PRELUDE OF REFORM.
The year that elapsed between the prorogation of parliament on June 24,
1829, and the death of George IV., on June 26, 1830, was barren in
events of domestic importance. While Ireland was torn by faction, and
the Orangemen of Ulster rivalled in lawlessness the catholics of the
other provinces, England was undergoing another period of agricultural
and commercial depression. The harvest of 1829 was late and bad; the
winter that followed was the severest known for sixteen years; and a
fresh series of outrages was committed by the distressed operatives,
especially by the silk weavers in the east of London and the mill hands
in the midland counties. In the district of Huddersfield, where the
people bore their sufferings with admirable patience, a committee of
masters stated as a fact that "there were 13,000 individuals who had not
more than twopence half-penny a day to live on". When parliament met on
February 4, 1830, the prevailing distress was recognised in the king's
speech, but in guarded terms, and the ministers attributed it in the
main, probably with justice, to unavoidable causes. This gave the
enemies of free trade and currency reform an opportunity of renewing
their protests against Peel's and Huskisson's financial policy. They
failed to effect their object, but Goulburn, the chancellor of the
exchequer, initiated a considerable reduction of expenditure and
remission of taxes. The excise duties on beer, cider, and leather were
now totally remitted, those on spirits being somewhat increased. The
government even deliberated on the proposal of a property tax, and,
stimulated by a motion of Sir James Graham, actually carried out large
savings in official salaries. On the whole, this session was the most
fruitful in economy since the conclusion of the peace. The system of
judicature, too, was subjected to a salutary revision throughout Great
Britain by the amalgamation of the English and Welsh benches, and the
concentration of courts in Scotland. As the charter of the East Indian
Company was about to expire, a strong committee was appointed to
consider the whole subject of its territorial powers and commercial
privileges. This committee was not the least beneficial result of a
session which has left no great mark on the statute-book.
[Pageheading: _MOVEMENT FOR REFORM._]
The weakness of Wellington's position had long since become apparent to
all. By his conduct in regard to catholic emancipation he had estranged
a powerful section of his tory followers. By his jealousy and haughty
attitude towards his whig allies, he had forfeited their good-will,
never very heartily given. By his treatment of Huskisson, a small but
able body of politicians was thrown into the ranks of a discordant
opposition. No one else could have induced the king to give way on
catholic emancipation, but the king had not forgiven him, and submitted
to him out of fear rather than out of confidence. Though singularly
deficient in rhetorical power, he still maintained his ascendency in the
house of lords by the aid of more eloquent colleagues, but Peel was his
only efficient lieutenant in the house of commons. The vacancy in the
office of lord privy seal, occasioned by the transference of
Ellenborough to the board of control, had at last been filled in June,
1829, by the appointment of Lord Rosslyn, nephew of the first earl, who,
however, added nothing to the strength of the ministry. In the meantime,
reform had succeeded catholic emancipation as the one burning question
of politics, but with this all-important difference that it roused
enthusiasm in the popular mind. Political unions, like the branches of
the catholic association, were springing up all over the country, and a
series of motions was made in the house of commons which feebly
reflected the feverish agitation in all the active centres of
population. One of these, brought forward by the Marquis of Blandford,
who had made a similar motion in the previous year, was really prompted
by enmity against the author of catholic emancipation. Another,
introduced by Lord Howick, son of Earl Grey, called for some general and
comprehensive measure to remedy the admitted abuses of the electoral
system. A third, and far more practical, attempt was made by Lord John
Russell to obtain the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and
Birmingham. A fourth, and perfectly futile proposal, was made by
O'Connell, in the shape of a bill for triennial parliaments, universal
suffrage, and vote by ballot, to which Russell moved a statesmanlike
amendment, in favour of transferring members from petty boroughs to
counties and great unrepresented towns. All these motions were defeated
by larger or smaller majorities, but no one doubted that parliamentary
reform was inevitable, and few can have imagined that Wellington was
either willing or competent to grapple with it.
While domestic affairs were in this state, George IV. died. His
constitution, weakened by many years of self-indulgence, had been
further depressed by a growing sense of loneliness and by the long
struggle with his ministers over catholic emancipation. On April 15 his
illness had been made public, and on May 24 it had been necessary to
bring in a bill, authorising the use of a stamp, to be affixed in his
presence in lieu of the royal sign manual. A month later, the disease of
the heart from which he suffered took a fatal turn, and on June 26 he
passed away, not without dignity, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.
Perhaps no other English king has been so harshly judged by posterity,
nor is it possible to acquit him of moral vices which outweighed all his
merits, considerable as they were. The Duke of Wellington, who knew him
as well as any man, declared that he was a marvellous compound of
virtues and defects, but that, on the whole, the good elements
preponderated. Peel, who had become by his father's death Sir Robert,
testified in Parliament that he "never exercised, or wished to exercise,
a prerogative of the crown, except for the advantage of his people".
These estimates assuredly err on the side of charity, and are quite
inconsistent with other statements of the duke himself.
