe. If eccentric

and hot-tempered, William IV. was straightforward and upright. He

had some knowledge of foreign affairs, and thoroughly understood his

position as a constitutional king.

The Ministers and their supporters were complimentary, as a matter of

course, to the new Sovereign, who had graciously continued them in

their offices; and the Whigs, who had ascribed their exclusion from

power to the personal dislike of the king, were resolved that there

should not be again any obstacle of the kind, and that they would keep

upon the best possible terms with the Court. During the previous part

of the Session they had kept up a rapid fire of motions and questions

upon the Government, especially with regard to the public expenditure,

the distress of the operatives, and the necessity of rigid economy

and large retrenchment. The attacks were led by Sir James Graham,

who, though he was always left in a minority in the divisions on his

motions, did much to weaken the Government by exciting public feeling

against them on the ground of their alleged heartless extravagance,

while many of the people were starving and the country was said to

be going fast to destruction. The Duke of Wellington, however, moved

an answer to the Royal Message, declaring that they would forward

the measure necessary to provide for the temporary supply required.

He suggested that as everybody would be occupied about the coming

elections, the best mode of proceeding would be to dissolve at

once. Lord Grey, in the name of the Opposition, complained of this

precipitancy, and delivered a long speech full of solemn warnings of

evil. He supposed that the king might die before the new Parliament

was chosen; the Heir Apparent was a child in fact, though not in law.

No regency existing, she would be legally in the possession of her

full regal power, and this was a situation which he contended would

be fraught with danger. A long, unprofitable wrangle ensued, dull

repetitions dragged out the debate, when at length the Duke wisely

refused to accede to the proposition for a useless interval of delay,

and proved the numerical strength of the Administration. Lord Grey

having moved for an adjournment to allow time for providing a regency,

the motion was lost by a majority of 44, the numbers being 56 against

100.

[Illustration: VIRGINIA WATER.]

In the House of Commons, on the same evening (the 30th of June), Sir

Robert Peel moved an answer to the Address to the same effect. Lord

Althorp, acting in concert with Lord Grey, moved the adjournment of

the House for twenty-four hours to allow time for consideration. The

discussion in the Commons, however, was not without interest, as it

touched upon constitutional questions of vital importance. Mr. Brougham

did his part with admirable tact. He dwelt upon the danger of allowing

the people to learn that Government could go on, and every exigency

of the common weal be provided for, without a king. The Act which had

appointed the late Prince Regent had been passed without the Royal

sanction, the king being insane, and no provision having been made to

meet the calamity that occurred. The Act of Parliament was called a

law, but it was no law; it had not even the semblance of a law; and

the power which it conveyed was in those days called the phantom of

royal authority. The fact, indeed, was that the tendency of that Act

of Parliament, more than any other Act that had ever been passed by

the legislature, was to inflict a blow on the royal authority; to

diminish its influence and weight; to bring it into disrepute with,

and to lessen it in the estimation of, the people at large; and that

fact was in itself a sufficient comment upon the propriety of doing

an act of legislation without having the Crown to sanction it. That,

he said, was his first great and principal reason for proceeding with

this question at once. He showed that one of the greatest advantages

connected with the monarchical form of government was the certainty of

the succession, and the facile and quiet transmission of power from

one hand to another, thus avoiding the inconveniences and dangers of

an interregnum. The question was rendered more difficult and delicate

by the fact that the Duke of Cumberland, the most unpopular man in the

country, was the eldest of the remaining brothers of the king, in the

event of whose death he would be Heir Apparent to the Throne of Great

Britain, and King of Hanover. In the case supposed, the question would

arise whether the next heir to the Throne was of right regent, should

the Sovereign be incompetent, from infancy, insanity, or any other

cause. If that right were established, then the regent, during the

minority of the Princess Victoria, would be a foreign monarch, and one

who was utterly detested by the mass of the people of Britain. Such a

question, arising at a moment when the spirit of revolution was abroad,

might agitate the public mind to a degree that would be perilous to the

Constitution. The contingencies were sufficiently serious, therefore,

to justify the efforts of Lord Grey and Mr. Brougham to have the

regency question settled before the dissolution. They may not have been

sorry to have a good popular case against the Government, but their

conduct was not fairly liable to the imputation of faction or mere

personal ambition. "Can we," asked Mr. Brougham, "promise ourselves a

calm discussion of the subject when there should be an actual accession

of the Duke of Cumberland to the Throne of Hanover, and Parliament is

suddenly called upon to decide upon his election to the regency, to

the supreme rule in this country, to which, according to the principle

of Mr. Pitt, he has a paramount claim, although he has not a strict

legal right?" The motion for adjournment was lost by a majority of

46--the numbers being, for it, 139; against it, 185. After this debate,

on the motion for adjournment, Lord Althorp moved the amendment to

the Address, almost in the words of Lord Grey in the other House. Sir

Robert Peel stated that he meant no disrespect by abstaining from

further discussion, which would be wasting the time of the House, by

repeating the arguments he had already employed. Mr. Brougham, however,

took the opportunity of launching out against the Ministry in a strain

of bitter invective, of sarcasm vehement even to fierceness.

The question of the regency was again brought forward, on the 6th of

July, by Mr. Robert Grant, in pursuance of a notice he had previously

given. The unbounded personal popularity of the king--who, unlike

his predecessor shut up in seclusion and resembling Tiberius, went

about sailor-like through the streets, frank, talkative, familiar,

good-humoured, delighting the Londoners with all the force of

pleasant contrast--rendered it increasingly difficult and delicate

on the part of the Opposition to propose any measure disagreeable

to a Sovereign who was the idol of the multitude, from whom no evil

could be apprehended, and whose death, even in the ordinary course of

Providence, it seemed something like treason to anticipate as likely

to occur within a few months. They were, therefore, profuse in their

declarations of respect, of admiration--nay, almost of veneration--for

a monarch whom a beneficent Providence had so happily placed upon the

Throne of Great Britain. The division on Mr. Grant's motion was still

more decidedly favourable to the Government, the numbers being--Ayes,

93; noes, 247--majority, 154.

On the 13th of July Brougham delivered his speech on slavery, which

produced such an impression upon the public mind that it mainly

contributed, as he himself admitted, to his election a few weeks

afterwards as one of the members for Yorkshire--the proudest position

which a Parliamentary representative could occupy. He proposed "that

this House do resolve, at the earliest practicable period next Session,

to take into its serious consideration the state of the slaves in

the colonies of Great Britain, in order to the mitigation and final

abolition of slavery; and more especially to the amendment of the

administration of justice within the same." Mr. Wilmot Horton brought

forward a series of resolutions, by way of evading the difficulty.

Sir George Murray, the Colonial Secretary, entreated Mr. Brougham to

withdraw his motion, as the public would come to a wrong conclusion

from seeing the small numbers that would vote upon it at that late

period of the Session, and on the eve of a dissolution. Sir Robert

Peel pressed the same consideration, but Mr. Brougham persisted, and

in a very thin House the numbers on the division were--Aye., 27; noes,

56--majority against the motion, 29. This division ended the party

struggles of the Session. On the 23rd of July Parliament was prorogued

by the king in person, and next day it was dissolved by proclamation.

