CHAPTER XLI.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

_State of the Reform Question..... Meeting of Parliament..... Introduction of the Reform Bill..... Debate on the Motion that the Bill be read a Second Time, &c. Motion of Adjournment pending the Ordnance Estimates carried against Ministers..... Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament..... The Budget..... Proposed Change in Taxes, &c. Arrangement of the Civil List..... General Election..... Meeting of Parliament: The Reform Question renewed in Parliament, and carried in the Commons..... Rejection of it by the Lords..... Consequences of its Rejection..... Financial Statements..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Coronation of William IV...... Opening of the New London Bridge..... Ravages of the Cholera..... Foreign Affairs..... Meeting of Parliament..... New Reform Bill..... State of Ireland_

STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

{A.D. 1831}

It has been seen that the ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of Wellington were pledged to apply themselves forthwith to what was termed the reform of the representation; that is, to strengthen and enlarge the democratic part of the constitution. While they were occupied in this work, the details of which were as yet unknown, meetings were held in all parts of the country, for the purpose of getting up petitions in support of their policy. The prayers of the petitions were various, and in many cases very indefinite. Thus one set of petitioners prayed that the right of suffrage should be equalised and extended; but whether they meant such an extension and equalisation as would convert the government into a democracy, or some more modified degree of change, did not appear. Others said that a real, substantial, and effectual reform in the representation of the people had become necessary; but what reform they actually wanted was all conjecture. Some petitions, however, plainly declared what species of reform the petitioners required. These demanded the annihilation of all influence on the part of the aristocracy in returning members of the house of commons; the shortening the duration of parliaments; the extension and equalisation of the elective franchise; and vote by ballot. Another set of petitions recommended a reform of property as well as of representation, actually demanding that the possessions of the church should be seized, and appropriated to “the necessities of the state.” In other petitions, the petitioners, apparently at a loss to conceive what kind of reform was required, were satisfied with announcing that the country was ruined, and that it could only be restored by reform; at the same time gravely leaving it to his majesty’s ministers to declare what change would best answer the purpose. But, besides petitions in favour of reform, permanent political associations had begun to be formed in different parts of the country, for the purpose of organising large numbers of individuals into one body, to act on the mind of the public, and to press the question upon government. These associations took the name of Political Unions; and they had a regular array of officers, with a council, which transacted the ordinary business. Their objects were to push on changes to any extent possible; to insist on whatever they chose to demand, as a right which could not justly be refused; to repress opposing opinions in their neighbourhood; and to make even the government feel that they existed in order to dictate, not to obey. The whole kingdom was indeed in a ferment; and not only the correction of abuses, but immediate relief from national calamities, was confidently expected by the multitude in a reform of parliament. It was to prove a balm for all their sufferings—the commencement of a golden era of prosperity.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 3rd of February. Hitherto ministers had veiled in profound secrecy the plan of reform which they intended to produce. The question was introduced on this day by Earl Grey; but it was only to state that ministers had succeeded in framing a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation; that it had received the unanimous assent of the government, and that it would be introduced into the house of commons at an early period.

INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which, as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people, which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly, against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement, in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part, their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true, said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded, according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone, were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new constitution was as follows:—The cities, boroughs, and counties which were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns; and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders. The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections, as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn, and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise, which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced, both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole, Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds’ qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens: Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each, thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about 110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland, perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said, that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage. There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against him—namely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballot—his lordship concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.

This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium, and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question. Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures, he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The baronet’s speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed the bill “Russell’s purge!” which afforded much amusement to honourable and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly quoting Hume’s History of England for illustrations of his arguments. This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord Palmerston, who, in a most statesman-like oration, reviewed the whole question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood, Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel, who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr. O’Connell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not brought in till the 14th—a delay which gave occasion to some members of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the bill, in which one or two alterations and corrections had been made, was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition reserved themselves for the second reading—a stage at which, according to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is usually decided.

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

From the moment that the general outlines of the plan of reform proposed by ministers had been discussed in parliament, public excitement daily increased. The bill contained few of those changes for which violent reformers had long clamoured; yet these persons professed to receive it with joy. The secret of their conduct was easy to be understood; for though the bill gave less than they wished or demanded, it granted more than they had expected. They were told, moreover, by their leaders, whose hopes lay in the future, that as ministers had determined to go no further, all would be lost unless government were strenuously supported by those who conceived a change desirable. From these causes they agreed to forget the defects of the bill, and to be silent regarding the ballot, universal suffrage, and annual parliaments. The ministerial measure became their standard; “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,” became their watchword; and ministers were invested for a time with a species of infallibility. No part of their measure was wrong, and their conduct was not to be questioned. The manufacturers of petitions again set to work; and the same places which had petitioned a month before for much more, now prayed that the bill might pass untouched and unimpaired. Men, in fact, who had craved reduction of taxation and retrenchment of expenditure—who had desired a more democratic house of commons as the only means of securing those good objects, now conjured the house to enact a measure of which even its patrons declared that it would neither reduce taxation or expenses. The number of petitions was large, but the majority of the names attached to them were from the lowest classes of society, to whom ministers had declared no power could be given. But all this petitioning, though regular, constitutional, and powerful, did not promise to be effective. Ministers had threatened convulsions as the consequences of refusing the bill, and the reformers resolved to support them by opinions which indicated its approach, and exhibitions of mob force which might be used as its means. Language of an intimidating nature was constantly used at their assemblies, and in petitions, against all who should dare to oppose the bill, which intimidation served the purposes of the reformers in two ways: on the one hand, many who were averse to the violent changes proposed were driven into acquiescence from the apprehension that resistance would produce confusion; and on the other hand, those who would actively have resisted the change were overawed from any public expression of their sentiments. The menaces of the reformers were even accompanied with a display of the means of executing them. Everywhere the political unions boasted of the numbers they could bring into the field. Ten thousand men, said Colonel Evans at a reform meeting held in London, are ready to march hither from Beigate to support his majesty’s ministers if they should be defeated; and the chairman of the Birmingham union openly declared that it could supply two armies, each of them as numerous and brave as that which had conquered at Waterloo, if the king and his ministers required them in the contest with the boroughmongers. Nor was the press idle in this critical state of affairs; that daily supplied the fuel by which the excitement was kept up, preaching, in some instances, doctrines subversive of all order and government. Individuals who distinguished themselves in opposing the change were attacked with every species of calumny that enmity could invent; the property of the church and the rights of the peerage were held out as illegally amassed treasures, which the people, in the exercise of their rights, would soon have the pleasure of pillaging; and pretended lists of the names of pensioners and placemen were circulated, in which were to be found the names of men who had never received one farthing from the purse of the state. Even parliament itself was the object of incessant and absurd attack, and privilege seemed no longer to exist.