George IV., it is true, possessed many royal gifts. He was a man of no
ordinary ability, with a fine presence, courtly manners, various
accomplishments, and clear-sighted intelligence on every subject within
the sphere of his duties. But all these kingly qualities were marred by
a heartlessness which rendered him incapable of true love or friendship,
and a duplicity which made it impossible for him to retain the respect
of his ministers. His private life was not wholly unlike that of the
Regent Orléans and had much the same influence on the society of the
metropolis. He was an undutiful son, a bad husband, a perfidious friend,
with little sense of truth or honour, and destitute of that public
spirit which atoned for the political obstinacy of his father. No one
sincerely regretted his death, except the favourites who had been
enriched by his extravagance, and actually succeeded in carrying off a
large booty out of the valuables that he had amassed. Nevertheless, his
regency is identified with a glorious period in our military history,
and his reign ushered in a new age of reform and national prosperity. In
the great struggle against Napoleon and the pacification of Europe he
gave his ministers a cordial and effective support. To catholic
emancipation he was honestly opposed, but he kept his opposition within
constitutional limits, and his intense selfishness did not exclude a
certain sentiment of philanthropy and even of patriotism.
[Pageheading: _THE ACCESSION OF WILLIAM IV._]
His successor, William IV., was greatly inferior to him intellectually,
and infinitely less conversant with the business of state. Most of this
prince's early life was spent at sea, where he saw a fair share of
service, and became the friend of Nelson, but incurred his father's
displeasure by infringing the rules of discipline. Having been created
Duke of Clarence in 1789, he was rapidly promoted in the navy, but
remained on shore without employment for some forty years before his
accession, taking an occasional part in debates of the house of lords,
and generally acting with the whig party. During this long period he was
little regarded by his future subjects, and led a somewhat obscure life,
at first in the company of Mrs. Jordan, by whom he had a numerous
family. After his marriage with the Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
in 1818, he became a more important personage, and, as we have seen, was
made lord high admiral by Canning, but held office for little more than
a year. He was thus entirely destitute of political training, and was
living in privacy when he was called to ascend the throne on the eve of
a singularly momentous crisis.
The session was prolonged until July 23, when parliament was prorogued
by the new king in person, and on the following day a dissolution was
proclaimed, the writs being made returnable on September 14. During the
month that elapsed between the death of George IV. and the prorogation,
no serious business was done, but the leaders of opposition in both
houses moved to provide for a regency, in view of a possible demise of
the crown before a fresh parliament could be assembled. This course was
clearly dictated by the highest expediency, for, had the king's life
been cut short suddenly, the young Princess Victoria, then eleven years
old, would have become sovereign with full powers, but without
protection against the baleful influence of her uncle, the Duke of
Cumberland, the least trustworthy person in the realm. In advocating it,
however, the whigs showed an evident disposition to win the favour of
William IV., who had never broken away, like his predecessor, from his
whig connexion. These motions were defeated, but the opposition gained
popularity at the expense of the government, by raising debates on
certain state prosecutions for libel, and on the question of colonial
slavery. Their position was further strengthened by a widespread
impression that the king himself was a reformer at heart, and would
seize an early opportunity of declaring his sentiments. His weakness had
not yet disclosed itself, while his kindliness earned him golden
opinions, as he "walked in London streets with his umbrella under his
arm, and gave a frank and sailor-like greeting to all old
acquaintances".
The election of 1830, following close on the revolution of July in
Paris, was the death-blow of the old tory rule in England. The
widespread sympathy which the original uprising of 1789 had excited
among Englishmen, but which the atrocities of jacobinism had quenched,
was now revived by the comparatively bloodless victory of constitutional
principles and the accession of a citizen-king in France. The growing
enthusiasm for reform, thus stimulated, exercised a decisive effect in
all the constituencies except the pocket-boroughs. Brougham was returned
without opposition for Yorkshire, and Hume by a large majority for
Middlesex, two brothers of Sir Robert Peel lost their seats, and Croker
was defeated for Dublin University. Distrust of the government was
equally shown in the counties and in the great cities, but in some
instances ultra-tories were elected, in revenge for catholic
emancipation or for alleged neglect of agricultural interests. It was
calculated that fifty seats, in all, had changed hands, and the
parliament which assembled in October 26 was very different in
constitution and temper from any of those which supported tory
ministries with unshaken constancy during the great war and the long
period of agitation consequent on the peace.
The losses of the government in Great Britain, partly due to its Irish
policy, were not compensated by any gain in Ireland, which did not fail
to display the ingratitude so often experienced by its benefactors.
Catholic emancipation was now treated as a vantage ground on which the
battle of repeal might be waged. Association after association was
formed by O'Connell, only to be put down by proclamation and to
re-appear under another name. The worst passions of the people were
effectually roused, assassinations became frequent, and Peel's
correspondence with Hardinge, then chief secretary, shows that he fully
recognised the failure of his experiment, as a cure for Irish
anarchy.[101] In the course of this new agitation, O'Connell used most
offensive expressions for which Hardinge called him to account. The
chief secretary's act may have been unjustifiable, but the shuffling and
faint-hearted conduct of O'Connell in declining this and later
challenges provoked by his foul language was fatal to his reputation for
courage. The most insolent of bullies, he never failed to consult his
own personal safety, by professing conscientious objections to duelling,
as well as by keeping just outside the meshes of the criminal law.