The writs, returnable on the 14th of September, were immediately issued

for a general election, which was expected, and proved to be, the most

exciting and most important political contest at the hustings recorded

in the history of England.

The French Revolution of 1830 exerted an influence so mighty upon

public opinion and political events in England, that it becomes

necessary to trace briefly its rise, progress, and rapid consummation.

When Louis XVIII. was restored to the throne by the arms of the

Allies, it was found that he had learnt little wisdom in his exile.

He was, however, a man of moderation, and affected to pursue a middle

course. His successor, Charles X., who ascended the throne in 1824,

was violent and bigoted, a zealous Catholic, hating the Revolution and

all its results, and making no secret of his feelings. From the moment

he commenced his reign he pursued a course of unscrupulous reaction.

At the general election the prefects so managed as to procure an

overwhelming Ministerial majority, who immediately resolved to extend

the duration of the Chamber of Deputies to seven years. They next

passed a law to indemnify Emigrants, for which they voted an annual

sum representing a capital of thirty millions sterling. In 1827 the

Prime Minister, Villele, adopted the daring measure of disbanding

the National Guard, because it had expressed its satisfaction at the

defeat of a measure for the restriction of the liberty of the press.

He next took the still more dangerous step of dissolving the Chamber

of Deputies. This produced a combination of parties, which resulted

in the defeat of the Ministerial candidates in every direction. The

consequence was the resignation of Villele, on the 5th of January,

1828. He was succeeded by Martignac, whose Government abolished the

discretionary power of re-establishing the censorship of the press,

and adopted measures for securing the purity of the electoral lists

against the frauds of the local authorities. They also issued an

_ordonnance_ on education, guarding society against the encroachments

of the Jesuits, and the apprehension of clerical domination. The

king, taking alarm at these Liberal tendencies, dismissed Martignac

and his colleagues, and in August, 1829, he appointed a Ministry

exclusively and devotedly Royalist, at the head of which he placed

Prince de Polignac, a bigoted Catholic, who, during the Empire, had

engaged in many wild schemes for the restoration of the Bourbons. This

conduct on the part of the king was regarded by the people almost

universally as indicating a design to suppress their constitutional

liberties, which they resolved to counteract by having recourse to

the constitutional remedy against arbitrary power--namely, refusal

to pay the taxes. With this object an association was formed in

Brittany, which established a fund to indemnify those who might suffer

in resisting the levy of imposts. The press was most unanimous in

condemning the new Ministry, and by spirited and impassioned appeals

to the patriotism of the people and their love of freedom, roused them

to a sense of their coming danger. Prince de Polignac was charged with

the design of destroying the Charter; of creating a majority in the

Chamber of Deputies by an unconstitutional addition of aristocratic

members; of calling in foreign armies to overawe the French people;

and of raising military forces by royal _ordonnances_. The _Moniteur_

contained an authorised contradiction of all these imputations and

rumours. Charles was assured, however, by the Royalists that surrounded

him, that there always would be a majority against him in the Chamber,

no matter who the Ministers might be, and that it was impossible to

carry on the Government under the existing system. He was too ready to

listen to such counsels, fondly attached as he was to the priesthood,

the privileged orders, tithes, feudal services, and provincial

administrations.

The Chambers were opened by the king on the 2nd of March, 1830,

with a speech which conveyed a threat to the French nation. "If

culpable manœuvres," he said, "should raise up against my Government

obstacles which I do not wish to foresee, I shall find the power of

surmounting them in my resolution to maintain the public peace, in

my just confidence in Frenchmen, and in the love which they have

always borne to their kings." The Chambers did not hesitate to express

their want of confidence in the Government. The king having declared

that his intentions were immutable, no alternative remained but a

dissolution, as he was resolved to try once more whether a majority

could be obtained by fair means or foul. In this last appeal to public

opinion he was bitterly disappointed. It scarcely required a prophet

to foresee the near approach of some great change; nor could the

result of the impending struggle appear doubtful. Nine-tenths of the

community were favourable to a constitutional system. Not only the

working classes, but the mercantile and trading classes, as well as

the professional classes, and all the most intelligent part of the

nation, were decidedly hostile to the Government. In Paris the majority

against the Ministerial candidates was seven or eight to one. The

press, with scarcely an exception, was vehement in its condemnation of

the policy of the Government, which came to the conclusion that it was

not enough to abolish the Constitution, but that, in order to insure

the success of a purely despotic _régime_, it was absolutely necessary

to destroy the liberty of the press, and to put down journalism by

force. Accordingly, a report on this subject was addressed to the king,

recommending its suppression. It was drawn up by M. Chantelauze, and

signed by De Polignac and five other Ministers.

