William IV.
Parliamentary Reform.
(1830-1837).
A grand and consoling spectacle to contemplate, is that
throughout the whole course of English history, the great lords
and the landed gentry, the masters of the soil and of the
national wealth, are always to be found in the front rank in
political contests as well as in the army; in Parliament as well
as on the field of battle. The English barons had wrested Magna
Charta from John Lackland; in the government which was to
accomplish a parliamentary reform, useful and legitimate in some
respects, doubtful and bold in others, thirteen members of the
House of Lords headed the popular movement, resolved to raise
high the standard of a reform fatal to their influence and their
natural domination.
{463}
Courageously faithful in its task of moderating the outbursts of
the inconsiderate passions of the nation, the English aristocracy
has never yielded its right to be the first to brave all dangers,
and the first to advance all progress: it has lessened the
encroachments of the rising wave of democracy; it has opened its
ranks to all signal merit; it has given up its children to common
life and common labor, prompt to bear the burden of the national
destiny, in all its directions, and ardent to maintain England in
that glorious position in the vanguard of liberty, that she has
occupied with honor in Europe for many centuries.
Following the emancipation of the Catholics, the parliamentary
reform proposed and sustained by Lord John Russell and Lord Grey,
was a new and shining example. Confusedly, and without fully
comprehending the import of their acts and of their hopes, the
Whigs began to see that a new spirit was now animating the world,
and that the breath of the French Revolution had not passed in
vain over a generation that was slowly disappearing, leaving to
its success, a work begun. It was again that the agitation and
excitement of the popular passions came from France. The
revolution of July, 1830, had substituted upon the throne the
younger branch of the House of Bourbon, in place of the elder,
which had been induced by fatal counsels to violate its
engagements with the nation.
{464}
At the first report of the cannon of King Charles X., some one
asked the Duke of Wellington what he thought of the result? "It
is a new dynasty," answered the Duke. "And what course shall you
take?" "First, a long silence, and then we will concert with our
allies what we shall say." The national sympathy of England did
not permit so much prudence and reserve. From the month of August
it solemnly recognized Louis Philippe--"in the name of the new
King of England." William IV. but recently Duke of Clarence, had
succeeded his brother George IV. Educated for the navy, he had
never shown much talent in his profession: he was an honest
prince, of moderate intelligence, without any children living.
His wife Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, was a virtuous and agreeable
person, who exercised over the king her husband an influence,
often exaggerated by public rumor.
The new Parliament which assembled on the 2nd of November, 1830,
had been elected amidst extreme agitation. Disturbances and riots
had succeeded the electoral ferment, at many places; the ministry
were disturbed during the first day of the session. The day
following the address from the throne, the Reformers threw the
gauntlet to the cabinet. Lord Grey solemnly announced his views
and the end he desired; clever and sensible even in his boldness,
and placing in advance the limits which he had resolved not to
pass. "That which takes place under our own eyes ought to teach
us sagacity; when the spirit of liberty shines around us, it is
our first duty to guarantee our institutions by introducing
moderate reforms. I have been all my life favorable to reform,
but never have I been disposed to go further than to-day, if the
occasion should present itself. But I do not rest upon abstract
right, my reasons for claiming them. Some say that all men who
pay taxes, that all men who have attained their majority, have
the right to the electoral suffrage. I deny absolutely this
right. The right of the people is to be well governed, in a way
to assure its repose and its privileges; if this is incompatible
with universal suffrage, or even with an extension of the
suffrage, then the restriction, and not the extension of the
suffrage becomes the true duty of the people."
{465}
Wise maxims, ignored or unrecognized by the popular passions and
the absolute egotism of France, too often forgotten even in
England, by reformers more adventurous and less enlightened than
Lord Grey. The door that he wished to open, the way that he
traced for the future destinies of his country, excited
immediately a lively opposition on the part of the Duke of
Wellington. He responded without hesitation to Lord Grey: "As for
me, I recognize no system of representation to be better and more
satisfactory than that which England enjoys; this system
possesses and merits the full confidence of the country. I will
go further: if, at this moment, the duty were imposed upon me to
form a legislature for any country whatever, above all for a
country like ours, with great interests of all kinds, I do not
think that I would ever be able to form a legislature comparable
to this; for human sagacity does not attain at once so excellent
an institution. I am not prepared to propose the measure alluded
to by the noble lord. Not only am I not prepared to bring forward
any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare, that as
far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
resist such measures when proposed by others."
The refusal was more peremptory than the public and even members
of the cabinet themselves expected; the external agitation became
so great that the king declined to visit London to attend the
Lord Mayor's banquet. Seditious movements were feared. On the
15th of November, a motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
regarding the Civil List, was voted down; on the 16th the Cabinet
resigned: Sir Robert Peel as well as the Duke of Wellington. Lord
Grey and his friends, Lord John Russell, Lord Brougham, Lord
Palmerston, Lord Melbourne and Lord Althorpe, arrived at power.
{466}
From the first day they boldly raised the flag of Reform. "That
which I proposed when against the government, I have now the
power to accomplish," said Lord Grey; "and I engage myself to
present immediately to Parliament, a proposition for the reform
of our system of representation." Popular agitation was extreme;
the counties surrounding London were in a state of open
insurrection. After the declaration of Lord Grey, the situation
in Ireland became more alarming; the crops had failed, and the
sufferings of the people were excessive. O'Connell and his
friends, deprived of their weapons by the emancipation of the
Catholics, raised anew the question of the union of the two
kingdoms: they boldly demanded its repeal. O'Connell overran the
counties, haranguing the people and exciting their religious and
political passions; careful, however, to recommend that order
which he was constantly seeking to disturb, and violating
frequently the laws, feeling safe from all prosecution, inasmuch
as the government needed his support for the success of its great
enterprise. One measure alone occupied the thoughts of the
ministers: defeated in Parliament on the Budget, they called to
their aid all shades of liberals, modifying the first tenor of
their intentions, in order to assure themselves of victory. "My
first intention," said Lord Grey to the House of Lords, on the
28th of March, 1831, "was to reduce the reform to limits much
more circumscribed. After mature reflection, I am nevertheless
convinced that the measure, as actually presented, would alone be
able to satisfy the views of all classes, and assure to the
government security and respect."