[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF HUSKISSON._]
A few weeks before parliament met a tragical accident closed the life of
Huskisson, whose death was rendered all the more impressive by its
circumstances. In 1825 the idea of railways for the rapid conveyance of
goods and passengers bore fruit in an act for the construction of a line
between Liverpool and Manchester. It was not in itself a new idea, for
tramways had long been in use, and so far back as 1814 George Stephenson
had constructed a locomotive engine for a colliery. But it was generally
believed that such engines must always be limited to a speed of a few
miles an hour, and even the great engineer, Telford, giving evidence
before a committee in 1825, did not venture to speak of a higher maximum
speed than fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Few indeed were far-sighted
enough to credit this estimate, and the incredulity of ignorance was
aided by the forces of self-interest, for the profits of canals,
stage-coaches, and carriers' vans were directly threatened by the
innovation of railways. However, George Stephenson quietly persevered,
and from the moment that his pioneer engine, the "Rocket," won the prize
in a great competition of locomotives, "the old modes of transit were
changed throughout the whole civilised world". On September 15, 1830,
the first public trial of this and other engines was made at the opening
of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. Wellington, Peel, and other
eminent personages were present, among whom was Huskisson, just returned
for Liverpool. Two trains proceeded towards Manchester on parallel
lines, and stopped at the Parkgate station. There several passengers got
out, and Huskisson was making his way to shake hands with the duke when
he was struck by a carriage of the other train, already in movement,
fell upon the rails, and was fatally crushed. He bore his sufferings
with great fortitude, but died during the night at a neighbouring
vicarage to which he was carried. He could ill be spared by his party,
for, though he was not the man to ride the storm which raged over the
reform bill, his counsels might have saved the whigs from the just
reproach of financial incapacity and have hastened the advent of free
trade.
[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON ON REFORM._]
The winter session of 1830 opened with an ominous calm. It was believed
that private negotiations were going on between the ministry and the
survivors of Canning's following, which might result in a moderate
scheme of parliamentary reform. These expectations were utterly
discomfited by the king's speech delivered on November 2. It has
unjustly been described as "the most offensive that had been uttered by
any monarch since the revolution". On the contrary, it was tame and
colourless for the most part, recording his majesty's resolution to
uphold treaties and enforce order in the United Kingdom, but welcoming
the new French monarchy in terms which Grey emphatically commended. It
gave offence to liberals by describing the revolutionary movement in
Belgium as a "revolt"; but what called forth an immediate outburst of
popular resentment was its significant reticence on the subject of
reform. This resentment was aggravated tenfold by the Duke of
Wellington's celebrated speech in the lords, declaring against any
reform whatever. The duke always refused to admit that this declaration
was the cause of his subsequent fall, which he attributed, by
preference, to his adoption of catholic emancipation. Speaking
deliberately in reply to Grey, who had indicated reform as the only true
remedy for popular discontent, the duke stated that no measure of reform
yet proposed would, in his opinion, improve the representative system
then existing, which, he said, "answered all the good purposes of
legislation" to a greater degree than "any legislature in any country
whatever". He went further, and avowed his conviction not only that this
system "possessed the full and entire confidence of the country," but
also that no better system could be devised by the wit of man. Its
special virtue, according to him, consisted in the fact of its producing
a representative assembly which "contained a large body of the property
of the country, and in which the landed interests had a preponderating
influence". Finally, he protested that he would never bring forward a
reform measure himself, and that "he should always feel it his duty to
resist such measures when proposed by others".
There is no reason to suppose that the duke had consulted any of his
colleagues before making this declaration. Indeed, it is known that Peel
had just before received a confidential offer of co-operation in
carrying a moderate reform bill from Palmerston, Edward Stanley,
grandson of the Earl of Derby, Sir James Graham, and the Grants; nor had
these overtures been definitely rejected.[102] Some lame attempts were
made to clear the cabinet, as a whole, from responsibility for their
chief's outspoken opinions, and Peel cautiously limited himself to a
doubt whether any safe measure of reform would satisfy the reformers.
But he would not separate himself from Wellington, and Wellington's
ultimatum remained unretracted.
Brougham at once gave notice of his intention to bring forward the
question of parliamentary reform in a fortnight. In the meantime the
duke had committed a mistake which irritated the people, and especially
the inhabitants of London. It happened that the king and queen, with the
ministers, were engaged to dine with the lord mayor on November 9. Three
days earlier, the lord mayor-elect warned the prime minister that a riot
was apprehended on that occasion, that an attempt would probably be
made to assassinate him, and that it would be desirable to come attended
by a strong military guard. Upon this intimation, confirmed by others,
the cabinet most unwisely decided not to surround the mansion house with
a large armed force, but to put off the king's visit to the city. A
panic naturally ensued, consols fell three per cent. in an hour and a
half, and the disorderly classes achieved a victory without running the
smallest risk. There were local disturbances in the evening, and the
duke arranged to join Peel at the home office, in case decisive measures
should be required, but the new police were too strong for the mob, and
the whole affair passed off quietly, though not without involving the
government in some ridicule. The Marquis Wellesley, now in opposition to
his brother, declared the postponement of the dinner to be "the boldest
act of cowardice" within his knowledge.
If Wellington sought to conciliate the ultra-tories by his unfortunate
speech, he was soon undeceived. While Brougham's motion was pending, the
government proposed a revision of the civil list which purported to
effect slight economies for the benefit of the public. It was objected,
however, that a greater reduction of charges should have been
contemplated, and that parliament should have been invited to deal with
the revenues derived from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which,
as Peel explained, formed no part of those placed at the disposal of
parliament. Sir Henry Parnell moved to refer the civil list to a select
committee; the chancellor of the exchequer directly opposed the motion,
and, after a short discussion, a division was taken on November 15. The
result, which had been foreseen, was a majority of twenty-nine against
the government in a house of 437 members. There were many defections
among the discontented tories, and the Wellington ministry preferred to
fall on an issue of minor importance, rather than await a decisive
contest on the reform question. On the following day, therefore, both
the duke and Peel announced the acceptance of their resignations, and it
was known that Grey had received the king's command to form a new
administration.