This report was published in the _Moniteur_ on the morning of Monday,

July 26th. On the same day, and in the same paper, appeared the

famous _Ordonnances_, signed by the king, and countersigned by his

Ministers. By the first the liberty of the press was abolished, and

thenceforth no journal could be published without the authority of

the Government. By the second the Chamber of Deputies, which was

to meet in the ensuing month, was dissolved. By the third a new

scheme of election was introduced, which destroyed the franchise of

three-fourths of the electors, and reduced the number of deputies to

little more than one half. Thus the whole Constitution was swept away

by a stroke of the royal pen. As soon as these _Ordonnances_ became

generally known throughout the city the people were thrown into a

state of violent agitation. The editors and proprietors of twelve

journals assembled, and having resolved that the _Ordonnances_ were

illegal, they determined to publish their papers on the following

day. A statement of their case, signed by thirty-eight persons, was

published in the _Nationale_. They said: "In the situation in which

we are placed, obedience ceases to be a duty. We are dispensed from

obeying. We resist the Government in what concerns ourselves. It is

for France to determine how far her resistance ought to extend." In

pursuance of this announcement the journalists were preparing to issue

their papers when the police entered the offices and began to scatter

the type and break the presses. In some of the offices the workmen

resisted, and the locks of the doors had to be picked; but no smith

could be got to do the work except one whose business it was to rivet

the manacles on galley slaves. There was a meeting of the electors of

Paris, who quickly decided upon a plan of operations. Deputations were

appointed to wait on the manufacturers, printers, builders, and other

extensive employers, requesting them to discharge their workpeople,

which was done, and on the 27th 50,000 men were assembled in different

parts of the town, in groups, crying, "_Vive la Charte!_" About thirty

deputies, who had arrived in town, met at the house of M. Casimir

Perier, and resolved to encourage the rising of the people. The troops

were under arms; and it is stated that without any provocation from

the people except their cries, the military began to sabre the unarmed

multitude. The first shot seems to have been fired out of a house,

by an Englishman, named Foulkes, who was fired on by the military,

and killed. Alarming reports spread through the city that the blood

of the people was being wantonly shed, and that women were not

spared. The black flag was raised in various quarters, ominous of the

desperate nature of the struggle. The night of the 27th was spent in

preparation. The shops of the armourers were visited, and the citizens

armed themselves with all sorts of weapons--pistols, sabres, bayonets,

etc. In every street men were employed digging up the pavements, and

carrying stones to the tops of the houses, or piling them behind the

barricades, which were being constructed of omnibuses and _fiacres_

at successive distances of about fifty paces. The fine trees of the

Boulevards were cut down and used for the same purpose. The garrison

of Paris was commanded by General Marmont. It consisted altogether of

11,500 men. At daybreak on the 28th the citizens were nearly ready

for battle. Early in the morning national guards were seen hastening

to the Hôtel de Ville, amidst the cheers of the people. Parties of

cavalry galloped up and down, and occasionally a horseman, shot from

a window, fell back out of his saddle. At ten o'clock Marmont formed

six columns of attack, preceded by cannon, which were to concentrate

round the Hôtel de Ville. The insurgents retired before the artillery,

and the troops, abandoning the open places, took shelter in the houses

and behind barriers. In the meantime a desperate fight raged at the

Hôtel de Ville, which was taken possession of, and bravely defended

by the National Guard. Their fire from the top of the building was

unceasing, while the artillery thundered below. It was taken and

retaken several times. It appears that hitherto the Government had no

idea of the nature of the contest. The journals had proclaimed open

war. They declared that the social contract being torn, they were bound

and authorised to use every possible mode of resistance, and that

between right and violence the struggle could not be protracted. This

was on the 26th; but at four o'clock p.m., on the 27th, the troops had

received no orders; and when they were called out of barracks shortly

after, many officers were absent, not having been apprised that any

duty whatever was expected. The night offered leisure to arrange and

opportunity to execute all necessary precautions. The circumstances

were urgent, the danger obvious and imminent; yet nothing at all was

done. The contest lasted for three days with varying fortunes. Twice

the palace of the Tuileries was taken and abandoned; but on the third

day the citizens were finally victorious, and the tricoloured flag was

placed on the central pavilion. Marmont, seeing that all was lost,

withdrew his troops; and on the afternoon of the 29th Paris was left

entirely at the command of the triumphant population. The National

Guard was organised, and General Lafayette, "the veteran of patriotic

revolutions," took the command. Notwithstanding the severity of the

fighting, the casualties were not very great. About 700 citizens lost

their lives, and about 2,000 were wounded. It was stated that the

troops were encouraged to fight by a lavish distribution of money,

about a million francs having been distributed amongst them, for

the purpose of stimulating their loyalty. The deputies met on the

31st, and resolved to invite Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, to be

lieutenant-general of the kingdom. He accepted the office, and issued

a proclamation which stated that the Charter would thenceforth be a

truth. The Chambers were opened on the 3rd of August; 200 deputies were

present; the galleries were crowded with peers, general officers of the

old army, the diplomatic body, and other distinguished persons. The

duke, in his opening speech, dwelt upon the violations of the Charter,

and stated that he was attached by conviction to the principles of free

government. At a subsequent meeting the Chamber conferred upon him

the title of the King of the French. He took the oath to observe the

Charter, which had been revised in several particulars. On the 17th

of August Charles X. arrived in England; and by a curious coincidence

there was a meeting that day in the London Tavern, at which an address

to the citizens of Paris, written by Dr. Bowring, congratulating them

on the Revolution of July, was unanimously adopted. Meetings of a

similar kind were held in many of the cities and towns of the United

Kingdom. Feelings of delight and admiration pervaded the public mind

in Britain; delight that the cause of constitutional freedom had so

signally triumphed, and admiration of the heroism of the citizens, and

the order and self-control with which they conducted themselves in

the hour of victory. Thus ended the Revolution of July, 1830. It was

short and decisive, but it had been the _finale_ of a long struggle.

The battle had been fought in courts and chambers by constitutional

lawyers and patriotic orators. It had been fought with the pen in

newspapers, pamphlets, songs, plays, poems, novels, histories. It had

been fought with the pencil in caricatures of all sorts. It was the

triumph of public opinion over military despotism. To commemorate the

three days of July it was determined to erect a column on the Place de

la Bastille, which was completed in 1840.

[Illustration: REVOLUTION IN PARIS: CAPTURE OF THE HÔTEL DE VILLE.

(_See p._ 316.)]

The effect of the issue upon the state of parties in England was

tremendous. The _Morning Chronicle_, then the organ of the Whig party,

said, "The battle of English liberty has really been fought and

won at Paris." The _Times_ thundered the great fact with startling

reverberation throughout the United Kingdom. Mr. Brougham in the House

of Commons spoke of it as that revolution which in his conscience

he believed to be "the most glorious" in the annals of mankind, and

he expressed his heartfelt admiration, his cordial gratitude, to

the patriots of that great nation for the illustrious struggle they

were making. This language expresses the feelings which prevailed

through all classes of the people of Britain, and it may be easily

supposed that the effect was most favourable to the Liberal party

and most damaging to the Tories, especially as the exciting events

occurred at the time of the general election; and Prince de Polignac

being considered the particular friend of the Duke of Wellington, his

Ministry was called in France the Wellington Administration. All these

things were against the Premier: the hostility of the anti-Catholic

party, the alienation of the Whigs, the accession of a liberal monarch,

and the odium of the supposed intimate relationship with the vanquished

despotism of France.

The progress that the electors had made in liberality of sentiment

was evinced especially by two of the elections. Mr. Hume, the Radical

reformer, the cold, calculating economist, the honest, plain-speaking

man of the people, was returned for the county of Middlesex without

opposition; and Mr. Brougham, a barrister, who owed nothing to family

connections--who, by the steadiness of his industry, the force of

his character, the extent of his learning, and the splendour of his

eloquence, devoted perseveringly for years to the popular cause, had

won for himself, at the same time, the highest place in his profession,

and the foremost position in the senate--was returned for Yorkshire.

These counties had hitherto been the preserves of the great landed

proprietors. Lord Fitzwilliam, though the personal friend of Mr.

Brougham, did not like this intrusion of a foreigner into that great

county. Indeed, it had been sufficiently guarded against all but very

wealthy men by the enormous expense of a contest. In 1826, when a

contest was only threatened, and the election ended with a nomination,

Mr. John Marshall's expenses amounted to £17,000; and, on a previous

occasion, it was rumoured that Lord Milton had spent £70,000 in a

contest. No wonder Brougham was a friend of Parliamentary Reform.

The general result of the elections was considered to have diminished

by fifty the number of votes on which Ministers could depend, and

the relation in which they now stood to the more popular part of the

representation was stated to be as follows:--Of the eighty-two members

returned by the forty counties of England, only twenty-eight were

steady adherents of the Ministry; forty-seven were avowed adherents

of the Opposition, and seven of the neutral cast did not lean much

to Government. Of the thirteen popular cities and boroughs (London,

Westminster, Aylesbury, etc.), returning twenty-eight members, only

three seats were held by decidedly Ministerial men, and twenty-four

by men in avowed opposition. There were sixty other places, more or

less open, returning 126 members. Of these only forty-seven were

Ministerial; all the rest were avowed Opposition men, save eight, whose

leaning was rather against the Government than for it. Of the 236

men then returned by elections more or less popular in England, only

seventy-nine were Ministerial votes; 141 were in avowed opposition, and

sixteen of a neutral cast.