{467}
Two questions occupied the reformers: the suppression of existing
abuses and the lawful extension of the political suffrage. I
borrow from May's Constitutional History the resumé of the bold
measures proposed by Lord John Russell in order to reach this
double result:
"The main evil had been the number of nominations, or rotten
boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these, having
less than two thousand inhabitants, and returning one hundred
and eleven members, were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having
less than four thousand inhabitants, lost each a member.
Weymouth and Welcome Regis lost two. This disfranchisement
extended to one hundred and forty-three members. The next evil
had been, that large populations were unrepresented; and this
was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including
metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning two
members; and twenty more of returning one. The large county
populations were also regarded in the distribution of seats,
the number of county members being increased from ninety-four
to one hundred and fifty-nine. The larger counties were
divided; and the number of members adjusted with reference to
the importance of the constituencies. By this distribution of
the franchise, the House of Commons was reduced in number from
six hundred and fifty-eight to five hundred and ninety-six, or
by sixty-two members. The number of electors was more than
doubled: it attained in the united kingdom to the number of
nine hundred thousand. All narrow rights of election were set
aside in boroughs, and a ten pound household franchise was
established."
The secret resolutions of the government had been strictly kept;
the joyous astonishment of the Reformers equalled the anger of
the Conservatives, a new name which the Tories had adopted, in
consequence of the attacks of their adversaries upon the
Constitution.
{468}
Astonishment and anger were followed by anxiety. Determined
resolution on the part of the Conservatives would be able, at the
outset, to defeat the bill and overthrow the cabinet. The
ministers were not ignorant of this fact. "We often sought to
divine the probable conduct of the opposition," subsequently
remarked Lord Brougham, then chancellor; "I said; If I was in
Peel's place I would not attempt to discuss the question; as soon
as Lord John Russell should sit down, I would declare that I was
decided not to discuss a measure so revolutionary, so insane, and
I would demand an immediate vote. If he does that we are lost."
The members of the cabinet who were not in the House of Commons
were at table at the house of the chancellor, anxiously waiting
for news of the discussion, when the last bulletin finally
arrived: "Peel has been speaking for twenty minutes," Lord
Brougham shouted for joy. "Hurrah!" cried he, "they discuss--we
are saved."
The shrewd instinct of the Reformers had not been deceived; no
matter however powerful and reasonable was the discussion,
however forcible the arguments against a reform more radical in
principle than in its practical application, time and debate were
necessarily favorable to a cause growing more and more popular,
notwithstanding the commotion and uneasiness of a great part of
the nation. Sir Robert Peel had not correctly judged the passions
which secretly agitated the masses. "Our judgment is troubled,"
said he, "by what has just taken place in France. I admit that
the resistance of our neighbors to an illegal exercise of
authority has been legitimate; but consider what effects popular
resistance, even when legitimate, have upon national property,
upon industry, and upon the happiness of families. All that I ask
of you is that you take time to deliberate upon so grave a
question. When the people of England shall recover their strong
good sense, they will reproach you for having sacrificed the
Constitution of the country in your desire to take advantage of
an outburst of popular sentiment."
{469}
"I shall combat this bill to the end, because I believe it fatal
to our favored form of mixed government, fatal to the authority
of the House of Lords, fatal to that spirit of rest and prudence
which has gained for England the confidence of the world, fatal
to those habits and to those practices of government which, in
protecting efficaciously the property and the liberty of the
individual, have given to the executive power of this state, a
vigor unknown in any other time and in any other country. If the
bill proposed by the ministry is passed, it will introduce
amongst us the worst, and the vilest sort of despotism, the
despotism of demagogues, the despotism of the press; that
despotism which has driven neighboring countries, but recently
happy and flourishing, to the very borders of the abyss."
The good sense of the English nation, its wise respect for its
traditions, and that political instinct which has always warned
it on the eve of extreme peril, protected England again in this
instance from those grievous and terrible consequences, predicted
in 1831 by Sir Robert Peel, as the inevitable result of the
Reform bill. He had, nevertheless, put his finger upon the wound,
and justly indicated its effect: the equilibrium of the powers
was altered, and henceforth the will of the House of Commons
weighed in the balance to regulate the affairs and dispose of the
destinies of England, both at home and abroad.
At the second reading of the bill, it passed by a single vote. An
amendment by General Gascoigne against the reduction of the total
number of the House of Commons passed by a majority of eight. The
cabinet felt its measure threatened, and resolved to dissolve
Parliament and appeal to the electors. The chancellor undertook
to obtain the consent of the king.