Such was the state of the public mind when, on the 21st of March, the second reading of the bill was moved. The debate lasted only two days. It was commenced by Sir R. Vyvyan, one of the members for Cornwall, who moved that the bill should be read that day six months. He declared that the bill affected no interests of his own, but it was a measure full of danger to the institutions of the kingdom, and which, therefore, his conscience bound him to oppose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cartwright, who stated that Mr. Hume had actually written to the radical reformers of Glasgow, entreating them not to say a word about the ballot. Mr. Sheil, an Irish agitator, repeated the usual arguments in favour of the bill, dwelling at great length on the disfranchisement of the Irish boroughs at the time of the union, and the later disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, as justifying in principle everything that was now proposed. He treated as ridiculous the idea that the bill could be dangerous either to the crown or to the aristocracy. There was variance between the logic of the non-reformers and their sarcasms. The syllogisms were overthrown by their satire, and their arguments evaporated in their vituperation. This bill would wrench despotism from oligarchy, but it would not touch the legitimate influence of property, and birth, and station, and all the other circumstances which create a title to respect. It would take power from individuals, and give it to a class; it would cut off the secret and subterraneous conduit-pipes through which aristocratic influence was now conveyed to that house, and would make it flow in a broad, open, constitutional, and natural channel. Mr. Charles Grant followed on the same side. The solicitor-general said that the whole argument against the bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was something in the British constitution inconsistent with change, and that to make an alteration would be to effect its destruction. The history of this country, however, and its institutions, showed that there had been an almost uninterrupted series of conflicts between the principle of democracy and despotism, with alternations of success, and the inevitable consequences of that, a system of perpetual change. The present bill, therefore, was in every point of view in perfect harmony with the whole current of our legislation. In six years after the Revolution, he said, the triennial act was passed, distinctly admitting on the part of the legislature of that period that the Revolution was not a settlement to be permanently unchangeable. Neither was the triennial act itself treated with undeviating respect, for, in the year 1715, its repeal was sanctioned by some of the very men who had brought about the Revolution; then the septennial act was passed, and another great change effected in the constitution of parliament. Did any one at that period hold that the septennial bill was a revolutionary measure? So far from any such character being imputed to it, the measure had always been treated as one within the constitution of parliament to enact. Sir Edward Sugden complained that the solicitor-general had gone back to the bill of rights, instead of attempting to explain and justify this bill of wrongs. It was perfectly true that the septennial act did not spring from the Revolution; it was brought in by Whig ministers for the same purpose for which the present bill was brought in by Whig ministers—as the only means by which they could retain their places. Mr. Pendarvis warmly supported the bill; and Mr. Cavendish declared his intention of voting for it, although his constituents at Cambridge had petitioned against it; many of them, he said, were not hostile to the whole measure, but objected to the new qualification as being too low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been, during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs, and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members, and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case, and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his experience but three members had been called to account by that house in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house divided on Sir B. Vyvyan’s motion, when there appeared for the amendment three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations, and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion, although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for comities would be left to freeholders, as they already stood; but that leaseholders of fifty pounds a year, under leases of twenty years, would be added to them. Clergymen likewise were to vote, if they were freeholders to the extent of fifty pounds; and householders who occupied a house let at the yearly rent of ten pounds per annum. The machinery of the bill was to be nearly the same with that proposed for England; and the necessary result of the measure would be to take the franchise out. of the hands of the corporations, who had hitherto monopolised it; and Mr. Stanley thought that no one could deny its propriety. The English bill, he said, in continuation, made no change in the election of the members for the universities; but an alteration was to be made in regard to the University of Dublin. In future it was to return two members instead of one; and the number of electors was to be increased by bringing back the right of voting to what it had originally been. At Oxford and Cambridge the masters of arts had always voted; but in Dublin, a subsequent charter having excluded scholars from receiving their _stipendia_ after the expiry of the five years, it had been held by a forced construction that they lost their right to vote for the university-member after the same period, though they still continued to be scholars. The present bill would restore the original right, by extending their academic franchise to all persons who at any time had been scholars of the university, provided they placed their names on the books, as claimants of the right, within six months after the passing of the act. Mr. O’Connell admitted that the bill would prove a great boon to Ireland, and would produce an effective constituency; but there were parts of it which he hoped would be altered. In the first place, he thought that a greater number of members ought to be given to Ireland. He objected, likewise, to the arrangement concerning the university, because it still left to the franchise an exclusive character; no Roman Catholic could vote there, because he could not become a scholar of a Protestant university; scholarships, therefore, ought to be thrown open to all classes of the community. Nor did the Irish counties receive justice. Many counties in England, because their population extended to 200,000, were to receive two members each, while in Ireland there were twelve counties, with a population above that point, whose representation was not to be increased. In reply to the demand for opening the university-scholarships to Catholics, and making all masters of arts voters, the Irish solicitor-general announced that the charter did not allow it. At Oxford and Cambridge the charters gave the rights to the masters, but at Dublin it was only given to the fellows and scholars, and it was the principle of the bill to preserve vested rights and settled institutions, as far as could be done consistently with an efficient reform. Mr. Bankes, and Sir C. Wetherell, and Mr. Hardinge, argued, that the giving of additional members to Ireland, as well as Scotland, was unjust towards England, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the two legislative unions. They also complained of the effects which the bill would inevitably produce upon the Protestants of Ireland. If the bill passed, it would be impossible, they said, for an Irish Protestant to be returned to parliament, unless two-thirds of the Catholic population chose to vote for him. It would be a virtual exclusion of all Protestants from the representation of Ireland; not one would be elected unless he became an agitator, pledged himself to all that was demanded, and basely pandered to the passions and views of the Catholic electors. The chancellor of the exchequer, in reply to these objections, stated that the bill did not interfere with the unions, any more than the union with Ireland had violated the union with Scotland; and that as to the different circumstances in which Irish Protestants might find themselves, he and his colleagues entertained no apprehensions of their opponents being able successfully to raise against them a no-popery cry; the public mind was too enlightened to be affected by such idle clamours. The bill was allowed to be read a first time; and the second reading was fixed for the 18th of April.

When the house met, on the 12th of April, after the Easter recess, Lord John Eussell communicated certain alterations which it had been found necessary to make in the schedules of boroughs to be disfranchised, in consequence of inaccuracies discovered in the population returns of 1821, on which the whole plan had been founded. Lord John Russell also declared that, although ministers had not changed their opinion regarding the propriety of reducing the numbers of the house, and would try to carry that clause in the bill, still “they were not prepared to say that this was a question of such essential and vital importance, that, if the feelings of the house were strongly shown in a desire to keep up the present number, they might not be induced to relax their determination on that point. If it should appear to be the sense of the house that the whole number of six hundred and fifty-eight members should be retained, the government would not feel that they were altering a vital or essential part of the measure by agreeing to that proposition.” On the following day Mr. Stanley, when adverting to the same topic, to prevent any misconception that ministers, though they might consent to retain the numbers, would leave them to the boroughs, stated, that they were determined to adhere in all circumstances to the disfranchisement of every borough whose population did not reach a particular standard, and the partial disfranchisement of every borough falling beneath a certain other standard; the number of members to be added should be given to such populous towns as might be considered in that event to have a fair claim to representation.

On the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the reform bill. In doing so he stated the alterations which had been recently made in it by ministers. According to his statement, it appeared that five boroughs had been transferred from schedule A to schedule B, and allowed to retain one member, and that seven of those in schedule B were allowed to retain their two members, in consequence of its having been ascertained that the population returns had not accurately represented the number of inhabitants. On the other hand members were to be added to the following counties: namely, Bucks, Berks, Cambridge, Dorset, Hereford, Hertford, Oxford, and Glamorgan. Members were also to be added to the following towns: namely, Oldham, Buly, Bochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and Stoke-on-Trent: Halifax was restricted to the township, and to return only one member, the parish being twenty-five miles in extent. Sons of freemen entitled to the privilege of freemen, and apprentices having entered into indentures in the same manner, were to retain their franchise on taking out their freedom, being resident, and registered under the provisions of the bill. General Gaseoyne moved as an instruction to be given to the committee, “That it is the opinion of this house, that the total number of knights, citizens, and burgesses returned to parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, ought not to be diminished.” This motion was designed to get rid of the bill altogether, and it produced a violent and contentious debate. Mr. Sadler, who seconded it, delivered a long, argumentative, and learned speech against the general principles of the whole plan of reform. He was followed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who declared that he was quite sure that the amendment was put with a view of destroying the bill. It was impossible to misunderstand it: it was the first of that series of motions by which it was intended to interfere with the progress of the committee, and which, if agreed to, would be fatal to the bill. The debate was adjourned till the next day. On that occasion, of the members who opposed it, some did not see how an agreement to the amendment could be considered hostile to the principle of the bill, even if it were carried; and not one, except ministers themselves, pretended it would be a good reason for abandoning the whole bill. Mr. Bulwer, for instance, thought that this question regarding the number of members would make no difference in the general character of the measure, and Mr. J. Campbell hoped that the bill would go on, though the amendment should be carried. Mr. Wynn, who had resigned office because he was opposed to the bill, also thought that this motion was not of much consequence one way or the other. Sir George Warrington, though opposed to the bill, would resist the amendment, on the idea that the effect of it would be, if the bill went on, to prevent the giving of additional members to Scotland. Sir George Clerk said, that he, also, would vote against it if he anticipated any such results; but he saw no reason that it should be so. Sir Robert Wilson, one of the most zealous of all the reformers, expressed great surprise at the view which ministers, after all that had passed, chose to take of this amendment. In voting for it he was not voting against increasing the representation of either Scotland or Ireland, nor did he believe that the fate of the bill depended in the slightest degree on the success or the failure of the present motion. Mr. Stanley, however, declared that this discussion would decide the fate of the bill. The amendment, he said, was concocted in a spirit of hostility to the bill, and brought forward to embarrass ministers. He warned those honourable members, who, while they professed themselves friendly to reform, supported this amendment, that it would decide the fate of the bill, and that by their votes on this occasion they would be judged by their constituents and by the country. In giving their votes, he added, they would either vote for or against the carrying of that question, for the carrying of which, if now lost, an opportunity so favourable might not soon again return, and that the result of that night’s division would be, either to carry that great question, or to defeat the hopes of the people of this country. Sir James Graham, on the same side, remarked that he did not say if this amendment was carried, ministers would abandon the bill; but he did say, that if it should be, it would be a matter of very grave consideration, whether the bill would be so impugned, that they ought not to attempt to carry it through its other stages. General Gaseoyne expressed his surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the sixty-two members was inconsistent with the essence and principles of the bill. If I understood the noble lord who brought in the bill, right, in a conversation which I had with him only yesterday, he distinctly admitted to me that my amendment would not touch the principle of the bill. Lord John Russell replied that the amendment now moved was a different one to that to which General Gaseoyne alluded: and thus ended this debate. On a division, the amendment was carried by two hundred and ninety-nine against two hundred and ninety-one, being a majority of eight against ministers.

MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General Gaseoyne as one likely to destroy the bill of reform which they had introduced into parliament. It was evident from the beginning that a majority of the present house could not be relied on by its supporters. Ministers, however, did not seem at first determined to have recourse to a dissolution. On the 20th, nothing transpired except that Mr. Hume declared that he would offer no opposition to the ordnance estimates, because, after the vote of last night, he was anxious to assist ministers in getting through the necessary business, in order that a dissolution might take place. On the following day, Lord Wharncliffe, in the upper house, asked Earl Grey whether ministers had advised his majesty to dissolve parliament, and whether it had been resolved that that course should be adopted. Earl Grey declined answering the question; and his interrogator then gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased not to exercise his prerogative of dissolving parliament. The same question was put in the commons by Sir R. Vyvyan, and Lord Althorp replied, that it was not his duty to answer the question. The discussion on the propriety of a dissolution was continued till the morning of the 22nd, and an adjournment on the ordnance estimates was then moved till the next sitting. This was strenuously resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer, on the ground that the topic which had occupied so much time was not a question before the house; and that he wished to get on with the report of the committee of supply on the ordnance estimates. On a division, however, ministers were left in a minority of twenty-two. It was clear from this that ministers had more to decide on than the reform question, and that they had to straggle not merely for their bill, but their places. On the next day, therefore, they resolved to dissolve parliament.

When the house met on the 22nd, the presentation of a petition connected with parliamentary reform furnished occasion in the commons for another discussion on that subject. Sir R. Vyvyan inveighed strongly against the desperation with which ministers were believed to be urging on a dissolution in the present state of the country. He was called to order by Sir Francis Burdett; but the speaker declared that Sir B. Vyvyan was not out of order. A scene of indescribable confusion ensued, in which the authority of the speaker was for some time set aside. At length Sir B. Peel was enabled to address the house. He referred to the scene which had been exhibited, and made a disingenuous use of it, declaring that it was a specimen of what might be expected in a reformed house of commons, whereas the disturbance was created by those who were desirous, _per fas et nefas_, to obstruct the measure before the house. Sir Robert, in a strain of unhappy invective, reiterated his previous denunciations of all reform.

Sir Robert was interrupted by the sergeant-at-arms, who knocked at the door, and the usher of the black rod, who suddenly appeared to summons the speaker and the members, to the house of peers, to hear the prorogation of parliament.

In the upper house proceedings had been of a similar nature to those in the commons. Lord Wharncliffe had scarcely risen to move for an address to his majesty against the dissolution, when the Duke of Richmond rose to complain that all the peers were not sitting in their proper places, as usual on such occasions. This gave rise to a scene of noise and confusion, in which one noble lord was heard to say that ministers were taking the crown off the king’s head. Lord Wharncliffe, being at length allowed to proceed, stated that, without wishing to provoke discussion on the subject, he was anxious that it should be entered on the journals of the house, that he in his place yesterday did give notice that he would move an humble address to his majesty not to exercise his undoubted prerogative of dissolving parliament. His lordship then made a motion to that effect. The lord-chancellor said, that he had never yet heard it doubted that the king possessed the prerogative of dissolving parliament at pleasure; still less had he ever known a doubt to exist on the subject at a moment when the lower house has thought fit to refuse the supplies. The near approach of his majesty was now announced, and Lord Shaftesbury was called to the chair amid discordant noises which it was difficult for him to subdue. Lord Mansfield addressed the house, but was interrupted in his speech by the entrance of the king, and the house of commons having been summoned, his majesty prorogued parliament in these words:—“My lords and gentlemen,—I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this parliament with a view to its dissolution. I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear to require, and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the people.” Parliament was prorogued to the 10th of May, and a proclamation appeared the next day announcing its dissolution, and directing a new election, the writs of which were made returnable on the 14th of June.

The dissolution of parliament was hailed by the people with great joy. Illuminations were got up on every hand. That in London was authorised by the lord-mayor; and the consequence was that, in the west end of the town, the rabble vented their fury on the houses of all those members of parliament who had expressed sentiments unfavourable to the bill, and in whose windows no candles were placed. Many people, doubtless, illuminated their houses lest they should become obnoxious to the mob; yet these illuminations were made use of by the reformers to keep up their incessant cry, that the inhabitants of the country, from one end to the other, were animated by one universal feeling of enthusiasm for the reform bill, and for the act which got rid of a parliament that refused it. It has been well remarked that, in political disputes, to place candles in windows is no proof of political opinion, or of anything else than a prudent desire to avoid the outrages of a mob.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST.

The other business of this session related chiefly to financial matters. The budget was opened on the 11th of February by Lord Althorp, who estimated the charge for the year at £46,850,000; while the revenue, on account of the many taxes repealed, would yield only £47,150,000, and thus give an excess over the charge of only about £300,000. This, he said, did not afford much room for the reduction of taxation; but still he thought that something might be done, especially by reducing those imposts which pressed on the industry of the country; by relieving trade from fiscal embarrassments; and by introducing, in many cases, a more equal distribution of taxes. Lord Althorp avowed that he had taken his principles and general views from Sir Henry Parnell’s work entitled “Financial Reform.” He divided the taxes into three classes:—first, taxes on commodities of which there would be an increased consumption and revenue; secondly, taxes which, instead of being equally and impartially distributed amongst all classes, pressed more severely on one part of the community; and thirdly, those taxes which, besides interfering with commerce, took more out of the pockets of the people than was furnished to the revenue. Under the first head, his lordship explained that he intended to reduce the duty on tobacco, and on newspapers, stamps, and advertisements; under the second, that of sea-borne coal, which he proposed to repeal altogether; and under the third, the duties on tallow and candles, calicoes, glass, &c. The estimated loss of the reductions in the whole was £3,170,000, a reduction which the revenue could not sustain. The next point was, therefore, how to make good this loss without imposing an equal burthen on the people. Lord Althorp proposed to equalise the duties on foreign wines, and foreign European timber and exported coals; and to place duties on cotton, steam-boats, and the _bona fide_ sale or transfer of landed property. The estimated revenue from these sources was £2,740,000; while on the other hand, the amount of taxes repealed or reduced was £4,080,000; so that the country gained £1,340,000, while it was stated the public services would not suffer. This financial project of Lord Althorp was vehemently attacked by all parties in the house. The experiment, it was said, was a dangerous one, and the probability was, that it would be necessary to raise by exchequer-bills a sum to meet the charges of the year; thus gratifying the country for a time by an apparent relief from taxation, only to produce the necessity of afterwards imposing heavier taxes on the people. The experiment was represented as the less justifiable, as not one shilling was included in the budget as being applicable to the diminution of the national debt. It was always believed by some that the budget was not one of reduction, but of mere transposition. Some taxes were reduced, but others were imposed to make up the loss. At all events, it was said, the budget was merely a pretext of doing something, while in truth it did nothing, or did mischief. An attack was especially made on the tax proposed on transfers in the public funds, and Lord Althorp was induced to abandon it. Ministers were also defeated on a division in regard to a proposed diminution of duties on Baltic timber, and an augmentation of those grown in Canada. The tax on steam-boat passengers was likewise abandoned, and an increased duty on our colonial wines, which his lordship consented to reduce. Finally, the proposed duty on the importation of raw cotton was reduced, and the whole affair produced a strong impression of the practical inefficiency of the government. Under any other circumstances, indeed, ministers could not survive the defeats they had experienced; but the anchor of reform saved the ship in which they had embarked, albeit it was a crazy one, from foundering in the sea of politics.