[Pageheading: _GREY ACCEPTS OFFICE._]
Grey was the inevitable head of any cabinet empowered to carry
parliamentary reform. His dignified presence, his stately eloquence, his
unblemished character, and his parliamentary experience, marked him out
for leadership, and disguised his want of practical acquaintance with
the middle and lower classes of his countrymen. His political career,
ranging over forty-four years, though not destitute of errors, had been
perfectly consistent. From the first he was a staunch adherent of Fox;
he was among the managers who conducted the prosecution of Warren
Hastings; his connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People,
and his advocacy of reform during Pitt's first administration are
described in the preceding volume of this history. On Pitt's death he
became closely associated with Grenville; it will be remembered that he
joined his short-lived government, originally as first lord of the
admiralty, and afterwards as Fox's successor at the foreign office. It
was he who carried through the house of commons the bill for the
abolition of the slave trade, and it may truly be said that, in
opposition, he was equally persistent in supporting every measure in
favour of liberty, political or commercial, and in resisting every
measure, necessary or otherwise, which could be interpreted as
restricting it. We have seen how he more than once declined overtures
for a coalition with his opponents, and showed a bitter personal
antipathy to Canning, whom he was more than suspected of despising as a
brilliant plebeian adventurer. This suspicion of aristocratic prejudice,
ill harmonising with democratic principles, had never been quite
dispelled, and was now to be confirmed by the composition of his own
cabinet.
All the members of this cabinet, with four exceptions, sat in the house
of lords. No cabinet had contained so few commoners since the
reconstruction of Liverpool's ministry in 1822. Of the four who now sat
in the house of commons, Lord Althorp was heir-apparent to an earldom;
Lord Palmerston was an Irish peer; Graham was a baronet of great
territorial influence; Charles Grant was still a commoner, though he was
afterwards raised to the peerage. In the distribution of offices, full
justice was done to Canning's followers. Three of these occupied posts
of the highest importance, Palmerston at the foreign office, Lamb, who
had succeeded his father as Viscount Melbourne in 1828, at the home
office, and Goderich at the colonial office, while Grant became
president of the board of control. The selection of Graham as first lord
of the admiralty did not escape criticism, but was due to his tried
energy in financial reform, and was justified by the result. Lansdowne
was made president of the council, and Holland chancellor of the duchy
of Lancaster. Both of these had been Grey's colleagues in the
administration of "All the Talents". Althorp, who succeeded Goulburn at
the exchequer, and Carlisle, who accepted a seat in the cabinet without
office, were both whigs of tried fidelity. But the Duke of Richmond, the
new postmaster-general, was a deserter from the tory ranks, and Lord
Durham, the premier's son-in-law, the new lord privy seal, was a radical
of the most aggressive type, well qualified, as the event proved, to
disturb the peace of any council to which he might be admitted. Three
occupants of places outside the cabinet remain to be mentioned. One of
these, the Marquis Wellesley, had been a warm supporter of catholic
emancipation when the Duke of Wellington stoutly opposed it, and his
brother's conversion on that question had not affected his own relations
with the whig party, which now welcomed him as lord steward. Lord John
Russell, the new paymaster of the forces, had identified himself as
prominently as Grey himself with the promotion of parliamentary reform,
and Stanley, the new chief secretary for Ireland, was probably selected
for his brilliant powers in debate, as the natural and most worthy
antagonist of the great demagogue, O'Connell.
[Pageheading: _BROUGHAM BECOMES CHANCELLOR._]
But the most formidable of all the "radical reformers" still remained to
be conciliated, and provided with a post which might satisfy his
restless ambition. At the end of 1830 Brougham was in the plenitude of
his marvellous powers, and in the zenith of his unique popularity. As
member for the great county of York, returned free of expense on the
shoulders of the people, he already occupied the foremost position among
British commoners, and it was feared that he might use it for his own
purposes in a dictatorial spirit. He had recently declared in Yorkshire
that "nothing on earth should ever tempt him to accept place," and that
he was conscious of the power to compel the execution of measures which,
before that democratic election, he could only "ventilate". So late as
November 16, he assured the house of commons that "no change in the
administration could by any possibility affect him," adding that he
would bring forward his motion for parliamentary reform on the 25th,
whatever might then be the state of affairs, and whatever ministers
should then be in office. The great whig peers were most anxious to
keep him out of the cabinet without losing his support, or, still worse,
provoking his active hostility. With this view, Grey indiscreetly
offered him the attorney-generalship, and we cannot be surprised that
Brougham rejected the offer with some indignation and disdain. It was no
secret that his supreme desire was to become master of the rolls--an
office compatible with a seat in the house of commons--but his future
colleagues well knew that, in that case, they would be at his mercy in
the house. Thereupon it was suggested, probably by the king himself,
that it might be the less of two dangers to entrust him with the great
seal, which Lord Lyndhurst was quite prepared to resume under a fourth
premier. Accordingly, it was known on November 20 that Brougham was to
be the whig lord chancellor, and on the 22nd he actually took his place
on the woolsack. His title was Baron Brougham and Vaux, but, though he
lived to retain it for nearly forty years, he always preferred, with
pardonable vanity, to sign his name as "Henry Brougham".