{470}
He went with Lord Grey to the palace. William IV. resisted. "How
can I," said he, "after such a fashion, repay the kindness of
Parliament; in granting me a most liberal civil list, and giving
to the queen a splendid annuity in case she survives me?" And as
Lord Brougham explained the political reasons for an immediate
dissolution, the King objected: "The great officers of State are
not summoned."--"Pardon me, sire," and the Chancellor bowed
humbly: "we have taken the great liberty of informing them that
your Majesty would have need of their services."--"But the crown,
and the royal robes, and the other insignia of ceremony are not
prepared."--"I beg your Majesty to pardon my audacity--all is
ready."--"But, my Lords, it is impossible; my guards--the troops
have not received their orders; they cannot be ready
to-day."--"Pardon me, sir; I know how great my presumption has
been, but we have counted upon the goodness of your Majesty, upon
your desire to save the kingdom and to assure the happiness of
your people. I have given the orders--the troops are under
arms."--The King, flushed with anger, demanded, "How dare you go
so far, my Lord; you know well it is an act of treason--high
treason!"--"Yes sir, I know it," replied the chancellor, humbly,
though firmly looking the monarch in the face. "I am ready to
submit personally to all the punishments that it may please your
Majesty to inflict upon me, but I conjure your Majesty anew to
hear us and to follow our counsel."
Some hours later, after a violent agitation in the two Houses,
that preceded his coming, William IV. read to the assembled
Parliament the address which Lord Brougham had previously
prepared. The murmurs of surprise and disaffection rendered the
voice of the king scarcely audible; they listened only to the
first words: "My Lords and Gentlemen, I have come to meet you for
the purpose of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its
immediate dissolution."
{471}
Thus prepared and ordered, the elections led, as might have been
expected, to scenes of sad disorder. The Reformers, intoxicated
with triumph and expectation, indulged in excesses that their
more prudent friends were not able to repress. The city of London
was illuminated on the night following the dissolution of
Parliament. At Edinburgh, the windows not illuminated were
broken. The Tory candidates were injured, at many places, and
sometimes were in great danger. The populace of Jedburgh insulted
the dying Sir Walter Scott. "_Troja fuit,_" wrote he, the
same day, in his journal. The popular illusions and ignorances
alarmed the more enlightened supporters of the measure.
"In the months of March and April," writes the celebrated Miss
Harriet Martineau, passionately engaged all her life in the
radical cause, "the great middle class, upon the intelligence of
which they counted to pass the bill, expected to see the time
come, when it would be necessary to refuse to pay their taxes,
and to march upon London to sustain the king, the ministry and
the mass of the nation, against a little group of selfish and
obstinate demagogues."
The political associations took an account of the number of their
disposable adherents; the president of the "Union of Birmingham"
declared that he would be able to furnish two armies each of
which was as good as the victors of Waterloo. Upon the coast of
Sussex ten thousand men declared themselves ready to march at the
first signal. Northumberland was ready, Yorkshire was aroused; it
might be said that the nation believed itself called upon to
march upon London. The opponents of reform trembled at the
thought that the cities would be at the mercy of the multitude.
"This measure," they said, "will owe its success only to
intimidation."
{472}
The Reformers, as well as their opponents, were anxious; after
the opening of the new Parliament on the 21st of June, 1831, the
king called the attention of the Houses to the disorders which
had taken place, as well as to the distress which existed in
Ireland, and begged of the legislature energetic remedies for
these evils.
On the 21st of September the reform bill passed the House of
Commons, by one hundred and nine majority. It was immediately
carried by Lord Grey to the House of Lords.
The debate lasted twenty-five days, and was powerful and grave;
sustained by men who knew their influence in the state was
menaced. They were, nevertheless, more occupied with the safety
of the country than with their personal authority. "I know the
courage of your Lordships," said Lord Grey, "and your proud
susceptibility to anything that looks like a menace; and I
repudiate all thought of intimidation, but I conjure you, if you
attach any value to your rights and privileges, if you hope to
transmit them intact to your posterity, to lend an ear to the
wishes of the people. Do not assume an attitude which would show
you deaf to the voice of nine-tenths of the nation, which appeals
to your wisdom in an accent too clear not to be heard, too
decisive not to be comprehended. I do not say, as was said on a
previous occasion by a noble Duke (Wellington), that the
rejection of this measure would lead to civil war: I have
confidence that such would not be the effect; but I foresee
consequences which cause me to tremble for the security of this
House, and for this nation. It is in the name of the tranquillity
and prosperity of your country that I conjure your Lordships to
reflect well, before rejecting this measure."
{473}
For a moment events seemed to justify the dolorous predictions of
the Duke of Wellington. During the discussion upon Catholic
emancipation and after the rejection of the reform bill in the
House of Lords (by forty-five majority), civil war seemed
imminent. At Derby, at Nottingham, and above all at Bristol,
violent disturbances took place, but were immediately repressed,
without great effort on the part of the government. Riots and
tumults were constantly fomented by political associations; these
however were definitely suppressed by that reaction which always
follows great disorders, as well as by the severe chastisement of
the leaders, three of whom suffered capital punishment during the
month of December, 1831.
A new reform bill was now presented to the House of Commons, by
Lord John Russell. Some reasonable modifications had been
introduced. One important change was to leave intact the total
number of members of the House.
This bill, like the first, passed the House by a large majority,
notwithstanding the efforts of Sir Robert Peel. Lord John Russell
indicated the importance of the measure, with the same anxious
solicitude which had recently characterized the efforts of Lord
Grey in the House of Lords. He claimed that the government had
weighty and serious reasons for proposing this measure. It had
been convinced, for some time past, that a law was necessary to
obviate abuses that it desires to correct, and to escape
convulsions that it wishes to avoid. If Parliament refused to
sanction this measure, it would lead to an inevitable collision
between that party which opposes all parliamentary reform, and
that other party which is only satisfied with universal suffrage.
"In consequence, torrents of blood would flow," said he, "and I
am perfectly convinced that the English Constitution would perish
in the conflict."