Ministers were not more skilful in the arrangements of the civil list. The late ministry had gone out of office after a vote by which the house of commons declared its opinion that the civil list should be referred to a select committee. When these arrangements were considered, it appeared that the most material changes made after the abolition of certain offices, were the reduction of the pension list in future to the sum of £75,000 per annum, and the subtraction of £460,000 from the civil list, to be placed under the control of parliament. On hearing the statements of the chancellor of the exchequer, the members of the late government expressed their satisfaction that the present ministers, so loud against expenditure when out of office, and pledged to retrenchment when they came in, had been driven to acknowledge that they found it impossible to carry economy further, in the matter of the civil list, than had been done by their predecessors. The new estimate, they said, was identically the same with the former, except as to the principle, whether a certain portion of the amount should be kept constantly under the control of parliament. The system of retrenchment proposed was by no means satisfactory to Messrs. Hume, Hunt, and others of the radical school. Ministers, they said, had not adhered to their promises of retrenchment in framing the estimates, especially in regard to the pensions. It was of no use to tell the people that most of these pensions were charitable; charity begins at home; and the house was bound to be just to the people before being generous to poor peers, or the poor relations of wealthy peers. Another point on which ministers had to encounter stern opposition from their old allies, was a proposal which they made for an increase in the army of 7680 men. No opposition, however, was offered to a resolution moved in consequence of a royal message, assigning to the queen, in case she should survive his majesty, £100,000 per annum, with Marlborough House and Bushy Park as town and country residences.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The election of the new parliament took place in the midst of general excitement. This was very auspicious for the ministry. The declared intention of the dissolution had been to obtain from the people a house of commons pledged to support the reform bill. The only test by which candidates were tried, was their determination to support that measure. Nor was it sufficient to save a candidate from the storm which raged all over the country, that he should be willing to reform the representation. It was demanded of him that he should support the particular measure which the ministry had proposed. It was to be “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” Candidates who had long represented places were told by the electors that they could no longer vote for them, not because they were against the bill, but that they were against the king; they did not know much about it, but it was the king’s, and it must pass. The official influence of the ministry was put forth unsparingly and unblushingly. In some instances, indeed, it defeated its own object. Thus, in Ireland, two pledged supporters of the bill were elected for the city of Dublin. The losing candidates petitioned against the return, and it came out in the proceedings before the committee, that the vice-regal government had interfered directly to ensure the success of the sitting members. The consequence of this was that the committee found the sitting members were not duly elected; and, on a new election, two members were returned who were hostile to reform. The tumult and license which usually characterise a general election were more than ordinarily rampant and intolerant. Anti-bill candidates and their supporters were exposed to the most lawless violence wherever they dared to show themselves on the hustings, and were denounced on the one hand as oppressors of the people, and on the other as disloyal opponents of the people. In some instances the life, as well as the property of unpopular men was sacrificed; and in Scotland especially, the elections were controlled by the violence of riotous mobs. At the election for the county of Lanark, the late member was attacked with stones and missiles, from the gallery of the church in which the election took place; and when he was re-elected, those who voted for him were detained prisoners for some hours, until the military arrived to shield them from lawless violence. At Dumbarton, also, the successful candidate for the county was obliged to conceal himself in a garret, till the mob, believing he had escaped, dispersed. From the excitement and violence which everywhere prevailed, it was not surprising that the great majority of the elections terminated in favour of the reforming candidates. Out of the eighty-two county members for England, with the exception of about twelve, all were pledged to support the bill. Ministers, indeed, completely succeeded in obtaining a house of commons fashioned after their own mind: the great majority of the members were pledged to implicit obedience to the will of the people.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 14th of June; being opened by commission till the preliminary forms necessary to be gone through in the house of commons should have been completed. On the 21st. after Mr. Manners Sutton had been re-elected speaker without opposition, and all the members were sworn in, his majesty opened the session in person. In his speech his majesty remarked: “I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to your advice and assistance, after the dissolution of the late parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that in any measures which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogative of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people are equally secured.” No amendment was proposed to the address in the upper house. The discussion chiefly turned on the dissolution of parliament, the inattention of government to the security of property during the London illuminations, and the arts used to inflame the public mind during the election. The same topics were also discussed in the commons, and the address was carried there without opposition.

The house of commons having been elected for the purpose of passing a measure of reform, no time was lost in bringing it forward. Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of England on the 24th of June. No debate took place on this occasion: Sir R. Peel having stated that he did not wish to divide the house on the first reading, or to have a long debate without a division. At his suggestion the second reading was postponed from the 30th of June to the 4th of July. In the meantime the Irish and Scotch bills were brought in and read the first time: the former on the 30th of June, and the latter on the 1st of July. On the appointed day for the second reading of the English reform bill an animated debate took place. Sir John Walsh moved that the bill should be read that day six months. The debate which followed this amendment continued three nights; and it consisted chiefly of a repetition of the views, arguments, and anticipations which had been brought out at such great length in the former parliament. Ministers and their supporters, however, found new matter for triumph in the evidence with which the general election had furnished them, that the people were generally for reform. All doubt or hesitation was at an end: the voice of the people had decided, not merely that there must be reform, but that it must be that kind of reform contained in the ministerial bill. This voice had been pronounced unanimously, for the returns from close boroughs and particular counties could not be taken into account in estimating the will and the wishes of those who formed the people. The opposition on the other hand contended, that the argument drawn from the mere fact of a popular clamour having been raised in favour of this measure, was fit only for legislators who had been invested with that character on no other terms than those of pledging themselves to discharge the humble duty of delegates, and not to act according to any opinions which they might form on the measures proposed by government. No man, it was said, could deny the violent excitement which had taken place, and few would maintain that large bodies of electors were the fittest persons for deciding on the merits of so complicated and delicate a question; and every man must concede, that least of all could the decision of such assemblages be regarded when made under the influence of agitation, sedulously cherished by false pretexts, and supported by groundless anticipations. Nor could the returns, it was argued, be considered as manifesting the opinion of the country on this plan of reform. They had been influenced, it was said, by considerations not connected with the merits of the proposition; and by identifying it with consequences, to which even its most rational and candid friends admitted that it never would lead. It was asked, Where had been the unanimity in favour of reform before the promulgation of the present measure, and the triumphs of the democracy of France? How little ministers could trust to reason and calmness among the people, and how much they reckoned on everything that was the reverse, was clear from the delicacy and respect with which they treated bodies that ought to have been unknown to them as a government, except for the purpose of checking their pretensions. Ministers had resolved not to intrust ten-pound voters who paid weekly; and this having displeased the Birmingham Political Union, they addressed a letter to the prime-minister on the subject, and that noble lord honoured them with the most friendly recognition. The speech of Mr. Macaulay, a nominee of Lord Lansdowne for the borough of Calne, in favour of the bill, elicited much applause. He remarked:—“The country and their children for ages to come will call this the second bill of rights; the greater charter of the liberties of England. I believe that the year 1831 is destined to exhibit to mankind the first example of a great, complicated, and deeply-rooted system of abuses removed without violence, bloodshed, and rapine; all forms observed, the fruits of industry not destroyed, and the authority of the law not suspended. These are things which may well make Englishmen proud of the age and country in which they live. These are things which may make them look forward to a long series of tranquil and happy years, during which nothing will disturb the concord of a popular government and a loyal people; of years in which, if war should be inevitable, it will find the people a united nation: of years pre-eminently distinguished by the mitigation of public burdens, by the prosperity of industry, by the reformation of jurisprudence, and by all the victories of peace: in which, far more than in military triumphs, consist the true prosperity of states and the glory of statesmen. It is with such feelings and hopes that I give my most cordial assent to this measure of reform, a measure which, in itself, I think desirable, but which in the present temper of the public mind is indispensably necessary to the repose of empire and the stability of government.” The debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended his plan: and on a division the second reading of the measure was carried by a majority of three hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and thirty-one.