The Duke had little to console him in connection with the general

election. In passing the Emancipation Act he had made great sacrifices,

and had converted many of his most devoted friends into bitter enemies.

The least that he could expect was that the great boon which it cost

him so much to procure for the Roman Catholics of Ireland would have

brought him some return of gratitude and some amount of political

support in that country. But hitherto the Emancipation Act had failed

in tranquillising the country. On the contrary, its distracted state

pointed the arguments of the Tories on the hustings during the Irish

elections. O'Connell, instead of returning to the quiet pursuit of his

profession, was agitating for Repeal of the Union, and reviling the

British Government as bitterly as ever. He got up new associations with

different names as fast as the Lord-Lieutenant could proclaim them,

and he appealed to the example of the French and Belgian revolutions

as encouraging Ireland to agitate for national independence. In

consequence of his agitation many Ministerial seats in Ireland were

transferred to the most violent of his followers. During these

conflicts with the Government Mr. O'Connell was challenged by Sir Henry

Hardinge, in consequence of offensive language used by him about that

gentleman, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. O'Connell

declined the combat, on the ground that he had a "vow registered in

heaven" never again to fight a duel, in consequence of his having shot

Mr. D'Esterre. This "affair of honour" drew upon him from some quarters

very severe censure.

On the 15th of September this year the Manchester and Liverpool Railway

was opened. It was the first line opened for passenger traffic in the

British empire. There was much difference of opinion as to the success

of the experiment, and vast crowds attended to see the first trains

running. The Duke of Wellington, Mr. Huskisson, and many persons of

the highest distinction, started in the trains, which travelled on two

lines in the same direction, sometimes nearly abreast. At Parkside

the trains stopped to take in water, and Mr. Huskisson and several

of his friends got out. He was brought round to the carriage where

the Duke of Wellington was seated, who, as soon as he saw him, shook

hands cordially with his old colleague. At this moment the other train

started, when there was a general cry of "Get in, get in!" There was

not time to do this, but Mr. Holmes, who was with Mr. Huskisson,

had sufficient presence of mind to draw himself up close to the

Duke's carriage, by which means he escaped uninjured. Mr. Huskisson,

unfortunately, caught one of the doors, which, struck by the train in

motion, was swung round, and caused him to fall on the other railway,

so that his right leg was passed over and crushed by the engine. The

Duke of Wellington and others ran to his assistance. The only words he

uttered were, "I have met my death. God forgive me!" He was carried to

Eccles, where the best medical advice was obtained, but he survived

only a few hours, bearing his intense pain with great fortitude.

Napoleon's saying about French revolutions was verified in 1830. The

shock of the political earthquake was felt throughout the Continent,

and severed Belgium from Holland. The inhabitants of Brussels began

their revolt by resistance to local taxes, and ended by driving the

Dutch garrison out of the city, and proclaiming the independence of

Belgium. The Duke of Wellington had no difficulty about the prompt

recognition of the _de facto_ Government of France. The change of

dynasty had not been officially communicated to him many hours when

he sent instructions to the British ambassador to enter into friendly

relations with the new Government. He had not, however, the same

facility in recognising the independence of Belgium. He had been

instrumental in establishing the kingdom of the Netherlands; and he

regarded the union as being a portion of the great European settlement

of 1815, which ought not to be disturbed without the concurrence of the

Great Powers by which it was effected. This hesitation on his part to

hail the results of successful revolution added to his unpopularity. In

the meantime a dangerous spirit of disaffection and disorder began to

manifest itself in the south of England. Incendiary fires had preceded

the Revolution in France, especially in Normandy, and they were

supposed to have had a political object. Similar preludes of menaced

revolution occurred during the autumn in some of the English counties

nearest the French coast, in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and Hampshire.

Night after night, in the most fertile districts, the sky was reddened

with the blaze of burning stack-yards. Crowds of the working classes,

complaining of want of employment, went about throughout the country,

breaking the threshing-machines, which had then come into extensive

use. The Government were compelled to employ force to put down

these disturbances--a fact which supplied inflammatory arguments to

agitators, who denounced the Duke of Wellington as the chief cause of

the distress of the working classes. Such was the state of things when

the new Parliament met on the 26th of October.

Mr. Manners Sutton was again chosen Speaker of the House of Commons,

having already presided over four successive Parliaments, occupying

a period of fourteen years, during which he performed the onerous

duties of his high position to the satisfaction of all parties. A

week was occupied in the swearing-in of members. All the preliminary

formalities having been gone through, the Parliament was opened by

the king in person on the 2nd of November. The Royal Speech, which

was of unusual length, excited the deepest interest, and was listened

to with breathless attention and intense anxiety. The concluding

paragraph of the Speech, while expressing the strongest confidence

in the loyalty of the people, intimated the determination of the

Government to resist Parliamentary Reform. This attitude was regarded

as a defiance to the Opposition; and it roused into excitement the

spirit of hostility, which might have been disarmed by a tone of

conciliation, and by a disposition to make moderate concessions.

Nothing, therefore, could have been more favourable to the aims of

the Whig leaders than the course taken by the Administration; and

if they wanted an excuse for breaking forth into open war, it was

supplied by the imprudent speech of the Duke of Wellington. The Royal

Speech, indeed, suggested revolutionary topics to the Reformers, by

its allusion to Continental politics. The king observed that the

elder branch of the House of Bourbon no longer reigned in France, and

that the Duke of Orleans had been called to the throne. The state

of affairs in the Low Countries--namely, the separation of Belgium

from Holland--was viewed with deep regret; and "his Majesty lamented

that the enlightened administration of the King of the Netherlands"

should not have preserved his dominions from revolt; stating that he

was endeavouring, in concert with his allies, to devise such means of

restoring tranquillity as might be compatible with the welfare and good

government of the Netherlands, and with the future security of other

States.

Earl Grey was not slow to avail himself of these exciting topics in

order to point the lightning of popular discontent against the head

of the Government. "We ought," he said, "to learn wisdom from what is

passing before our eyes; and, when the spirit of liberty is breaking

out all round, it is our first duty to secure our own institutions by

introducing into them a temperate reform. I have been a Reformer all

my life; and on no occasion have I been inclined to go farther than

I am prepared to go now, if an opportunity were to offer. But I do

not found the title to demand it on abstract right. We are told that

every man who pays taxes--nay, that every man arrived at the years

of discretion--has a right to vote for representatives. That right I

utterly deny. The right of the people is to have a good Government, one

that is calculated to secure their privileges and happiness; and if

that is incompatible with universal, or very general suffrage, then the

limitation, and not the extension, is the true right of the people."

This speech, which was regarded as the manifesto of the Reform

party, called forth a reply from the Duke of Wellington, which was

pregnant with revolution, and which precipitated the downfall of his

Administration. He said:--"The noble Earl has recommended us not only

to put down these disturbances, but to put the country in a state to

meet and overthrow the dangers which are likely to arise from the late

transactions in France, by the adoption of something like Parliamentary

Reform. The noble earl has stated that he is not prepared himself

to come forward with any measure of the kind; and I will tell him

farther, neither is the Government.... Nay, I will go yet farther,

and say that if at this moment I had to form a legislature for any

country, particularly for one like this, in the possession of great

property of various descriptions, although perhaps I should not form

one precisely such as we have, I would endeavour to produce something

which would give the same result; namely, a representation of the

people containing a large body of the property of the country, and in

which the great landed proprietors have a preponderating influence.