{474}
Secret negotiations were carried on in the House of Lords. The
ministry demanded the creation of new peers, destined to modify
the majority; the king hesitated for a long time, convinced of
the necessity of reform, but seriously opposed to the means
suggested. When he finally consented to make use of his
prerogative, the cabinet had resolved to attempt one more
venture. The second reading was voted by a majority of nine. Some
hostile peers were absent; most of the bishops voted for the
bill. But an amendment by Lord Lyndhurst made trouble for the
Reformers. He proposed, and the House of Lords voted by a
majority of thirty-five, that the new privileges accorded to the
towns and counties should be put in force before the abrogation
of the old rights of the boroughs. Upon this decision, which
gravely modified the law, and upon the refusal of the king to
create immediately sixty new peers, the whole ministry resigned.
It is in vain that timid prudence and sagacity attempt to stem
the irresistible tide of popular passions; those who have excited
them invariably fail to restrain them. The king called upon the
Duke of Wellington--always ready to brave danger. "I would not
dare to show myself in the street," said he, "if I refused to aid
my sovereign in the difficult position in which he is now
placed." All the efforts of the illustrious hero failed,
nevertheless, before the impossibility of forming a cabinet. Sir
Robert Peel refused a place in it. William IV. demanded that his
new councillors should themselves present a bill, more in
conformity with the desires and opinions of a great number of
conservatives, than that of Lord John Russell.
[Image]
Wellington In The Mob.
{475}
"I have obstinately opposed the bill on principle," said Peel,
"and I do not know how I could rise and recommend, as minister,
the adoption of a similar measure. No authority, the example of
no man, nor any union of men, would tempt me to accept power
under such circumstances and with such conditions."
An address of the House of Commons called the attention of the
king to the critical state of affairs. William IV., wounded and
irritated, yielded with bitter regret. He recalled the Whig
cabinet and authorized it, in writing, to create the number of
peers necessary to assure the triumph of the reform bill. It was
unnecessary to have recourse to this extreme measure. The Duke of
Wellington, as well as the king, comprehended that the time had
come for the House of Lords to yield to the external pressure.
William IV. wrote to his friends to absent themselves. Upon the
renewal of the discussion, the duke arose, and followed by one
hundred peers, left the House and did not return until after the
passage of the reform bill. "If the lords of the opposition had
remained firm," subsequently said Lord Grey, as well as Lord
Brougham, "we would probably have been beaten, and the bill would
have failed, for we would not have exacted the fullfilment of the
kings promise." When William IV. and his intimate advisers bowed
their heads before the violence of public opinion, they judged
more accurately the irresistible force of the current let loose
by the Reformers; the time for resistance, as well as the time
for moderation, was past.
The new elections soon demonstrated this, as everywhere
throughout the country, the populace manifested great violence
toward the adversaries of the triumphant Reform. In London, on
the 18th of June, 1832, the anniversary of the battle of
Waterloo, while riding through the streets, the Duke of
Wellington was assailed by an indignant mob that literally
covered him with dirt and insults.
{476}
He pursued tranquilly his route, walking his horse. A furious
rioter seized the bridle and attempted to drag him from his
saddle; he was obliged to take refuge in the house of a friend,
protected by a number of young lawyers of Lincoln's Inn, who came
to his assistance. The next day the king, while in attendance at
the races at Ascot, was grievously wounded by a stone. His
self-possession and courage equalled the composure of the
duke--as imperturbable among the rioters, as indifferent to the
applause of the populace. All the windows of Apsley House were
broken in a moment of public frenzy. Wellington forbade the
replacing of those of the second story. At the return of popular
favor, as the people followed the duke with acclamations, he
advanced without turning his head, without giving a sign, to the
very door of his house; there dismounting from his horse, he
pointed with his hand toward the broken windows, shrugged his
shoulders and entered the house without uttering a single word.
The condition of the finances was serious; the monetary crises
had long weighed upon commerce, and political agitation had
alarmed and diminished the same. In order to meet the deficit in
the public revenue, the ministry proposed important retrenchments
in the war and navy departments--measures always favorably
received by the people, who see in them a guarantee of peace,
without realizing that they may become fatal to peace, as well as
to the national power. Ireland was aroused more violently than
ever; the Catholics, re-established in their political and civil
rights, demanded, by the voice of their agitators, the abolition
of the tithes with which they were burdened for the benefit of
the Church of England.
{477}
The first care of the Irish leaders, was to counsel the peasants
to refuse to pay these tithes. Scenes of disorder recommenced;
everywhere crimes against individuals increased tenfold. Scarcely
had the Reform Parliament reassembled, when it was called upon to
consider a bill of repression, energetically practical, which
would moderate for a time at least these outrages. At the same
time, and in order to appease the Catholic Irish party, who were
everywhere allied to the radicals, Lord Althorpe presented a bill
for the reduction of the Protestant ecclesiastical establishment
in Ireland: feeble precursor of the work that we have seen
accomplished in our day, and already at that time so vigorously
attacked by the conservatives, that the ministry was obliged to
mitigate its tenor before obtaining a majority in the House of
Lords.
Parliament, at this time, was also obliged to sanction an issue
of bills of exchequer in favor of the clergy in Ireland,
impoverished by the loss of the tithes. The tithes were imposed
upon the protestant landholders, who, however, added them to
their rents.
The excitement and irritation in Ireland appeared for a moment
subdued; but already, from all parts of the kingdom, arose a cry
of anger and of disappointment: reform ought to have a remedy for
all evils; parliamentary reform ought to relieve all misery.