It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 12th of July, when Lord Maitland, one of the members for Appleby, rose to oppose the disfranchisement of that borough, on the score of a mistake in the population returns. He moved that his constituents should be heard at the bar by themselves and their counsel against the bill, in so far as it affected them, and in support of the allegations in their petition. Ministers declared that they would resist such an inquiry. They asked, whether the progress of this great measure was to be stopped to enter into the examination of a particular case of so insignificant a borough as Appleby? Members would be heard in committee in regard to this and every other borough; but if the house was to hear counsel in the case of Appleby, they might likewise be called on to hear them in the case of the other condemned boroughs, and that would be vexatious. The house had the information furnished by the population returns, which ministers deemed sufficient: if witnesses were examined at the bar, they must necessarily, if they had not been engaged in taking the census, be unable to furnish any other evidence; and if they had been so engaged, they would furnish the same evidence. A stormy debate followed, several members maintaining that there never had been an instance of so arbitrary and unconstitutional an attempt as ministers were now making. The second reading had carried the principle of the bill; but these petitioners were not objecting to the principle, but simply maintaining that, adopting this principle, the rule laid down by the bill itself, and founded on matters of fact, could not apply to them. Ministers, however, were deaf to all remonstrances; and the motion was negatived, although several supporters of the bill ventured to vote in the minority, feeling that the petitioners were justly entitled to show cause why they should not be disfranchised, and that justice would not be done if the motion were rejected. This motion being lost, a new discussion arose before the speaker left the chair, on the general principles and tendencies of the bill. As many members wished to express their sentiments, and the majority seemed impatient to cut all argument short, Mr. Gordon moved for an adjournment. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, asserted that he would have no further general argument on the bill after that night; and, notwithstanding the motion was ably defended, it was negatived. Repeated motions for adjournment were made, and were as repeatedly negatived; but as the minority still kept to their point, and seven o’clock in the morning was approaching, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that if the house would allow him to go into committee _pro forma_, the chairman might report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, when the discussion might go on as before. This was agreed to, and the house then adjourned. On the 13th, when the motion was made for the speaker leaving the chair, some discussion took place on the general principles of the bill; but it was very brief; and the house then discussed the measure clause by clause. The discussion on the several clauses continued from the 13th of July to the 15th of September, the opposition combating every point foot to foot with ministers. Amendments were moved as to the general principles of the bill, and as regards particular boroughs; but ministers were triumphant in almost every instance of importance. An amendment, moved by the Marquis of Chandos, that the right of voting should belong-to all occupiers of land paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds, was, however, earned by a majority of eighty-four; and it was incorporated with the original clause, which gave a right of voting for counties to leaseholders for a certain period, and a defined rent. The committee finished its labours on the 7th of September; and the bill, as amended, was reported to the house. The third reading was carried without a debate, on the 15th of September, by a majority of fifty-five; but on the motion that the bill do pass, a debate arose, which continued during the 19th, 20th, and 21st of September. Mr. Macaulay, with brilliant eloquence, admonished the peers to look to the deserted halls of France, and take warning not to oppose popular lights. Mr. Croker who seemed to make a point of rising to address the house after Mr. Macaulay, ridiculed the idea of the peers of England being deterred by fear from the performance of their duty, and reminded Mr. Macaulay that if the halls of France were deserted, it was because the French nobility were so foolish as to make any concessions to popular clamour. Mr. Stanley, then in the noon of his reputation, replied with his usual debating power to Mr. Croker, and carried the sympathies, if not the opinions of the house. Useless and angry recrimination entered largely into the remainder of the debate, in which Mr. Wynn and Sir Charles Wetherell especially figured. The personal influence of Lord Althorp and Sir Robert Peel allayed this angry spirit.

REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.