Further still, I beg to state that not only is the Government not

prepared to bring forward any measure of this description, but, in so

far as I am concerned, while I have the honour to hold the situation

which I now do among his Majesty's counsellors, I shall always feel it

my duty to oppose any such measures when brought forward by others."

When he sat down the hum of criticism was so loud that he asked a

colleague--probably Lord Lyndhurst--the cause. The answer was, "You

have announced the fall of your Government, that is all."

[Illustration: LORD GREY.]

So soon as the House of Commons assembled, and before the Speaker read

the Speech which had been delivered from the Throne, Mr. Brougham made

the first significant move in the game that was about to be played,

by announcing that he would that day fortnight submit to the House

a proposition on the great question of Parliamentary Reform. Having

determined to give notice of his intention when there was a question

before the House, he was enabled to accompany his notice with an

explanation. This was his explanation:--"He had," he said, "by one

party been described as intending to bring forward a very limited, and

therefore useless and insignificant, plan; by another, he was said

to be the friend of a radical, sweeping, and innovating, and, I may

add, for I conscientiously believe it would prove so, a revolutionary

reform." Both these imputed schemes he disavowed. "I stand on the

ancient way of the Constitution." To explain at that moment what the

details of this plan were to be would have then been inconvenient--was,

indeed, impossible. "But," said Mr. Brougham, "my object in bringing

forward this question is not revolution, but restoration--to repair the

Constitution, not to pull it down." This notice was a master-stroke of

policy.

The Duke of Wellington's declaration against Reform had all the effect

of an arbitrary prohibition thrown in the way of a violent passion. The

effect was tremendous; a revolutionary flame was kindled everywhere

at the same instant, as if the whole atmosphere--north, south, east,

and west--was wrapt in a sheet of electric fire. No words from any

statesman in English history ever produced such an impression. The

transports became universal; all ranks were involved; all heads, save

the strongest and most far-seeing, were swept away by the torrent

of excitement. John Bull's patience was gone. Parliamentary Reform

was right; the time was come when it should be granted; and no man,

not even the Duke of Wellington, should be allowed to withstand the

nation's will. The unpopularity of the Duke with his own party swelled

for the moment the current of the movement. High Churchmen declared

that Reform would raise a barrier against Papal aggression, which

they felt to be necessary, as experience had shown that the existing

Constitution afforded no security. The old Tories, in their resentment

on account of the concession to the Catholic claims, appeared to be

ready to support the popular demands, if by so doing they could mortify

or overthrow the Government. The inhabitants of the towns, intelligent,

active, progressive, longed for Parliamentary Reform, because they

believed it would remove the impediments which retarded the advancement

of society. There were only two classes of the community who were

believed at the time to be opposed to the Reform movement: first, the

aristocratic Whigs, because Parliamentary Reform would destroy the

influence by which they had for a century after the Revolution governed

the country, but their accidental position as popular leaders obliged

them for the time to go with the current; second, the class to whom Mr.

Cobbett applied the term "borough-mongers," including all those who had

property in Parliamentary seats, and could sell them, or bestow them,

as they thought proper. The former, it was argued, were obliged to

conceal their attachment to the old system, which had secured to a few

great families a monopoly of government and its emoluments. The latter

had become so odious to the nation that their opposition availed little

against the rapid tide of public feeling and the tremendous breakers of

popular indignation.

O'Connell also wielded against the Government the fierce democracy

of Roman Catholic Ireland. Sir Robert Peel had irritated him by some

contemptuous remarks on his Repeal agitation, and he rose in his own

defence, like a lion in his fury. He proceeded to give a description of

the condition of Ireland, "which," said Mr. Brougham, "if not magnified

in its proportions, if not painted in exaggerated colours, presents to

my mind one of the most dismal, melancholy, and alarming conditions of

society ever heard of or recorded in any State of the civilised world."

Mr. O'Connell thus addressed the Treasury bench:--"Tell the people of

Ireland that you have no sympathy with their sufferings, that their

advocate is greeted with sneers and laughter, that he is an outlaw in

the land, and that he is taunted with want of courage, because he is

afraid of offending his God. Tell them this, and let them hear also

in what language the Secretary of State, who issued the proclamation

to prevent meetings in Ireland, has spoken of Polignac." A powerful

defence of his system of peaceful agitation, and a fierce defiance and

denunciation of the existing Administration, closed this remarkable

speech, whose effect upon the House, Mr. Roebuck said, was great and

unexpected. Its effect upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, it need not

be added, was immense.

Indeed, the perusal of the debates, in connection with the Royal

Speech, threw the whole United Kingdom into a ferment of agitation.

Public meetings were held to express indignation at the anti-Reform

declaration of the Duke of Wellington. Petitions were presented,

pamphlets were published, harangues were delivered, defiances were

hurled from every part of the country. It was in these circumstances

that the king was invited to honour the City with his presence at the

Lord Mayor's banquet, which was to be held on the 9th of November, the

day on which the new Lord Mayor enters upon his office. It had been

the custom for a new Sovereign to pay this compliment to the City, and

William IV. was advised by his Ministers to accept the invitation.

The Metropolitan Police force had been recently established. It was a

vast improvement upon the old body of watchmen, in whose time thieves

and vagabonds pursued their avocations with comparative impunity. The

new force, as may be supposed, was the object of intense hatred to

all the dangerous classes of society, who had organised a formidable

demonstration against the police, and the Government by which the

force was established, on Lord Mayor's Day. Inflammatory placards

had been posted, and handbills circulated, of the most exciting and

seditious character, of which the following is a specimen:--"To arms!

Liberty or death! London meets on Tuesday next an opportunity not to

be lost for revenging the wrongs we have suffered so long. Come armed;

be firm, and victory must be ours.... We assure you, from ocular

demonstration, 6,000 cutlasses have been removed from the Tower for

the immediate use of Peel's bloody gang. Remember the cursed Speech

from the Throne--these----police are to be armed. Englishmen! will you

put up with this?" Appeals of this kind, and sinister rumours of all

sorts, industriously circulated, created the greatest alarm throughout

London. It was reported that a conspiracy of vast extent had been

discovered--that society was on the eve of a terrible convulsion--that

the barricades would immediately be up in the Strand, and that there

would be a bloody revolution in the streets. The inhabitants prepared

as well as they could for self-defence. They put up iron blinds and

shutters to their windows, got strong bolts to their doors, supplied

themselves with arms, and resolutely waited for the attack. So great

was the public consternation that the Funds fell three-and-a-half per

cent. in two hours. This panic is not a matter of so much astonishment

when we consider that the three days' fighting in the streets of Paris

was fresh in the recollection of the people of London. The Lord Mayor

Elect, Alderman Key, had received so many anonymous letters, warning

him of confusion and riot if his Majesty's Ministers should appear

in the procession, that he became alarmed, and wrote to the Duke of

Wellington, pointing out the terrible consequences of a nocturnal

attack by armed and organised desperadoes in such a crowded city as

London. The Duke, thinking the danger not to be despised, advised the

king to postpone his visit. Accordingly, a letter from Sir Robert Peel,

as Home Secretary, appeared posted on the Exchange on the morning of

the 9th. The multitude of sightseers, disappointed of their pageant,

were excited beyond all precedent, and execrations against the

Government were heard on every side. In fact, this incident, concerning

which no blame whatever attached to the Ministers, exposed the Duke

of Wellington and his colleagues to a hailstorm of popular fury. The

two Houses of Parliament hastily met, in a state of anxiety, if not

alarm. Unable to restrain their feelings until the arrival of Ministers

to give explanations, they broke forth into vehement expressions of

censure and regret. Lord Wellesley more justly described it as "the

boldest act of cowardice of which he had ever heard."