"Of what use is the new parliament," asked Ashwood, on the 21st
of March, 1833, "if actual distress is not relieved? What will
the people say of a reform parliament which has already sat so
many weeks without having undertaken a single measure in favor of
those who are suffering? A general, an extreme, an extraordinary
distress weighs upon the whole country. Large numbers of the
agricultural laborers are worn out by excessive toil; many others
have nothing to do and die of hunger; labor is poorly
remunerated; manufacturers realize scarcely any profit; many work
at a loss; commerce declines in the same proportion, and a
hundred thousand men wander about the streets of London, seeking
work but finding none."
{478}
At this time, and in this agitated and difficult situation, it is
to the credit of the Whig cabinet that it did not allow itself to
be carried away by the uneasiness and discontent of its
partisans, nor by the ardor that animated its own members; it was
also to the credit of the Tories, a small number of whom were
returned to the new House, that they maintained a firm attitude,
resolved and candid, never descending to a fatal alliance with
the radicals.
Sir Robert Peel, at the opening of the session, said, with honest
pride: "As long as I shall see the government disposed to defend,
against all rash innovation, the rights of property, the
authority of law, the order of things established and regular, I
shall believe it my duty, without taking account of the
sentiments of party, to range myself on its side. I avow frankly
that my fears regarding this House are not that it will be too
ready to believe that all is evil which is established and old; I
do not doubt the good intentions of the majority, but I fear that
the greater part of its members have come here with the
impression that the institutions under which they live are full
of abuses that should be reformed, and that they have too great
confidence in our means of providing a remedy. Three months will
not have passed, I am convinced, before they will find themselves
disappointed in their expectations; it is absolutely impossible
that they should be satisfied. I have learned with satisfaction
that the ministers of his Majesty, although disposed to reform
all real abuses, are at the same time resolved to stand by the
Constitution as it now is, and to reject all experiments that
might cause anxiety in the public mind; I am decided to sustain
them in that resolution."
{479}
It was not only questions actual and pressing that the Reform
Parliament had to deal with, such as the financial measures, the
re-chartering of the Bank of England, and the modification of the
system of government in both the East and West Indies, but also
greater questions of humanity and policy; the abolition of
slavery, and the repeal of the Union with Ireland, equally
importunate and urgent, and ardently sustained or opposed by
their respective partisans.
The resistance of the colonies to the projected measures in favor
of the blacks, had become violent; a natural alarm had taken
possession of the slaveholders, disgusted by the disposition to
revolt that they saw day by day developing itself among the
negroes, and threatened by a ruin that they feared would be
complete. Already the local legislatures had refused to accede to
the orders of the Council, relative to the treatment of the
slaves; but Parliamentary reform had given a new impetus to the
generous zeal of the abolitionists. The government took the
question boldly in hand, justly weighing in the balance the
interests of the colonists, and the legitimate impatience of the
faithful partisans of the blacks. It was an effort requiring
courage and equity, at a time of such great financial
embarrassment, to present to a Parliament ardently favorable to
the abolition of slavery, a measure tending to the purchase of
the blacks, and requiring an indemnity to the planters of twenty
million pounds sterling.
{480}
The commerce of the West Indies had suffered severely; the value
of property had diminished, and the colonists accepted this new
and considerable reduction of their fortunes, not without
profound sadness, but without violence and without revolt. The
abolitionists protested against the liberality of the government;
national equity, however, recognized the good will and sagacity
which had inspired the report presented by Mr. Stanley; the bill
was finally passed by a large majority. Slavery was thus
abolished practically, as well as in principle; and England
obtained the honor of having first, without political obligation,
without revolutionary shock, in the name of the most elevated
sentiments of Christian philanthropy, given liberty to eight
hundred thousand slaves, thereby affording a noble example of
justice and virtue to all Christian nations.
The struggle for the abolition of slavery had been long and
difficult; persistently sustained in the face of frequent
disappointments and serious obstacles, it was finally brought to
a successful termination, to the great joy of its promoters. The
sincere and prudent friends of Ireland, were met by a problem
more grave still; a problem which seemed insoluble; that of the
repose and prosperity of that unhappy country, rent asunder anew
by insane agitators. The first motion for the "Repeal of the
Union" was presented to Parliament on the 22nd of April, 1834, by
the celebrated Daniel O'Connell. It was seriously opposed by Mr.
Spring Rice, and when put to vote, was defeated by a majority of
five hundred and twenty-three against thirty-eight in the House
of Commons, and unanimously by the Lords. But immediately the
ecclesiastical question was raised. Mr. Ward proposed another
reduction in the legal establishment of the Anglican Church in
Ireland. The Cabinet was divided upon the question; the most
conservative members of the ministry, "the leaven" of Mr.
Canning, Mr. Stanley, Sir John Graham, and the Duke of Richmond,
gave in their resignations. The Bishops of Ireland addressed an
appeal to the king: they were ready, they said, to co-operate for
the redress of all serious abuses, but they begged that the
government would not imprudently disturb the discipline and the
services of the Church.
{481}
The response of William was thoroughly Protestant and English; it
betrayed the widening of the breach that already existed between
the monarch and his Cabinet. The ministry had lost much ground in
public confidence; a difference which arose between Lords Grey
and Althorp, upon the subject of the renewal of the Irish
coercion bill, soon deprived the Cabinet of its chief. Lord Grey
tendered his resignation, and announced it himself in the House
of Lords with an emotion that twice overpowered him. Finally, for
the third time, he began: "My lords, I feel quite ashamed of the
sort of weakness I show on this occasion, a weakness which arises
from my deep sense of the personal kindness which, during my
having been in his service, I have received from my sovereign.