Before the close of 1830 the new ministers found time to carry a regency
bill, whereby the Duchess of Kent (unless she married a foreigner) was
to be regent in the event of the Princess Victoria succeeding to the
crown during her minority. Having adopted the watchword of "Peace,
Retrenchment, and Reform," they gave an earnest of their zeal for
retrenchment by instituting a parliamentary inquiry into the possible
reduction of official salaries, including their own. The defeat of
Stanley by "Orator" Hunt at Preston was a warning against undue reliance
on popular confidence, for Preston was already a highly democratic
constituency, largely composed of ignorant "potwallopers". A similar but
more emphatic warning came from Ireland, where O'Connell did his utmost
to insult and defy Anglesey, the new lord-lieutenant, in spite of his
sacrifices for catholic emancipation, and his well-known sympathy with
the cause of reform. In the southern counties of England, too, violent
disturbances had broken out, and were marked by all the ferocity and
terrorism characteristic of luddism in the manufacturing districts. They
spread from Kent, Sussex, and Surrey into Hampshire, Wiltshire,
Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire. In these four counties there was a
wanton and wholesale destruction of agricultural machinery, of
farm-buildings, and especially of ricks, as if the misery of labourers
could possibly be cured by impoverishing their only employers. The
rioters moved about in large organised bodies, and their anarchical
passions were deliberately inflamed by the writings of unscrupulous men
like Cobbett and Carlile.
Happily, the ministers showed no sign of the weakness upon which the
ringleaders had probably calculated. They promptly issued a proclamation
declaring their resolution to put down lawless outrage, and promised
effective support to the lords-lieutenant of the disturbed counties.
Acting upon this assurance, Wellington himself went down to Hampshire,
and took a leading part in quelling disorder. The government next
appointed a special commission, which tried many hundreds of prisoners
and sentenced the worst to death, though few were executed. This vigour
soon overawed the organised gangs which, in one or two instances, had
only been dispersed by military force. Finally, they prosecuted Carlile
and Cobbett for instigating the poor labourers to crime. The former was
convicted at the Old Bailey, and condemned to a long term of
imprisonment, with a heavy fine. The trial of Cobbett was postponed
until the following July, when the frenzy of reform was at its height.
He defended himself with great audacity in a speech of six hours,
calling the lord chancellor with other leading reformers as witnesses,
and succeeded in escaping conviction by the disagreement and discharge
of the jury.
[Pageheading: _ALTHORP'S FIRST BUDGET._]
Two other questions engaged the attention of parliament on the eve of
the great struggle over the reform bill. One of these was the settlement
of the civil list, which the Duke of Wellington's ministry had failed to
effect. William IV. was not an avaricious sovereign, nor did he share
the spendthrift inclination of his brother. But he was disposed to
stickle for the hereditary rights of the crown, both public and private,
and he greatly disliked the details of his expenditure being scrutinised
by a parliamentary committee. Now, Grey and his colleagues stood pledged
to such a committee, and could not avoid promoting its appointment. They
propitiated the king, however, by excluding the revenues of the Duchy of
Lancaster from the inquiry, and ultimately succeeded in persuading the
house of commons to grant a civil list of £510,000 a year. But the
publication of a return containing a complete list of sinecure offices
and pensions was turned to good account by the economists, and produced
an outburst of public indignation, which was by no means unreasonable.
Great results were expected from the report of the select committee on
the civil list, which revised the salaries of officials in the royal
household, as well as the emoluments of pensioners. It was even demanded
that no regard should be paid to vested interests, but Grey firmly
supported the private remonstrances of the king against such an act of
confiscation. In fact, the savings recommended by the committee were so
trifling that it was thought better to waive the question for the time,
and the first economical essay of the new _régime_ ended in failure.
The budget introduced by Althorp soon after the meeting of parliament on
February 3, 1831, and in anticipation of the reform bill, was equally
unsuccessful as a specimen of whig finance. Finding that, after all, he
could not effect a saving of more than one million on the national
expenditure, as reduced by his capable predecessor, Goulburn, he
nevertheless proposed to repeal the duties on coals, tallow candles,
printed cottons, and glass, as well as to diminish by one half the
duties on newspapers and tobacco. To meet the deficit thus created, he
designed an increase of the wine and timber duties, new taxation of raw
cotton, and, above all, a tax of ten shillings per cent. on all
transfers of real or funded property. This last proposal was at once
denounced by Goulburn, Peel, and Sugden, the late solicitor-general, as
a breach of public faith between the state and its creditors. Their
protests were loudly echoed by the city, and the obnoxious transfer duty
was abandoned. The same fate befell the proposed increase of the timber
duties, and Althorp only carried his budget after submitting to further
modifications. Those who had relied on his promises of economical reform
were signally disappointed, and, had not parliamentary reform
overshadowed all other issues, the credit of the government would have
been rudely shaken in the first session after its formation. But this
great struggle, now to be described, so engrossed the attention of the
country, that little room was left for the consideration of other
interests, until it should be decided.
It is probable that no great measure was ever preceded by so thorough a
preparation of the public mind as the reform bills of 1831-32. Ever
since the early part of the eighteenth century the abuses of the
representative system had been freely acknowledged, and no one attempted
to defend them in principle. The multitude of close boroughs, the
smallness of the electoral body, the sale of seats in parliament, the
wide prevalence of gross bribery, and the enormous expense of
elections--these were notorious evils which no one denied, though some
palliated them, and few ventured to assail them in earnest by drastic
proposals, lest they should undermine the constitution. So far back as
1770 Chatham had denounced them, and predicted that unless parliament
reformed itself from within before the end of the century, it would be
reformed "with a vengeance" from without. In 1780 the Duke of Richmond
had introduced a bill in favour of universal suffrage, and Pitt had
brought forward bills or motions in favour of parliamentary reform as a
private member in 1782 and 1783, and as prime minister in 1785. But the
French revolution persuaded him that the time was not favourable to
reform, and he successfully opposed Grey's motion for referring a number
of petitions in favour of reform to a committee in 1793.