It was quite evident that a Ministry assailed in this manner, and

left almost without defenders in Parliament, while the public out

of doors were so excited against them that no act of theirs could

give satisfaction or inspire confidence, could not long remain in

office. Accordingly, they made up their minds to retire on the first

opportunity. Three important questions stood for discussion, on any one

of which they were sure to be defeated. The Duke selected the question

of the Civil List. In the Royal Speech his Majesty surrendered the

hereditary revenues of the Crown to the disposal of Parliament. The

Opposition could see no merit in that, and Lord Grey contended that

those revenues were not private but public property, assigned by the

State for the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the Sovereign, and

that from this purpose they could not be alienated. The debate came on

upon the 12th of November, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved

that the House do resolve itself into committee on the Civil List, the

scheme which he had brought forward fixing the amount to be settled

at £970,000. Several of the details in this scheme were objected to,

and on the following day Sir H. Parnell moved, as an amendment to

the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a select

committee be appointed to take into consideration the estimates and

accounts printed by command of his Majesty regarding the Civil List.

After a short debate the House divided, when the numbers were--for the

amendment, 233; and against it, 204, giving a majority of twenty-nine

against the Government. Mr. Hobhouse immediately asked Sir Robert

Peel whether Ministers intended to retain office after this expression

of the sentiments of the House. To which he gave no answer at the

time; but the next day the Duke in the Upper House, and Sir Robert

in the Lower, announced that they held their offices only till their

successors were appointed. The defeat was brought about, in a great

measure, by the former supporters of the Ministry. The blow was struck,

and none recoiled from it more immediately than the section of angry

Tories who were mainly instrumental in delivering it. They had achieved

their purpose, and stood aghast, for no time was lost with the Duke in

placing his resignation in the hands of the king.

William IV. then sent for the veteran Grey, who formed a Ministry with

unusual ease, chiefly of the Whig and Canningite elements. His chief

difficulty was how to dispose of the volatile Brougham. The king had no

objection to accept him as one of the Ministers, and Brougham himself

wished to be Master of the Rolls, assuming that Sir John Leech was to

become Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with a peerage, and that Mr. Plunket

was to be Lord Chancellor of England. To this arrangement, however, the

king and Lord Grey peremptorily objected. Brougham was then offered the

Attorney-Generalship, which he calmly refused, upon which Lord Grey

declared that his hopes of being able to form an Administration were at

an end, and he waited on his Majesty for the purpose of communicating

to him the failure of his negotiations. "Why so?" inquired the king.

"Why not make him Chancellor? Have you thought of that?" The answer

was, "No; your Majesty's objection to the one appointment seemed to

preclude the other." "Not at all, not at all," replied the king; and

the reasons for one appointment and against the other were very clearly

stated by his Majesty, namely, that Brougham as Master of the Rolls

and member for Yorkshire would be far too powerful. Mr. Brougham was

left in the dark for some time about the intentions of Lord Grey,

for on the 17th of November he said he had nothing to do with the

Administration, except in the respect he bore them, and as a member of

the House. On the 19th he presented petitions, and spoke on them in the

Commons, without intimating any change of position. Hence it may easily

be supposed that he surprised the world, as well as his friends, by

suddenly appearing on November the 22nd in the House of Lords as Lord

Chancellor of England. This was certainly a high office to which he was

elevated, and for which the exigencies of party made him necessary;

but, in accepting it, he sacrificed a great position which seemed to

gratify all the desires of intellectual ambition; and, in order to

induce his compliance, Lord Grey was obliged to appeal to his generous

sympathies, his public spirit, and his devotion to his party. Lord

Brougham and Vaux became, said a wag, "_Vaux et praeterea nihil_."

The celebrated Reform Ministry consisted of the following members:--In

the Cabinet: First Lord of the Treasury, Earl Grey; Lord Chancellor,

Lord Brougham; Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the Commons,

Lord Althorp; President of the Council, Marquis of Lansdowne; Lord

Privy Seal, Earl of Durham; Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne; Foreign

Secretary, Lord Palmerston; Secretary of the Colonies, Lord Ripon;

First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir James Graham; President of the

Board of Control, Mr. Charles Grant; Postmaster-General, Duke of

Richmond; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Holland; without

office, Lord Carlisle. Not in the Cabinet there were: President of

the Board of Trade, Lord Auckland; Secretary at War, Mr. C. W. Wynn;

Master-General of Ordnance, Sir James Kemp; Paymaster-General of the

Forces, Lord John Russell; Lord Chamberlain, Duke of Devonshire; Lord

Steward, Marquis Wellesley; Master of the Horse, Lord Albemarle;

Groom of the Stole, Marquis of Winchester; First Commissioner of

Land Revenue, Mr. Agar Ellis; Treasurer of the Navy, Mr. Poulett

Thompson; Attorney-General, Sir T. Denman; Solicitor-General, Sir W.

Horne. In Ireland the office-bearers were: Lord-Lieutenant, Marquis

of Anglesey; Lord Chancellor, Lord Plunket; Commander of the Forces,

Sir John Byng; Chief Secretary, Mr. Stanley; Attorney-General, Mr.

Blackburne; Solicitor-General, Mr. Crampton. In Scotland they were:

Lord Advocate, Mr. Jeffrey; Solicitor-General, Mr. Cockburn. The saying

of Lord Grey, that he would stand by his order, has been often quoted

as characteristic of his aristocratic spirit. He certainly did stand

by it on this occasion, for his Cabinet could scarcely have been more

aristocratic than it was. It consisted of thirteen members, of whom

eleven were peers, or sons of peers, one was a baronet, and one an

untitled commoner.

The Ministerial statement was anticipated with great interest. It was

delivered by the new Premier, on the evening of the 22nd, Brougham

presiding as Lord Chancellor. Foremost and most conspicuous in his

programme was the question of Parliamentary Reform; next, economy and

peace. Having gone in detail through the principles of his policy, and

the reforms he proposed to introduce, the noble lord summed up all in

the following words:--"The principles on which I now stand, and upon

which the Administration is prepared to act, are--the amelioration

of existing abuses; the promotion of the most rigid economy in every

branch of the public expenditure; and lastly, every endeavour that can

be made by Government to preserve peace, consistent with the honour and

character of the country. Upon these principles I have undertaken an

office to which I have neither the affectation nor presumption to state

that I am equal. I have arrived at a period of life when retirement

is more to be desired than active employment; and I can assure your

lordships that I should not have emerged from it had I not found--may I

be permitted to say thus much without incurring the charge of vanity or

arrogance?--had I not found myself, owing to accidental circumstances,

certainly not to any merit of my own, placed in a situation in which,

if I had declined the task, I had every reason to believe that any

attempt to form a new Government on principles which I could support

would have been unsuccessful. Urged by these considerations, being

at the same time aware of my own inability, but acting in accordance

with my sense of public duty, I have undertaken the Government of the

country at the present momentous crisis."