The reform bill having been carried in the commons, on the next day Lord John Russell, attended by many of its supporters, delivered the bill to the lord-chancellor in the house of lords. The bill was read a first time, and, on the motion of Earl Grey, was directed to be read a second time on the 3rd of October. In the meantime the reformers vigorously employed all the means in their power to intimidate the peers into submission. Political unions again sent forth their addresses and petitions, and meetings were convened to warn them of “the tremendous consequences of rejecting the bill,” and to inform them how “deeply and fearfully the security of commercial, as well as of all other property, was involved” in passing it without delay. In a meeting held in the common-hall of London, Colonel Torrens remarked:—“Let the peers refuse this bill if they dare; and if they do, dearly will they rue their obstinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl’s story. She presented her oracles to the court of Tarquin, and they were rejected. She burned a portion, and again offered them, but they were again rejected. After diminishing their number still further, she once more returned, and the remaining volumes were gladly purchased at the price which she had originally demanded for the entire. We, however, mean to reverse the moral, for should the present bill be defeated, we shall bring their lordships another bill, demanding a little more; and then, should they still dare to resist the might, and insult the majesty of the people of England united as one man, we will come forward with a bill of reform in which their lordships will find themselves inserted in schedule A.” Such language as this was used from one end of the country to the other, and the press and orators alike endeavoured to intimidate the peers into submission. They were to have no direct influence in the deliberations of the commons, and now they were to have no deliberate voice in their own house. Such was the state of public feeling when, on the 3rd of October, Earl Grey moved the second reading of the bill. After some prefatory remarks, he said, that being called to form a new administration, he stated to his majesty that the only condition on which he would accept office was that he should be allowed to bring forward the question of parliamentary reform as a measure of government. That condition was sanctioned by the monarch, assented to by the commons, and hailed with joy by the people. Earl Grey next went into the details of the bill, an account of which is given in the previous pages. He added: “You are asked to give up that which is odious, unjust, and unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this house may be shaken. The influence which your lordships possess in the representation of sixty-five old boroughs may be taken from you by this bill, but the peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of their influence in the representation—on the contrary, that influence is increased.” Earl Grey proceeded to contend that the measure had received the approbation of the country. He was, he said, one of the last men in that house who would grant anything to intimidation, and he would say, “Resist popular violence, and do not give way to popular commotion,” but here there was neither violence nor commotion. The opinion of the people was fairly and unequivocally expressed, and no government could turn a deaf ear to it, and least of all could a government founded on free principles take such a step. The time was passed for taking half-measures; their lordships must either adopt this bill, or they would have in its stead something infinitely stronger and more extensive. The measure was brought forward at the recommendation of the crown; it had been carried by an overwhelming majority of the other house, and it was supported by the prayers of millions, who respectfully knocked at their lordships’ door, and asked, for that which they considered to be the restoration of their just rights. Were their lordships prepared to reject a bill so supported, and that, too, on its second reading? He would venture for a moment, he continued, to address himself to the right reverend prelates who sat near him. While he assured that body that no man was more sincerely attached than he was to the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the church—no man held in higher veneration the purity of its doctrine and discipline—no man was more ready to admit the zeal, and learning, and piety of those who presided over it,—let him at the same time ask, that if this bill be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, and if its fate should thus within a few votes be decided by the votes of the heads of the church, what would then be their situation with the country? Those right reverend prelates had shown that they were not indifferent or inattentive to the signs of the times; they had introduced measures for effecting some salutary reforms in matters relating to the temporalities of the church, let them be implored to follow up the same course. The eyes of the country were upon them; he called upon them to “set their house in order,” and prepare to meet the coming storm—to consider seriously what would be the opinion of the country should a measure on which the nation had fixed its hopes be defeated by their votes. They were the ministers of peace; he hoped that the result of their votes would be such as might tend to the tranquillity, peace, and happiness of the country. Earl Grey concluded his speech by saying that he was prepared to stand or fall by this measure; the question of his continuance in office for one hour would depend on the prospect of being able to carry through that which he considered important to the tranquillity, safety, and happiness of the country. Lord Wharncliffe addressed the house against the measure, defending nomination, not because it was made by peers or other influential individuals, but because its effect in the house of commons was that it acted as a check on those places which were popularly represented. He further argued, that if a house of commons were once elected on the principles of this bill, it would cramp the crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and create a body in that house so irresistible as to make their lordships’ decisions on all public questions a dead letter. The house of commons would become too much the image of the people. The dangers, indeed, which at this moment surrounded their lordships proved the accuracy of his argument. They had now a popular house of commons—a delegate house of commons; that house had passed this measure, and their lordships were told that nothing was left for them but to record and register the decree of the house of commons. He moved, therefore, that “this bill be rejected.” Lords Mulgrave and Mansfield followed..... the former in support of, and the latter against the bill. After which Lord Wharncliffe, lest his motion should be interpreted as an insult to the house of commons, begged leave to withdraw his motion, and to propose in its stead that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After some discussion this alteration was allowed, and the debate was resumed by Lord Winchilsea, who opposed the bill. Lord Melbourne supported the measure, and the Duke of Wellington opposed it. After some introductory remarks, the duke referred to language which Earl Grey had uttered concerning the house of commons in 1817. His words were—“Constituted as it now is, I in my conscience believe that the house of commons is, of all institutions, in all countries of the world, the best calculated for the general protection of the subject.” In 1830 he (the Duke of Wellington) had pronounced an opinion in parliament on the subject of reform, of which the noble earl disapproved. What he said was, that he approved of the constitution of parliament; and if he were to invent a constitution for parliament over again, he would endeavour to frame one like it, in which property should preponderate. The noble earl had said that it was this sentence which had created the spirit of reform now pervading the country. It was not so; the spirit of reform had originated with the French revolution. Ever since the American war, the minds of the people had been occasionally disturbed by the spirit of reform; and when any insurrection grew up in Europe, a desire for reform was sure to be exhibited. Concerning the measure before the house, the noble duke asked whether it was founded on the principles of the constitution? He thought not; he thought the bill violated both the principles and practice of the constitution. It went to establish a new system of representation in every county, borough, and town in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the two universities. The town representation would be placed in the hands of close, self-elected committees, like that which had appointed itself in the metropolis at the close of the last session, and which dissolved itself only in consequence of the notice which its proceedings had attracted in parliament. The undue enlargement of the powers of the town constituency would entirely destroy the balance of the agricultural representation of the counties. The towns already exercised an extraordinary influence in the election of county representatives, and the evil would be aggravated tenfold by the clause of the bill which gave votes to leaseholders and copyholders. The noble duke entered into the details of the measure at great length, and concluded by eulogising the constitution as it now existed. Under it, he said, we enjoyed the largest commerce, and the most flourishing colonies in the world. There was not any country in the universe in which so much happiness, so much prosperity, and so much comfort, were diffused amongst all the various classes of society; none in which so many and such large properties, both public and private, were to be found as in England. There was not a position in Europe in any degree important for military purposes, or advantageous for trade, which was not under our control, or within our reach. All these great and numerous advantages we possess, he added, under the existing system; but it will be impossible to retain them if we once establish a wild democracy, a complete democratic assembly under the name of a house of commons. On the two following evenings the principal speakers for the bill were Lords Lansdowne, Goderich, and Plunkett; and against it, Lords Dudley and Ward, Haddington, and Carnarvon. The fifth and last night of the debate was begun by Lord Wynford, who was followed by Lord Eldon, who condemned the measure as subversive of the right of property as well as of the monarchy, and of every principle acknowledged by the constitution. Lord Eldon concluded his speech by warning their lordships of the danger of conceding the terms required; and by declaring that if the measure passed, there would be an end to the monarchy. The lord-chancellor, after taking a review of the courses taken by the opponents of the bill, denied that the bill was founded upon population, and not property. Lord Lyndhurst resisted the bill because it appeared to him inconsistent with the prerogative of the crown, and with the authority of their lordships; but, above all, because it was detrimental to the rights and liberties of the people. The bill was opposed by Lord Tenterden and the Archbishop of Canterbury, both of whom expressed their belief that it would have a mischievous tendency. The Duke of Sussex supported it; but the Duke of Gloucester, although desirous of temperate reform, opposed it, as he conceived it to be a scheme for a new constitution. Lord Grey, in reply, complained that the opposition to the measure seemed to be carried on, less with a view to defeat the bill, than to drive its advocates from office. He repeated that he was pledged to this measure, or to one of equal extent; and said, that if a more moderate scheme would satisfy the people, he would not be the person to introduce such a measure. As to what course he should follow if defeated, he could not say; but he should be culpable if he were to resign his office and abandon his king, so long as he could be of use to him; for he was bound to him by gratitude as great as ever subject owed a sovereign. The house at length divided; and the bill, which had occupied so much of the attention of parliament during this session, and for which the people had long been earnestly striving, was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and fifty-eight.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October. When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;—“That while this house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted the best interests of the country.” The motion was supported by Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that, as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law. Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be required to secure a triumphant majority. “The people,” it was said, “have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons; why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the other house?” The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and unfounded. If agreed to, it was said, it would only be a repetition of former votes. Lord Althorp said that the motion was made without any suggestion on the part of ministers. For himself, unless he felt a reasonable hope that a measure equally efficient would be brought forward and carried, he would not remain in office a single hour. The opponents of reform had gained a great triumph, and might rejoice in their success; but he did not think that any great triumph would be eventually gained; he was confident that the measure was only postponed. If the people of England remained firm and determined, but peaceable, he hoped and believed that there would be ultimate and speedy success. There was only one chance of failure; namely, if their disappointment led them into acts of violence, or to unconstitutional measures of resistance. The motion was earned by a majority of three hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and ninety-eight.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The rejection of the reform bill produced an extraordinary sensation throughout the country. Meetings were instantly convened in the metropolis. One was held at the Thatched-house Tavern, consisting of all the members who had supported the bill in its passage through the commons. The common-council also promptly assembled; and this was followed by a meeting at the Mansion-house of merchants and bankers, who passed resolutions approving of the conduct of government, and pledging themselves to its support. Petitions were also carried to the king, praying him to continue his ministers, and have recourse to a new creation of peers, sufficient in numbers to carry the bill. The lord-mayor and corporation went to St. James’s with an address to the throne, and the civic procession was joined in its route by such numerous bodies with similar addresses, that, before it reached the palace, it consisted of more than 500,000 persons. Soon after their arrival the parochial deputies waited on Lord Melbourne, who prudently advised them to commit their addresses to the county members for presentation at the levee. This was announced to the multitude by Mr. Hume, who, while he exhorted them to be firm and united, advised them to be peaceable, and to disperse immediately, so that no advantage might be given to the enemies of reform. Mischief, however, was on foot. The mansions of the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Bristol, and that of Earl Dudley, were attacked, and were only saved from destruction by the timely interference of the police. The Marquis of Londonderry and the Duke of Cumberland were personally attacked in the park; and the latter would probably have been killed had not the police rescued him. In the country, also, violence and outrage became the order of the day. At first they were confined to the counties of Derby and Nottingham, at the latter of which places the mob set fire to the castle, the seat of the Duke of Newcastle, one of the sternest opposers of the reform bill. The house of Mr. Masters, also, in the vicinity, was sacked and pillaged; and his wife died in consequence of being obliged to seek shelter under the bushes of a shrubbery in a cold and rainy October night. In both houses of parliament ministers loudly expressed their disapprobation of such proceedings; but they were charged by their opponents with having indirectly encouraged the rioters by the language they had used, and the connexion in which they had placed themselves with large bodies of men acting illegally. While the bill was before the lords a meeting of political unions took place at Birmingham; and this assembly voted an address to the king, setting forth their alarm “at the awful consequences” which might arise from the failure of the bill; their pain at imagining the house of lords so infatuated as to reject it; and their earnest desire that his majesty would create as many peers as might be necessary to carry the measure. The most violent and threatening language was uttered by the speakers at this meeting; and one of the resolutions agreed to was a vote of thanks to Lords Althorp and John Russell. This was answered in these courteous terms:—“I beg to acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the undeserved honour done me by 150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment, and I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of faction should prevail against the voice of a nation.” This courteous reply to a body of demagogues was severely deprecated in the house of commons, especially by Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Vyvyan, and Sir Charles Wetherell. In the meantime the spirit of insubordination seemed to increase. At Croydon the Archbishop of Canterbury was grossly insulted while presiding over a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and in Somersetshire the bishop of the diocese was attacked when engaged in the solemn ceremony of consecrating a new church. Several other obnoxious prelates were burned in effigy. But these were trifles compared with the devastation committed at Bristol, when its recorder. Sir Charles Wetherell, arrived there late in October, on his official duties. He had no sooner opened his commission than he was attacked with such violence by the mob, that he was compelled to seek for safety by flight and disguise. Even his departure did not stop the mad fury of the populace. The episcopal palace, the mansion-house, the excise-office, with great part of Queen’s Square, fell a sacrifice to the flames. A large number of warehouses, also, many of which were filled with wine and spirits, shared in the conflagration. The soldiers had been sent out of the city, but they were compelled to be recalled; and as parties of them arrived, tranquillity was restored. The total number of killed and wounded amounted nearly to one hundred; and about two hundred were taken prisoners during the outrages, while others were captured afterwards with plundered property in their possessions. About the same time partial disturbances broke out at Bath, Coventry, and Worcester; but these being vigorously opposed by the municipal and military powers, were speedily checked. A proclamation was finally issued by his majesty in council on the 2nd of November, exhorting all classes of his subjects to unite in suppressing tumults. As winter advanced, however, the alarm of the executive government increased, and serious apprehensions were entertained lest the peace of the country should be endangered by the formidable associations which everywhere existed, and especially by those in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. These associations began even to appoint councils and officers, and to assume a regular plan of organization. The rapid increase of unions at length made it necessary that some steps should be taken to lay them under restraint; and the Gazette of the 22nd of November contained a proclamation, declaring their illegality, and warning all subjects of the realm against entering into such combinations. About the same time a special commission was appointed to try the Bristol rioters, and the result was that eighty-five were convicted: five were left for execution, but four only suffered the extremity of the law. A military court of inquiry was also instituted on the conduct of the officers commanding at Bristol, and a court-martial was appointed on Colonel Brereton and Captain Warrington. The former, overcome by his feelings, and the weight of evidence against him, destroyed himself, and the latter rested his defence for his neglect in suppressing the riots, and preserving the buildings, on the want of directions from Colonel Brereton, and of assistance from the city magistrates, the head of whom purposely concealed himself when his presence was needed; whilst all the aldermen excused themselves for not accompanying the soldiers, by their inability to ride on horseback. General Sir Charles Dalbiac, however, the crown-prosecutor, laid it down as a fundamental principle of the common law:—“That if the occasion demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the advice or sanction of a magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to act on his own responsibility, in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous assembly; and whatever may be done by him honestly, in the execution of that object, he will be justified and supported by the common law. That law acknowledges no distinction between the private citizen and the soldier, who is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation, and invested with the same authority to preserve the king’s peace as any other subject.” Later in the year commissions were issued to try the rioters at Nottingham and Derby.