After this, a strong reaction set in, and the reform question had little
interest for the governing classes during the continuance of the great
war. It was never allowed to sleep, however, and in 1809, a bill
introduced by Curwen to pave the way for reform by preventing the return
of members upon corrupt agreements, actually passed both houses, though
in so mutilated a form that it was practically a dead letter. Still, the
cause was indefatigably pleaded by Brand, and Burdett, who in 1819 made
himself the spokesman of the violent reform agitation then spreading
over the country. Unfortunately, this violence, and the extravagance of
the demands put forward by the democratic leaders, were themselves fatal
obstacles to a temperate consideration of the question, and threw back
the reform movement for several years. In 1821, when Grampound was
disfranchised, it assumed, as we have seen, a more constitutional form,
and motions in favour of reform were proposed by Russell in 1822, 1823,
and 1826, and by Blandford in 1829. Had Canning placed himself at the
head of the movement the course of domestic history during the reign of
George IV. might have been very different. As it was, the number of
petitions in favour of reform sensibly fell off in the last half of the
reign, and its tory opponents vainly imagined that the movement had
spent itself. We now know that, in the absence of noisy demonstrations,
it was really and constantly gaining strength in the minds of thoughtful
men until it reached its climax at the end of 1830.
[Pageheading: _PUBLIC OPINION AND REFORM._]
The first act of the great political drama which occupied the next
eighteen months may be said to have opened with the fall of Wellington,
and the formation of the whig ministry. These events, together with the
success of the Paris revolution, supplied the motive power needed to
combine the great body of the middle classes with the proletariat in a
national crusade against the political privileges long exercised by a
powerful landed aristocracy. It is true that reform, unlike catholic
emancipation, had always appealed to broad popular sympathies, and had
been advocated by men like Grey and Burdett as carrying with it the
redress of all other grievances. But Canning was by no means the only
liberal statesman who heartily dreaded it, and even the advanced
reformers had not fully grasped the comprehensive meaning of the idea
which they embraced, or the far-reaching consequences involved in it.
The palpable anomaly of Old Sarum returning members to parliament, while
Birmingham was unrepresented, was shocking to common sense, and so was
the monopoly of the franchise by a handful of electors in some of the
larger boroughs, especially in Scotland. But few appreciated how
seriously constitutional liberty had been curtailed by the growth of
these abuses (unchecked by the Commonwealth) since the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, how effectually home and foreign policy was
controlled by a small circle of noble families dominant in the lower as
well as in the upper chamber, how vast a transfer of sovereignty from
class to class would inevitably be wrought by a thorough reform bill,
and how certainly men newly entrusted with power would use it for their
own advantage, whether or not that should coincide with the advantage of
the nation. Such general aspects of the question are seldom noticed in
the earlier debates upon it, and economical reform sometimes appears to
occupy a larger space than parliamentary reform in the liberal
statesmanship of the Georgian age.
With Wellington's declaration against any parliamentary reform, this
apathy vanished, and the movement, gathering up into itself all other
popular aspirations thenceforward filled the whole political horizon.
Reform unions sprang up everywhere, and instituted a most active
propaganda. So rapid was its spread and so wild the promises lavished by
radical demagogues, that Grey and his wiser colleagues soon felt
themselves further removed from their own extreme left wing than from
the moderate section of the conservatives. It is abundantly clear that
Grey himself, faithful as he was to reform, never dreamed of
inaugurating a reign of democracy. He often declared in private that
such a bill as he contemplated would prove, in its effect, an
aristocratic measure, and he doubtless believed that it would be
possible to bring the new constituencies and the new electoral bodies
under the same conservative influences which had been dominant for so
many generations. He did not foresee, as Palmerston did thirty years
later, that, even if the political actors remained the same, they "would
play to the gallery" instead of to the pit or boxes. He would, indeed,
have repudiated the maxim: "Everything for the people, and nothing by
the people"; he was fully prepared to place the house of commons in the
hands of the people, or at least of the great middle class, but he
regarded the crown and the house of lords as almost equal powers, and he
never doubted that property and education would practically continue to
rule the government of the country.
[Pageheading: _DRAFT OF THE FIRST BILL._]
When the whigs came into office they were singularly fortunate in the
high character and consistency of their chief, no less than in the
divisions of their opponents, whose right wing showed almost as mutinous
a spirit as their own left wing. Even between Wellington and Peel there
was a want of cordial harmony and confidence, yet Peel was the only tory
statesman of eminent capacity in the house of commons. The attitude of
the king, too, was not only strictly constitutional but friendly, though
it afterwards appeared that he relied too implicitly on Grey and Althorp
to protect him against the machinations of the radicals. The letters
written by his orders, though mostly composed by his private secretary,
Sir Herbert Taylor, display marked ability together with a very shrewd
and just conception of the situation. His loyal adoption of a moderate
reform policy was a most important element of strength to his ministers
at the outset of their great enterprise, and, if he afterwards held
back, it was in deference to scruples which several of them shared in
their hearts. Nor was the violence of the ultra-radicals, or the
scurrilous language of O'Connell by any means an unmixed source of
weakness to men engaged in framing and carrying a temperate reform bill.