[Illustration: MOB BURNING A FARM IN KENT. (_See p._ 325.)]

Lord Grey declared that when he entered office in November, 1830,

he found the counties round London in open insurrection, and that

no measures had been taken by the late Government to put down these

disturbances. This was true so far as incendiary fires were concerned.

A system of outrage commenced in Kent before the harvest was fully

gathered in. The disturbers of the peace did not generally assume the

form of mobs, nor did they seek any political object. Threatening

letters were circulated very freely, demanding higher wages and

denouncing machinery, and the attacks of the rioters were directed

entirely against private property. In the day armed bands went forth,

wrecking mills and destroying machinery, especially threshing-machines.

At night, corn-stacks, hayricks, barns, and farm buildings were seen

blazing in different parts of the county. Even live stock were cruelly

burned to death. In addition to this wholesale destruction the

rioters plundered the houses of the farmers as they went along. These

disorders extended into Hants, Wilts, Bucks, Sussex, and Surrey, and

they continued during the months of October, November, and December.

In fact, life and property in those counties were, to a great extent,

at the mercy of lawless men. Lord Melbourne lost no time in announcing

his determination to punish sternly those disturbers of the peace, and

to restore at every cost the dominion of law and order. He would give

his most anxious attention to measures for the relief of distress, but

it was his determined resolution, wherever outrages were perpetrated

or excesses committed, to suppress them with vigour. In pursuance of

this determination, two special commissions were issued to try the

offenders. They finished their painful duties early in January. On the

9th of that month judgment of death was recorded against twenty-three

persons for the destruction of machinery in Buckinghamshire. In Dorset,

at Norwich, at Ipswich, at Petworth, at Gloucester, at Oxford, at

Winchester, and at Salisbury, large numbers were convicted of various

outrages; altogether, upwards of 800 offenders were tried, and a

large proportion of them capitally convicted. Only four, however,

were executed; the rest were all sentenced to various terms of

transportation or imprisonment. The prosecutions were conducted with

firmness, but with moderation, and they were decidedly successful in

restoring public tranquillity.

The middle classes at that time, bent on the acquisition of

Parliamentary Reform, were anxious that the movement should be

conducted strictly within the bounds of legality, and without producing

any social disorders. There was, however, a class of agitators who

inflamed popular discontent by throwing the blame of the existing

distress on machinery, on capitalists, and on the Government. This

course of conduct served to encourage mobs of thieves and ruffians both

in town and country, who brought disgrace upon the cause of Reform, and

gave a pretext for charging the masses of the people with a lawless

spirit and revolutionary tendencies. Carlile and Cobbett were the chief

incendiaries. Both were brought to trial; Carlile was fined £2,000 and

sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but Cobbett was acquitted as the

jury were unable to agree.

In Ireland there was severe distress prevailing over an extensive

district along the western coast--no unusual visitation, for the

peasantry depended altogether on the potato, a precarious crop, which

sometimes failed wholly, and was hardly ever sufficient to last till

the new crop came in. The old potatoes generally disappeared or became

unfit for human food in June, and from that time till September the

destitution was very great, sometimes amounting to actual famine. There

was a partial failure of the crop in 1830, which, coupled with the

rack-rents extorted by middlemen, gave to agitators topics which they

used with effect in disquieting the minds of the peasantry.

The Irish Viceroy appointed by Lord Grey was the Marquis of Anglesey.

The interval between his two viceroyalties extended over a period of

nearly two years, during which the Duke of Northumberland was at the

head of the Irish Government. The manner in which relief was granted to

Roman Catholics, expressly as a concession to violence wrung from the

fears of the legislature, confirmed the wildest notions of the people

with respect to their own power. The offensive exclusion of O'Connell

by the terms of the Emancipation Act deprived the concession of much of

its grace and power of conciliation; and now negotiations for making

him Master of the Rolls broke down. In consequence of the securities

with which the Emancipation Act was associated, the latter part of

the year 1829 and the whole of 1830 were miserably distinguished in

Ireland by party conflicts and outrages. To the government of the

country thus torn and convulsed Lord Anglesey was again called in

December of the latter year, and, considering his antecedents, no

appointment was likely to prove so popular. "Nevertheless," says Lord

Cloncurry, "neither support nor forbearance were accorded to Lord

Anglesey. From the moment when it was known that he was reappointed,

he was treated by the demagogues as an enemy. And the extraordinary

progress of Liberalism made during his lieutenancy must in candour be

set down to the account of his courage and perseverance in fighting the

cause of the people against both themselves and their enemies." On the

eve of his departure for Ireland he wrote to Lord Cloncurry, saying,

"O'Connell is my avant-courier. He starts to-day with more mischief in

hand than I have yet seen him charged with. I saw him yesterday for

an hour and a half. I made no impression upon him whatever; and I am

now thoroughly convinced that he is bent upon desperate agitation. All

this will produce no change in my course and conduct. For the love of

Ireland I deprecate agitation. I know it is the only thing that can

prevent her from prospering; for there is in this country a growing

spirit to take Ireland by the hand, and a determination not to neglect

her and her interests; therefore, I pray for peace and repose. But if

the sword is really to be drawn, and with it the scabbard is to be

thrown away--if I, who have suffered so much for her, am to become

a suspected character, and to be treated as an enemy--if, for the

protection of the State, I am driven to the dire necessity of again

turning soldier--why, then, I must endeavour to get back into old

habits, and to live amongst a people I love in a state of misery and

distress."

Notwithstanding these apprehensions, the reception actually given to

Lord Anglesey was not at all so disgraceful to the country as he was

led to anticipate. Mr. O'Connell kept out of the way; but a numerous

assemblage of the most respectable citizens greeted his arrival at

Kingstown, and escorted him to Dublin Castle, Lord Cloncurry and Lord

Howth riding at the head of the procession. The populace confined

the expression of their feeling to a few groans for "Dirty Doherty,"

whose promotion to the chief seat of the Court of Common Pleas was the

alleged offence of Lord Anglesey. He was scarcely a week in Ireland,

however, when O'Connell opened the Repeal campaign. A meeting of

the trades of Dublin had been arranged for the 27th of December, to

march in procession from Phibsborough to his residence in Merrion

Square, to present him with an address of thanks for his advocacy of

a domestic legislature. Sworn informations having been laid before

the Lord-Lieutenant to the effect that serious disturbances were

apprehended from this procession, he issued a proclamation on Christmas

Day, forbidding it under the Act for the suppression of dangerous

associations or assemblies. Mr. O'Connell therefore issued a notice,

counter-manding the meeting. On the 4th of January Mr. O'Connell

sent a deputation to Lord Cloncurry, to ask him to preside over a

Repeal meeting, which he declined. "Those who knew Mr. O'Connell,"

writes his lordship, "who recollect what a creature of impulse he was,

how impatiently he bore with any difference from his opinions, and

what a storm was the first burst of his wrath, will not wonder at what

followed. Three very long letters were immediately issued, especially

devoted to the business of vituperating me, but with ample digressions

maledictory of Lord Anglesey." In a few days, he adds, the fever was

brought to a crisis by the arrest of Mr. O'Connell and his agitation

staff, "after a brisk pursuit through a labyrinth of ingenious devices,

whereby he sought to evade the law, in the course of which it was

found necessary to discharge five or six proclamations against him.