During all this time Ireland continued in a most distracted state. Associations were promoted in the country by Mr. O’Connell for the repeal of the union, until at length the magistrates dispersed one of his meetings, and apprehended the great agitator and his accomplices for illegal acts. True bills were found against them by the grand jury, and Mr. O’Connell put in a demurrer; but withdrew it, and pleaded not guilty. After several attempts to delay the trial, he withdrew that plea, also, and pleaded guilty to the first fourteen counts in the indictment respecting the holding of meetings in contempt of proclamations. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, distinctly stated in the house of commons, in answer to a question put by the Marquis of Chandos, that he and his accomplices would be brought up for judgment; but this promise was never fulfilled, and many discussions took place in parliament, as to whether government had made any compromise with the agitators. Ministers denied that such was the case; and that they were not brought up for judgment is perhaps sufficiently accounted for by the state of both England and Ireland. In the latter country the disturbances toward the close of the year greatly increased. In the counties of Clare, Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary, all law was trampled under foot; murder, robbery, and searching for arms by bodies of men were the ordinary occurrences of every day. The lord-lieutenant made a progress through the disturbed counties in the vain hope that his presence would restore tranquillity; but things remained in the same state on his return to Dublin as before his departure from thence. More vigorous measures were afterwards adopted: proclamations were issued in several counties applying the insurrection act to them, and a special commission was sent down to try all offenders captured. A great number of miserable creatures were convicted, but few individuals suffered the last penalty of the law. But notwithstanding these trials, the outrages in Ireland lost little of their horrors. The refusal to pay tithes became general; and many frightful collisions occurred between the peasantry and the authorities which endeavoured to repress their lawless proceedings, The law was, in fact, powerless; and whenever the officers of the law interfered, open war was declared against them.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 3rd of October the chancellor of the exchequer laid his view of finance for the year before the house of commons. This was the second statement within the year; for the original budget was a failure, and his lordship had been driven to the necessity of changing his operations. His present statement was that the total amount of receipts for the present year would be £47,250,000, and the expenditure £46,756,221. He had, he said, to allow for £200,000 more received from the account of the last year, so that he would take the surplus of revenue over expenditure at £493,000. He begged to observe that this surplus was larger than he had anticipated in February last, notwithstanding he had not succeeded in carrying several of the taxes he had proposed. In the customs there had been a falling off this quarter; but he had grounds for concluding that it would not continue. In regard to the sinking-fund, he said, that, at the commencement of each quarter, he had taken an average of the four preceding quarters, and that sum he had applied to the reduction of the debt in the succeeding quarter, if the revenue was not clearly falling. The act allowed the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt to apply the surplus to the purchase of exchequer-bills, as well as stock; and since the revenue had been diminished so much by the reduction of taxes, the surplus had been applied in the purchase of such bills. He had done this in order to diminish the number of securities in the hands of the bank; and although the plan was operose, the effect was, that the debt was not reduced, unless there was a real surplus of revenue.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The king prorogued parliament on the 20th of October, in person. On the one all-absorbing topic, that of reform in parliament, he remarked:—“In the interval of repose which may now be afforded to you, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to recommend to you the most careful attention to the preservation of tranquillity in your respective counties. The anxiety which has been so generally manifested by my people for the accomplishment of a constitutional reform in the commons house of parliament, will, I trust, be regulated by a due sense of the necessity of order and moderation in their proceedings. To the consideration of this important question the attention of parliament must necessarily again be called at the opening of the ensuing session; and you may be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in combination with those of the other orders of the state, are essential to the support of our free constitution.” Parliament was prorogued to the 22nd of November, but subsequently by proclamation to the 6th of December.

CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV.

The coronation of William IV. took place on the 8th of September. The ceremony was shorn of the grotesque pageantry of chivalric times, and was confined to the interior of the abbey. The royal procession moved in state carriages from St. James’s Palace, and was escorted by the cavalry. His majesty was saluted with hearty cheers from the multitude, such as greeted his father in the most palmy days of his reign. His majesty, the first naval king that ever sat on the British throne, was dressed in an admiral’s uniform. As the procession passed, the bands which were stationed at different points played the national anthem, which tended to excite the enthusiasm of the people. In conformity with precedents, the coronation was distinguished by the grant of new honours. Three marquesses, four earls, and fifteen barons were created; and this increase of the peerage was afterwards succeeded by the addition of twenty-eight names to the list of baronets of the United Kingdom, for the express purpose of carrying the reform bill.

OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, ETC.

The ceremony of opening new London Bridge took place on the 1st of August. It was honoured by the presence of their majesties, who partook of a banquet in a pavilion erected on the bridge. On the day following, another exhibition of royalty took place in the procession of their majesties to the house of lords, that the king might give his assent to the queen’s dower bill. On the same day, in consequence of a royal message, delivered by Earl Grey, the importance of making a further provision to support the honour and dignity of the Princess Victoria, as presumptive heiress of the crown, was taken into consideration. It appeared that, in consequence of Prince Leopold’s election to the throne of Belgium, £6000 per annum, which he had hitherto allowed his sister and niece, had been withdrawn. Lord Althorp made a similar statement in the commons; and he proposed an addition of £10,000 per annum to the income of the duchess, which resolution was agreed to _nem. con_.

RAVAGES OF THE CHOLERA.

While the country was in the disturbed state described in previous pages, its confusion was increased by the appearance of the cholera morbus. This frightful malady first appeared on the banks of the Ganges, in 1817. The early manifestations of it consisted in violent vomitings and discharges of the bowels. After this, spasmodic contractions, beginning in the fingers, gradually extended themselves to the trunk; the pulse sank; the skin became cold; the lips, face, neck, hands, and feet, and soon after the thighs, arms, and surface assumed a leaden, blue, purple, black, or deep brown tint, according to the complexion of the individual, or the intensity of the attack. The fingers and toes were reduced in size; the skin and soft parts covering them became wrinkled, shrivelled, and folded; the nails assumed a bluish, pearly white hue; the larger superficial veins were marked by flat lines of a deeper black; the pulse became small as a thread, and sometimes totally extinct; the voice sunk into a whisper; the respiration was quick, irregular, and imperfect; and the secretion of urine was totally suspended. Death took place often in ten or twelve, and generally in eighteen or twenty hours after the appearance of well-founded symptoms. Many were the thousands who perished by this visitation in India; the cities of Decca and Patna, the towns of Balasore, Burrishol, Burdavan, and Malda suffered greatly, and throughout the Gangetic Delta the population was sensibly diminished. The scourge was extended eastward along the coast of the Asiatic continent, and through the islands of the Indian Ocean, to China and to Timor. Before the end of 1827, it had traversed the Molucca islands, and the island of Timor, and continuing for several years to ravage the interior of China, it had, by 1827, passed to the north of the great wall, and had desolated some places in Mongolia. In the meantime, also, it extended to the west. Bombay, Persia, Asiatic Turkey, Russia, Poland, Austria, and Prussia, all experienced the dreadful visitation, from 1818 to 1831. Precautions had been taken in England, by enforcing quarantine regulations, to protect the country from the malady; but notwithstanding, in the month of October of this year, it made its appearance in Sunderland. Before the close of the year, it found its way from Sunderland and Newcastle to the suburbs of the metropolis. At first its outrages were generally confined to the victims of intemperance; but it soon began to attack patients of all descriptions, and to spread from the capital into the provinces. Scarcely any part in the empire, eventually, escaped the fearful scourge, but its inflictions, probably by reason of the habits of the people, and the nature of the climate, were less violent than in the other nations which it had visited. A board of health was established, which made a daily report of cases. Concerning the disease, there was great contrariety of opinion among medical men. The main points on which they differed were as to whether the disease was contagious or not; whether it was the Asiatic cholera or a new complaint; whether it was imported or indigenous; and whether it partook of the properties of the plague, or was to be regarded as a transient scourge. The ratio of deaths in England was found to be about one to three. Some places were entirely free from its ravages, although it was raging near, which gave rise to an opinion that its propagation was extended by currents in the air.