Their firm resistance to extravagant demands reassured many a waverer
and showed how carefully their comprehensive plan had been matured. On
the other hand, they had to contend against difficulties not yet fully
revealed. One of these was their own want of administrative experience,
contrasting unfavourably with the statesmanlike capacity of Peel.
Another was the intractable character of two at least within their own
innermost councils--Durham and Brougham. A third was the inflexible
conservatism of a great majority in the house of lords, who, unlike the
people at large, clearly understood that the impending conflict was a
life-and-death struggle for political supremacy between themselves and
the commons--the greatest that had been waged since the revolutions of
the seventeenth century.
It was privately known that a committee had been empowered to draft the
bill awaited with so much impatience. This committee consisted of two
members of the cabinet, Durham and Graham, together with two members of
the administration not of cabinet rank, the Earl of Bessborough's eldest
son, Lord Duncannon, then chief whip of the whig party, and Russell, who
was second to none as a staunch and judicious promoter of parliamentary
reform. In spite of his vanity and petulance, Durham deserves the credit
of having drawn up the report, highly appreciated by the king, upon
which the projected measure was founded. It originally included vote by
ballot, and it is rather strange that on this point Durham was
powerfully supported by Graham, but opposed by Russell. It is still more
strange that Brougham, whose scheme of reform was locked up in his own
breast, was honestly disturbed by the radicalism of his colleagues and
specially objected to so large a disfranchisement of boroughs as they
contemplated. Upon the whole, however, the bill was the product of an
united cabinet, and received the express approval of the king in all its
essential features. The elaborate letter which he addressed to Grey on
February 4, 1831, betrays a sense of relief on finding that universal
suffrage and the ballot were not to be pressed upon him In declaring
that he never could have given his consent to such revolutionary
innovations, he insists strongly on the necessity of maintaining an
"equilibrium" between the crown, the lords, and the commons, as well as
between the "representation of property" and that of numbers.
The reform bill of 1831, which differed only in detail from the act
passed in 1832, cannot be understood without some knowledge of the
system which that act transformed. This system has been well described
as "combining survivals from the middle ages with abuses of the
prerogative in later times". The counties remained as they had remained
for centuries; Rutland, for instance, returned as many representatives
as Yorkshire, until in 1821 the two seats taken from Grampound were
added to those already possessed by Yorkshire. On the other hand, the
old franchise of the 40s. freeholders was more widely diffused since the
value of money had been greatly depreciated. Still, the influence of the
great county families was almost supreme, and they were firmly
entrenched in the nomination boroughs, where there was scarcely a
pretence of free election. The crown had originally a discretion in
summoning members from boroughs, and used it by issuing writs to all the
wealthiest as better able to bear taxation and more competent to
sanction it. The poorer boroughs, too, were also glad to escape
representation in order to save the expense of their members' wages. The
discretionary power of the crown was afterwards used in creating petty
boroughs such as "the Cornish group," for the purpose of packing the
house of commons with crown nominees. This practice, however, ceased in
the reign of Charles II., and these petty boroughs fell by degrees into
the hands of great landowners, who dictated the choice of
representatives.
The result has been concisely stated as follows: "The majority of the
house of commons was elected by less than fifteen thousand persons.
Seventy members were returned by thirty-five places with scarcely any
voters at all; ninety members were returned by forty-six places with no
more than fifty voters; thirty-seven members by nineteen places with no
more than one hundred voters; fifty-two members by twenty-six places
with no more than two hundred voters. The local distribution of the
representation was flagrantly unfair.... Cornwall was a corrupt nest of
little boroughs whose vote outweighed that of great and populous
districts. At Old Sarum a deserted site, at Gatton an ancient wall sent
two representatives to the house of commons. Eighty-four men actually
nominated one hundred and fifty-seven members for parliament. In
addition to these, one hundred and fifty members were returned on the
recommendation of seventy patrons, and thus one hundred and fifty-four
patrons returned three hundred and seven members."[103] Household
suffrage prevailed in a few boroughs, and here barefaced corruption was
common. Seats for boroughs, appropriately called "rotten," were
frequently put up to sale; otherwise, they were reserved for young
favourites of the proprietor. Neither yearly tenants, nor leaseholders,
nor even copyholders, had votes for counties. Of Scotland it is enough
to say that free voting had practically ceased to exist both in counties
and in boroughs, as the borough franchise was the monopoly of
self-elected town councils, and the county franchise of persons, often
non-resident, who happened to own "superiorities".
[Pageheading: _PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST BILL._]
The reform bill of the whig ministry, drawn on broad and simple lines,
struck at the root of this system. Its twofold basis was a liberal
extension of the suffrage with a very large redistribution of seats. The
elective franchise in counties, hitherto confined to freeholders, was to
be conferred on £10 copyholders and £50 leaseholders; the borough
franchise was to exclude "scot and lot" voters, "potwallopers" and most
other survivals of antiquated electorates, but to include ratepaying £10
householders. The qualification for this franchise had originally been
fixed at £20, and the king deprecated any reduction, but the omission of
the ballot reconciled him and other timid reformers to an immense
increase in the lower class of borough voters. Sixty boroughs of less
than 2,000 inhabitants, returning 119 members, were to be disfranchised
altogether; forty-seven others, with less than 4,000 inhabitants, were
to be deprived of one member, and Weymouth was to lose two out of the
four members which it returned in combination with the borough of
Melcombe Regis. Fifty-five new seats were allotted to the English
counties, forty-two to the great unrepresented towns, five to Scotland,
three to Ireland, and one to Wales. Altogether the numerical strength of
the house of commons was to be reduced by sixty-two, and this entirely
at the expense of England. Both the county and borough franchises in
Scotland were to be assimilated generally to those established for
England, and the £10 borough franchise was extended to Ireland. The bill
contained many other provisions designed to amend the practice of
registration, the voting power of non-resident electors, and the
cumbrously expensive machinery of elections. It is important to notice
that it also limited the duration of each parliament to five years--a
concession to radicalism afterwards abandoned and never since adopted.