However, my lords, I have a duty to perform, which, painful as it
may be, I must discharge: I no longer address you as a minister
of the crown, but as an individual member of Parliament. In
retiring during the course of the administration of which I was
chief, I feel confident of having acted in the spirit of the
time, without having ever preceded or retarded its march."
The efforts of the ministry thus mutilated and lessened, to
govern powerfully were vain. The bill regarding the Irish Church,
proposed by Lord Melbourne, was rejected by the House of Lords.
The violence of the attacks of the press redoubled; disorder in
Ireland increased: the king declared frankly to Lord Melbourne
that he had no confidence in his cabinet, and that he intended to
recall the Duke of Wellington (November, 1834).
{482}
It was under the weight of its own efforts, and of the movement
that it had itself inaugurated, that the great Whig ministry, so
wisely and ably directed by Lord Grey, succumbed. It had opened
the way to wild hopes and infinite illusions, without the power
to satisfy the one, or moderate the other; it was swept away by a
rising wave which it vainly endeavored to resist. It is to its
honor and lasting glory, that it used prudently and courageously
the immense power, still new and confused, that parliamentary
reform had placed in its hand, without exceeding the limits which
it had itself imposed. Its measures were moderate and wise, its
resistance to the desires and insensate passions of the masses
were honest and firm. Lord Grey remained popular, even after the
fall of his ministry. The internal affairs of the nation had been
so important, and the interests involved so pressing, that the
foreign policy of the cabinet had received but little attention
in either house, and was almost lost sight of by the general
public. It had nevertheless touched upon weighty matters,
essential to the repose of Europe; the relations of England with
the French government after the revolution of 1830, the formation
of the kingdom of Belgium, and the Spanish question. These last
two European complications had put to the test the good feeling
which existed between the French and English governments: they
had definitively served to confirm and strengthen the alliance of
the two nations. The recognition of Louis Philippe by England had
been cordial and prompt; very different from the ill-humor and
repugnance manifested by Prussia and Russia. It had its origin in
a spontaneous and sincere national sentiment, the adhesion of the
country to the liberal and conservative policy which had
succeeded the revolutionary movement in France. The new union and
the good understanding which naturally resulted from this
attitude of England, contributed powerfully to the happy issue of
the Belgium question.
{483}
The smouldering dissatisfaction which had existed throughout
several centuries, between the Flemish Low Countries and Holland,
had finally burst forth; the union was abruptly broken.
Immediately following the separation, the new state demanded of
the King Louis Philippe, one of his sons for the throne of
Belgium. He refused. "The Low Countries have always been a
stumbling block to the peace of Europe," said he to Guizot. "None
of the great powers can see them in the hands of another, without
great inquietude and jealousy. Let them become by general consent
an independent and neutral state, and that state will become the
keystone of the arch of European order." These wise and prudent
views were approved by both the English and French cabinets. The
King Louis Philippe had sent Talleyrand to London, and Lord
Granville was the English ambassador at Paris. Both were well
qualified for the work they had undertaken; the efficacious union
of France and England for the maintenance of the peace of Europe.
The first result of their efforts was the accession of the Prince
Leopold of Saxe-Coburg to the throne of Belgium. But lately the
adored husband of the Princess Charlotte of England, and still
popular in his adopted country, the new sovereign bound himself
to France by espousing the Princess Louise, eldest daughter of
Louis Philippe.
The two powers testified their satisfaction and good-will by
delivering his country from the presence of the Holland forces.
After an agreement signed at London on the 22nd of October, 1832,
not without a certain distrust on the part of Lord Palmerston,
charged with the administration of foreign affairs in the cabinet
of Lord Grey, the Belgian fortresses still occupied by the
Holland troops were evacuated. A French army under Marshal
Gérard, accompanied by the young Duke of Orleans, laid siege to
Anvers. This place, already the scene of so many bloody
conflicts, and so many diplomatic negotiations, during centuries
past, was obliged to capitulate, on the 23rd of December, 1832.
{484}
The kingdom of Belgium was now definitively constituted, and
destined to prosper rapidly under its wise and prudent sovereign,
who constantly endeavored to maintain around him that equilibrium
so essential to the preservation of peace in Europe, and so
indispensable to the development as well as the security of his
little state.
Spain had been for a long time the object of profound anxiety to
the astute statesmen of Europe. King Ferdinand VII. had just died
(September, 1833), leaving the succession to the throne
contested, notwithstanding the definitive act, sanctioned by the
Cortes, which had assured the crown to his eldest daughter
Isabella. Hesitating for a long time between family affection and
those absolute tendencies which had exiled into France all the
intelligent liberals of Spain, the monarch who had just breathed
his last, had scattered the seeds of the Carlist insurrection,
which broke out immediately after his death. A numerous and
obstinate party sustained the right of the infant Don Carlos to
the throne, in the name of the Salic law established in Spain by
the pragmatic sanction of Philip V., and recognized for some time
by Ferdinand VII. himself. The English and French cabinets did
not hesitate; by common consent they recognized the titles of the
young Queen Isabella II., as conformable to the ancient Spanish
law accepted by the nation. Civil war broke out in Spain. It had
already begun in Portugal, where the usurper Don Miguel,
contended in the name of the same principles for the exclusion of
the young Queen Donna Maria. Already the new governments of the
two kingdoms were compelled to ask assistance of the great
constitutional and liberal powers.
{485}
On the 15th of April, 1834, the triple alliance was concluded at
London between England, Spain and Portugal. A month later, and
upon the objection of the French government to the presumptions,
exclusively English, of Lord Palmerston, France in her turn
joined the alliance already known and powerful in Europe,
although no armed intervention had seconded the popular movement.