To-day, Mr. O'Connell's audience and _claqueurs_ were termed 'The

Society of the Friends of Ireland of all Religious Persuasions.'

To-morrow they were 'The General Association of Ireland for the

Prevention of Unlawful Meetings,' and for the protection and exercise

of the sacred right of petitioning for the redress of grievances. Then,

again, they were a nameless body of persons, in the habit of meeting

weekly at a place called Home's Hotel; and as the hunt continued, they

successively escaped from each daily proclamation under the changing

appellations of 'The Irish Society for Legal and Legislative Relief';

or 'The Anti-Union Association'; 'The Association of Irish Volunteers

for the Repeal of the Union'; 'The Subscribers to the Parliamentary

Intelligence Office, Stephen Street'; until they were fairly run down

at a breakfast party at Hayes Hotel."

At length, then, after all his marvellous doublings, O'Connell was

hunted into the meshes of the law. He was convicted of sedition, having

pleaded guilty, but was not called up for judgment. This was made a

charge against the Government; with how little reason may be seen

from the account of the matter given by Lord Cloncurry. The time at

which he should have been called up for judgment did not arrive till

within a month or two of the expiration of the statute under which

he was convicted, and which he called the "Algerine Act." In these

circumstances, Lord Cloncurry strongly urged upon the Viceroy the

prudence of letting him escape altogether, as his incarceration for

a few weeks, when he must be liberated with the expiring Act, "would

only have the appearance of impotent malice, and, while it might

have created dangerous popular excitement, would but have added to

his exasperation, and have given him a triumph upon the event of his

liberation that must so speedily follow."

On the 1st of February, 1831, the Birmingham Political Union held its

anniversary. It had been established some years, first to denounce

the circulation of a metallic currency, and then for the purpose of

agitating for Reform, organised somewhat on the principle of the Irish

Catholic Association, and exerting a mighty influence on public opinion

in the northern counties. Mr. Attwood stated that at this time it had

on its books 9,000 members, paying from 4s. to £2 2s. a year each.

Other unions of a similar kind were established in many cities and

towns throughout the kingdom.

[Illustration: O'CONNELL'S HOUSE IN MERRION SQUARE, DUBLIN.]

On the 3rd Parliament assembled, and the nation was full of expectation

as to the measures of the Government. The great question of the

day was understood to have been under their anxious consideration

during the winter. It subsequently transpired that the measure of

Reform contemplated by Lord Grey at the close of the year was far

more moderate than the one which was brought forward by Lord John

Russell. The material increase in the amount of concession was said

to be chiefly owing to the growing demands of the people, enlightened

by the discussions in the political unions. Lord Durham was the most

advanced Liberal in the Cabinet, and most strenuously insisted on the

necessity of a very liberal measure. In order that the Bill might be

well matured, and might fully meet the wants of the country, Lord

Grey appointed a committee to consider the whole subject, and report

upon it to the Cabinet. This committee consisted of his son-in-law,

Lord Durham, who was intimately acquainted with his own views; Lord

John Russell, who had represented the Whig party in the House of

Commons in the various proposals that he had made on the subject of

Reform; Sir James Graham, who enjoyed the confidence of the advanced

Liberals, and was considered something more than a Whig; and Lord

Duncannon, who was supposed to be well acquainted with the Irish

corporations. According to the general instructions given to the

committee, they were to prepare the outlines of a measure which should

be sufficiently comprehensive to meet the demands of public opinion,

so as to extinguish the desire for further change. But it must rest

upon property as its basis, and be connected with existing territorial

divisions. He wished that the prerogative of the Crown should be in no

degree diminished, that the peers should lose none of their rights or

privileges; but that, saving these, the democracy should play its due

part in the legislation and government of the country. The committee

began to work as soon as the Administration was organised. They first

discussed the principles involved in the measure, then the details were

separately examined, and when a point was decided and agreed upon, it

was recorded in writing by Lord Durham. Lord John Russell furnished

the materials for Schedules A and B, which were supplied to him by

coadjutors, who were labouring diligently out of doors facilitating

the work. The first draft of the measure, as adopted by the committee,

was explained by Lord Durham in the form of a report to the Cabinet,

showing how the plans thus propounded would fulfil the conditions

required, and, by satisfying all reasonable desires, stop the tendency

to innovation. The scheme, when thus placed before the Cabinet, became

the subject of their anxious deliberation, and was unanimously adopted

by them, with the exception of the ballot, which was rejected owing to

Lord Grey's objections. It was then submitted to the king at Brighton,

a few days from the meeting of Parliament, was discussed with him from

point to point, and sanctioned.

[Illustration: ARREST OF O'CONNELL. (_See p._ 327.)]

As soon as Parliament assembled, Earl Grey in the Upper House, and Lord

Althorp in the Commons, stated what the intentions of the Government

were with regard to the Reform question. Earl Grey announced that they

had prepared a measure which had met with the entire, the unanimous

concurrence of the whole of his Majesty's Government. The measure was

to originate in the House of Commons, and Lord Althorp intimated that

the duty of introducing it had been entrusted to the Paymaster of the

Forces, Lord John Russell, though not then a member of the Cabinet.

This was done because they thought it no more than due to his long

perseverance in the cause of Reform in times when it was unpopular.

When it was difficult to obtain a hearing upon the subject, he had

brought forward plans of partial Reform, and now that the cause was

prosperous, they deemed it due to his perseverance and ability that he

should be the person selected by the Government to bring forward their

plan of full and efficient Reform. The measure was to be introduced on

the 1st of March.

On the 11th of February Lord Althorp brought forward the Budget. Basing

his calculations on the revenue of the previous year, he estimated the

national income at £50,000,000, and the expenditure at £46,850,000,

leaving an anticipated surplus of more than £3,000,000; and it was

proposed to take off taxes to the whole of that amount, and to replace

it to some extent by other taxes, less burdensome to the people. The

principal taxes to be taken off were those on tobacco, sea-borne coal,

tallow candles, glass, printed calicoes, and newspapers. The new taxes

consisted in an increase of the duties on wine, colonial timber, and

raw cotton, a tax on steamboat passengers, and on the transfers of

funded property. The proposed new taxes excited violent opposition,

which obliged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to modify some of them,

and abandon the last two; in fact, the financial scheme was a failure.

Equally unsuccessful were his attempts to introduce retrenchments into

the Civil and Pension Lists. But the Government was borne up by its

great measure, the Reform Bill.