On February 3 parliament met after the adjournment, and Grey stated that
a measure of reform had been framed, but the nature of it was not
disclosed to the house of commons until March 1, and during the interval
the secret was kept with great fidelity. The task of explaining it was
entrusted to Russell, whose thorough mastery of its letter and spirit
fully justified the choice, partly suggested by his aristocratic
connexions and historical name. His speech was remarkable for clearness
and cogency rather than for rhetorical brilliancy, and he was careful to
rest his case on constitutional equity and political expediency of the
highest order rather than on vague and abstract principles of popular
rights. The debate on the motion for leave to bring in the bill lasted
seven nights, and was vigorously sustained on both sides. The drastic
and sweeping character of the measure took the whole house by surprise,
while its authors justly claimed some credit for moderation in rejecting
the radical demands of universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and
triennial, if not annual, parliaments. Not only inside but outside the
walls of St. Stephen's the statement of the government had been awaited
with the utmost impatience, and it was universally felt that an issue
had now been raised which hardly admitted of compromise. The king
himself, though much engrossed by minor questions affecting the civil
list and the pension list, heartily congratulated Grey on the favourable
reception and prospects of the measure, which he regarded as a safeguard
against more democratic schemes. His great fear was of a collision
between the two houses, and the sequel proved that it was not unfounded.
For the present, however, all promised well. Peel denounced the bill
with less than his usual caution, but declined to give battle upon it,
and it passed the first reading on March 9 without a division. Indeed,
the chief danger to the stability of the government arose from its
defeat on the timber duties. This and other vexatious rebuffs so
irritated Grey that he actually contemplated a dissolution, lest the
reform bill itself should meet with a like fate. But the king would not
hear of it, and the cabinet wisely decided to follow the example of Pitt
and ignore an adverse division on a merely financial proposal, however
significant of parliamentary feeling.
[Pageheading: _SECOND READING OF THE FIRST BILL._]
Between the 9th and the 21st, the date fixed for the second reading,
popular excitement rose to a formidable height. Monster meetings were
held in the great centres of population, and the political unions put
forth all their strength. Nevertheless, the efforts of the
"borough-mongers" were all but successful, and after only two nights
debate the bill passed its second reading by a bare majority of one, 302
voting for it, and 301 against it. After this demonstration of strength
on the part of its opponents, no one could expect that it would survive
the ordeal of discussion in committee, and a letter of Lord Durham,
written in anticipation of the event, sums up with great force the
reasons for an early dissolution. The crisis was precipitated by the
action of General Gascoyne, member for Liverpool, who moved before the
house could go into committee that in no case should the number of
representatives from England and Wales be diminished. In the hope of
conciliating some wavering members, the ministry framed certain
modifications of their original scheme, but they do not seem to have
entertained the idea of accepting Gascoyne's proposal in its entirety.
In the division, which took place on April 19, they were defeated by 299
votes to 291, and on the following morning advised the king to dissolve.
In spite of his former refusal, more than once repeated, the king
yielded to necessity, feeling that another change of government, in the
midst of European complications, and in prospect of revolutionary
agitation in the country, would be a greater evil than a general
election.
The opposition, flushed with victory, pressed its advantage to extremes,
and successfully resisted a motion for the grant of supplies. Urged by
Althorp, the cabinet promptly resolved on recommending that the
dissolution should be immediate, and the king, roused to energy by
indignation, eagerly adopted their recommendation. Indeed, on hearing
that Lord Wharncliffe intended to move in the house of lords for an
address to the crown against a dissolution, he strongly resented such an
attempt to interfere with his prerogative, and declared himself ready to
start at once and dissolve parliament in person. Difficulties being
raised about preparing the royal carriages in time, he cut them short by
remarking that he was prepared to go in a hackney-coach--a royal saying
which spread like wildfire over the country. Both houses were scenes of
confusion and uproar when he arrived, preceded by the usual discharges
of artillery, which excited the angry disputants to fury. Lord
Mansfield, who was supporting the motion for an address, continued
speaking as the king entered, until he was forcibly compelled to resume
his seat. Even Peel was only restrained by like means from disregarding
the appearance of the usher of the black rod who came to summon the
commons from the bar of the house. The king preserved his composure, and
announced an immediate prorogation of parliament with a view to its
dissolution, and an appeal to the country on the great question of
reform. Such an appeal could only be made to constituencies under threat
of thorough reconstruction or total extinction, but from this moment the
ultimate issue ceased to be doubtful.
FOOTNOTES:
[101] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 160-62.
[102] Arbuthnot to Peel, Nov. 1, 1830, Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii.,
163-66.
[103] Goldwin Smith, _United Kingdom_, ii., 320.