Civil war did not cease in Spain; it lasted for a long time,
breaking out anew at irregular intervals, yet always ardent and
obstinate. Meanwhile Don Carlos had embarked for England, and Don
Miguel had finally quitted Portugal, and retired into Italy.
Everywhere French and English diplomacy had been moderately but
firmly exerted in the service of the public welfare, and had
everywhere brought forth good fruit.
Wearied by the yoke that the Whigs had imposed upon him, and by
the violence he had done to his own views and inclinations, the
king called upon the Duke of Wellington. For the first time that
noble hero refused to serve his sovereign. "No sir," said he, "in
the new order of things the difficulties lie in the House of
Commons; and as that House now has the preponderance, its chief
ought to direct the government. Address yourself to Sir Robert
Peel; I will serve under him in any position that it shall please
your majesty to place me." Sir Robert Peel was in Italy--so also
was Fox, when called upon to succeed Pitt. While awaiting his
return, the Duke of Wellington, in concert with Lord Lyndhurst,
appointed chancellor, conducted alone the affairs of the
government, and taking charge of three ministerial departments,
without other solicitude than the prompt expedition of the work,
he cared but little for the objections which were raised against
this irregular administration. Sir Robert Peel accepted the
burden which was imposed upon him and upon his friends, without
either co-operation or support from without. Lord Stanley and Sir
James Graham refused to enter the cabinet. The Tories found
themselves alone in the face of a House of Commons profoundly
hostile. Parliament was immediately dissolved.
{486}
Sir Robert Peel, in expounding his principles in a long address
to his constituents at Tamworth, said: "I will repeat the
declaration which I made when I entered the House of Commons as a
member of the Reformed Parliament;--I consider the reform bill
as a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional
question--a settlement which no friend to the peace and welfare
of his country would attempt to disturb, either by direct or
indirect means. If by the adoption of the spirit of the reform
bill, it becomes necessary to live in a perpetual vortex of
agitation, that public men can only sustain themselves in public
opinion by yielding to popular demands of each day, by promising
to redress immediately all abuses that may be pointed out, by
abandoning that great support of the government, more efficacious
than law or reason itself--the respect for ancient rights and
authorities consecrated by time; if that is the spirit of the
reform bill, I will not support it. If the spirit of the bill
implies merely a careful review of institutions, civil and
ecclesiastical, undertaken in a friendly temper; combining, with
the firm maintenance of established rights, the correction of
proved abuses and the redress of real grievances;--in that case I
can for myself and my colleagues undertake to act with such a
spirit and with such intentions."
And some weeks later, after his first check in the new
Parliament, upon the election of speaker, he continued: "I make
you great offers, which ought not to be inconsiderately rejected.
I offer you the prospect of a durable peace, the return of the
confidence of powerful states who are disposed to seize this
occasion to reduce their armies and remove the danger of hostile
collisions.
{487}
I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in civil
jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical laws, the settlement of
the tithe question in Ireland, the commutation of tithes in
England, the removal of any real abuse in the Church, and the
redress of those grievances of which the dissenters have any just
ground to complain. I offer also the best chance that these
things can be effected, in willing concert with the other
authorities of the state--thus restoring harmony, insuring the
maintenance, but not excluding the reform, where reform is really
requisite, of ancient institutions. You may reject my offers, you
may refuse to hear them, but if you do so, the time is
approaching when you will perceive that the popular sentiment
upon which you have relied has abandoned you."
Party passion was at this time too violent and party animosity
too intense, for the newly elected house to lend an ear to this
wise and patriotic language. O'Connell had sold the support of
the Irish Catholics to the Whigs, and his price was the "Repeal
of the Union." "I belong to the Repeal," said he to the electors,
"dead or alive, saved or lost, I belong to the Repeal; and I make
a solemn engagement with those who are the most opposed to me, to
serve them in all things, in a way to render the transition not
only without danger, but perfectly easy."
The deputies of the counties were for the most part
Conservatives, but the towns and boroughs gave a majority for the
Whigs. Sir Robert Peel accepted many checks without recoiling
before the danger, presenting day after day to Parliament the
measures which he believed to be useful to the public service;
determined to defy the opposition as long as it did not touch
upon points that he regarded as vital questions. Lord John
Russell was not tardy in responding to this defiance.
{488}
On the 30th of March, 1835, he renewed the attack but lately
directed against the Irish Church: "Missionary Church," he said,
"instituted with a view of leading the Irish population to the
Protestant faith, adapted to future wants that had been foreseen
but had never yet manifested themselves." He proposed then to
revise the ecclesiastical establishment by applying to public
instruction the sums and endowments which were now found
necessary for the religious maintenance of the curates and their
flocks. With Sir Robert Peel it was now a question of conscience
as well as of absolute conviction. Seconded by Lord Stanley, he
maintained that the ecclesiastical property proceeded from
endowments made to the Church, and properly belonged to it, and
that no one had the right to divert the same from its primitive
and religious destination. The motion of Lord John Russell was
carried, however, by a vote of three hundred and twenty-two
against two hundred and eighty-nine. The majority was in the
hands of the Irish Catholics.
Sir Robert Peel and his friends resolved to retire. They had
risen in the contest which they had so courageously sustained for
four months; their adversaries, as well as the entire country,
felt this, and they hastened to seize again the reins of power.
"No indifference for public life, no distaste for the fatigues
and weariness that it imposes, no consideration of personal
comfort, no grief of private life, would authorize a public man,
in my estimation, to desert without imperative reason the post to
which his sovereign has called him," said Sir Robert Peel, in the
House of Commons, on the 8th of April, 1835. "But at the same
time, it is a great misfortune to present to the country the
spectacle of a government which does not find in the House of
Commons the support necessary to safely conduct the affairs of
the country, nor exercise upon the acts of that House an
influence which confidence alone can give; to such a spectacle of
feebleness there are limits, which one ought not to pass."
{489}
During six years of alternate languor and energy, the cabinet of
Lord Melbourne governed England; master of the House of Commons,
and for a long time powerful in the country, losing however
little by little its popularity as well as its resources, and
slowly conquered by that adversary which had but recently
predicted its fall. "You will have no other alternative than to
invoke our aid and replace the government in the hands from which
you wish to wrest it to-day," said Sir Robert Peel, in the month
of December, 1834, "or have recourse to that pressure from
without, to those methods of compulsion and of violence which
will render your reforms vain, and will seal the death warrant of
the British Constitution."
Lord Grey had never renounced power; "susceptible and proud, with
a mind more elevated than discerning, he was unskilful in
defending himself from small intrigues that he was incapable of
plotting." Worn out by a long life devoted to politics, he was
sad in his noble retirement, notwithstanding the affection of his
wife and numerous children, and the profound respect always shown
him by those who had served under his banners. Lord Althorpe, now
become Earl Spencer, as well as Lord Brougham, took no part in
the new cabinet. Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston, sagacious in different degrees, undertook to continue
the work of reform, but lately victoriously begun, and more
difficult to accomplish, with prudent moderation, than its ardent
defenders had at first foreseen. Many changes, but recently
loudly demanded, were silently abandoned; they compromised upon
the Irish Church question, agreeing to the conditions proposed by
Sir Robert Peel; only the reform of the municipal corporations
was accomplished slowly and with difficulty in Ireland, useful
nevertheless and everywhere accepted.
{490}
The struggle was severe, and bold hands were raised against the
foundations of the English Constitution, and against the
hereditary rights of the House of Lords. But at the same time
that the audacity of the Reformers increased and developed a
spirit of resistance, a reaction, sober and moderate, firmly
resolved to defend those ancient institutions which have been the
grandeur as well as the security of England. It was in support of
these principles that Sir Robert Peel, on the 11th of January,
1836, addressed his friends and adherents assembled at Glasgow to
elect a rector for the university. A great number of the persons
present had but recently been warm supporters of the reform
movement. "If you adhere to the principles which you professed in
1830, it is here you ought to come," said Sir Robert Peel. "You
consented to a reform, invited by a speech from the throne,
expressly on the condition that it should be according to the
acknowledged principles of the Constitution. I see the necessity
of widening the foundations on which the defence of our
Constitution and religious establishment must rest, but I do not
wish to conciliate your confidence by hoisting false colors. My
object is to support our national establishments which connect
Protestantism with the State, in the three realms. I avow to you
that I mean to support in its full integrity the House of Lords,
as an essential, indispensable condition for maintaining the
Constitution under which we live. If you assent to this opinion,
the hour is arrived when we must all be prepared to act on the
declaration of it. The disturbing force of foreign example has
diminished; the dazzling illusions of the glorious days have
passed away, and the affections of the people are visibly
gravitating again to their old centre, full of a respect for
property, a love for national freedom, and an attachment to long
established institutions."
{491}
"From these walls I trust a spirit will go forth to animate the
desponding and encourage the timid. I look to the moral influence
of that opinion, which constitutes the chief defence of nations.
I look to it for the maintenance of that system of government
which protects the rich from spoliation, and the poor from
oppression. I look to that spirit which will range itself under
no tawdry banner of revolution, but will unfurl and rally round
the flag which has braved for a thousand years the battle and the
breeze. I do not doubt that it will continue to float
triumphantly, and that our Constitution, tried as it has been in
the storms of adversity, will come forth purified and fortified
in the rooted convictions, feelings and affections of a
religious, moral and patriotic people."
It was against his personal inclinations, but in conformity to
constitutional principles sincerely accepted and practised, that
King William IV. had successively sanctioned the important
reforms which were accomplished under his reign. His royal task
was soon to terminate; from day to day his health became more
feeble, and on the 20th of June, 1837, he expired at Windsor. The
supreme power fell into the hands of his young niece, the
Princess Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Kent, who, on the same
day, was proclaimed Queen, at Kensington. The new sovereign of
the three kingdoms, England, Scotland, and Ireland, whose laws
extend over so many distant colonies and diverse peoples, was
only eighteen years of age.
We have momentarily closed the History of France with the death
of the ancient Régime, at the confused and menacing beginning of
a terrible revolution, continued through many years, the memory
of which still profoundly agitates that country; we will close
the History of England at the death of King William IV., at the
beginning of a new reign, tenderly greeted by the nation,
destined to a long prosperity, rarely interrupted by wars--always
gloriously terminated.
{492}
Reforms have continued: bold and moderate, wise and prudent,
without ever altering the fundamental character of the
Constitution, yet profound enough to maintain England in the
first rank among liberal and free countries. The first to march
to battle for the great political rights of humanity; she has
gained them not without errors, not without crimes; she has
preserved and protected them after having definitively closed the
fatal era of revolutions. A noble spectacle and fortifying
example, which fills us with admiration and with a generous envy,
without however discouraging us, nor disturbing us in our fond
hope for our well beloved country; she has long sought repose in
order, and security in liberty; she has often caught sight of
these, and she will assuredly find them one day.
While awaiting that supreme hour, the constant aim of our
efforts, it is our duty and our honor to seek everywhere in the
experience of history, as in the lessons of the present, the
power of sustaining without wavering the flag of noble hopes,
that flag which has been bequeathed to us by dying hands, with
the watchword of the old Roman Emperor: "Laboremus--Laboremus."