“God proclaims His hot displeasure against foolish men, That live an atheist life; involves the heaven In tempests; quits his grasp upon the winds, And gives them all their fury; bids a plague Kindle a fiery boil upon the shin, And putrefy the breath of blooming health. He calls for famine, and the meagre fiend Blows mildew from between his shrivelled lips, And taints the golden ear. He springs his mines, And desolates a nation at a blast.”

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

In France, this year was likewise distinguished by tumults. In Paris and Lyons especially there were great disturbances; and at the latter place the riot of workmen advanced to such a height that the Duke of Orleans, accompanied by Marshal Soult, was dispatched thither with extraordinary powers to quell the revolt. In the Netherlands, after Prince Leopold had accepted the crown, which he did in the month of June, Holland, on the 1st of August, declared the armistice to be at an end, and prepared to enforce by arms the rights which Europe had, on a former occasion, declared to belong to the king of that country. A Dutch army entered Belgium, and routed the Belgian forces at Hasselt and Louvain, which latter city it captured. This army, however, subsequently retired before a large French force which arrived at Brussels for the defence of the country. The marches of the Dutch and French armies became a subject of debate, in consequence of which the French troops were recalled. Another set of articles was framed by the conference, which declared that the acceptance of them should be compulsory. Belgium readily accepted them, but they were rejected by Holland. After this, a treaty was signed between the five powers and Leopold, who was recognized by them as King of Belgium; but the Dutch plenipotentiaries entered a strong protest against this instrument, feeling a certainty of being aided in their pretensions by some of the contracting powers, and by a strong party even in Great Britain. The state of possession however, at the close of the year, remained undisturbed; the King of Holland having declared that, although he would not desist from his military armaments, he would employ them at present only for the purposes of defence. In Spain, this year two attempts at insurrection were made; but they were followed by defeats, arrests, and executions. In Portugal, where Don Miguel’s cruelties continued unabated, the hopes of the constitutionalists were revived in the return of Don Pedro, with his daughter. Donna Maria, to Europe, and his preparations for a descent on Portugal. Don Miguel made every exertion to put the forts of the Tagus into a state of complete preparation to repel the expected attack; but all his efforts were weakened by the want of money; and at the close of the year his usurped throne was in danger of being overthrown. Insurrections were also, this year, prevalent in Italy. They occurred in Parma, Modena, and the Papal States, and were put clown by Austrian interference. Greece, during the same period, for whose pacification the powers of Europe had laboured so long, was a scene of violence and war. The popularity of Capo d’Istria, either from his too great attachment to Russian interests, or from the jealousy and discontents of the chiefs, unused to control and jealous of power, had rapidly declined. In consequence of this he became suspicious and tyrannical; and before the year closed he lost his life by assassination. This year was fatal to the liberty of Poland. Driven to insurrection by the faithless and tyrannical conduct of Nicholas, betrayed by France, deserted by England, and persecuted in their low estate by Austria and Prussia, the Poles, after heroically struggling with the armies of Eussia, were finally subdued. Warsaw was captured; the Polish armies disbanded; the nobles degraded; and thousands of every rank, age, and sex subjected to the most cruel punishments, and the nationality of the country destroyed, so far as human ingenuity could accomplish so fell a destruction. Poland rose for a desperate struggle against the Russian giant, and astonished the world with its prowess; but it proved unequal to stem the crushing movements of the Muscovites.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

The British parliament reassembled on the 6th of December. During the recess, ministers had been urged by their reforming adherents to reintroduce the reform bill without delay; and it became evident, from his majesty’s speech, that this subject would become the absorbing topic of the next session. His majesty distinctly stated his views on the subject of reform in the opening of the speech, thus:—“I feel it to be my duty, in the first place, to recommend to your most careful consideration the measures which will be proposed to you for a reform in the commons house of parliament; a speedy and satisfactory settlement of this question becomes daily of more pressing importance to the security of the state, and to the contentment and welfare of my people.” The other parts of the speech referred to the distress which prevailed; to the appearance of the cholera morbus; to the agitation prevailing in Ireland; to the Portuguese affairs; to the separation of the states of Holland and Belgium; to a convention entered into with the king of the French for the suppression of the slave-trade; to the estimates; and to the recent riots. The address did not produce any division, but several parts of it were objected to in both houses. In the lords, the principal matter of discussion was found in those parts of the royal speech which regarded the foreign policy of the government, the opposition particularly objecting to that part of the address in answer to it which expressed satisfaction that an arrangement had been made for the separation of the states of Holland and Belgium. At the suggestion of Lord Harrowby the paragraph was slightly altered, so as to meet the views of all parties. In the commons, Sir Charles Wetherell brought under notice that part of the speech which related to the riots at Bristol, in the course of which he made some severe remarks on the libels of the press, which had charged him with being the author of those events; the charge was false, he said, in all its parts, and known to be false by those who made it. Sir Robert Peel proposed the same alteration in that part of the address that related to the affairs of Holland and Belgium, which Lord Harrowby had suggested in the upper house, and it was adopted. In his speech, besides adverting generally to the other topics in the address, he protested against a precedent now established, that of assembling parliament for the dispatch of business without giving the usual notice. He admitted that, by the letter of the law, government was entitled to call parliament together after fourteen days’ notice; yet it was laid down by the highest authority that, up to the period when the old law was altered, it was deemed of high importance that forty days’ notice should be given of the meeting of parliament. Of the allusion in the speech and address to the necessity of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the reform question, Sir Robert said that he would not object to it, as ministers had declared that it was not intended to express any pledge. He would candidly avow, however, that he despaired of seeing the question brought to a speedy and satisfactory settlement. In the different discussions on the reform bill, ministers had agitated principles which did not admit of any satisfactory settlement. It was his conscientious belief, indeed, that the principles of the bill were so many impediments to the settlement of the question, which the ministers themselves had not the capacity to remove. In reply, Lord Althorp justified the short notice on which parliament had been called together, by the circumstances of the country. Mr. Hume made some remarks on the distress of the country, which he connected with the paper currency, and he moved this amendment:—“That in the present critical and alarming state of the country, when trade and manufactures were reduced to such difficulties by the withdrawing of, and narrowing the circulation, without a proportionate reduction of taxation, by which the means of all but those who lived upon the taxes were reduced one-half in value, the greatest distress existed; that these were aggravated by the baleful system called free-trade, by which a competition of foreign silks, gloves, and other articles was permitted with our own manufactures; that by these means the people were driven to desperation and frenzy, and that to these causes were to be attributed those incendiary proceedings going on in the country; that for these reasons the house do adjourn, to give time to ministers to prepare a suitable address, taking proper notice of the state and condition of the country.” Mr. Hume said that he did not move this amendment to get rid of the address, but to give ministers time to consider whether they would not depart from the practice of making the address a mere echo of the speech. No member, however, would second the amendment, and therefore it fell to the ground.

NEW REFORM BILL.

On the 12th of December, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a new reform bill. He first called upon the house to remember Earl Grey’s declaration on the rejection of the former bill in the house of lords—namely, that he remained in office only with the view of bringing forward another and no less efficient measure of reform. The principles of the two measures, he said, were the same—any alterations which had been made left its efficiency unimpaired. He conceived that, as a resolution had been passed by the house of commons in favour of the last measure, it was only necessary to explain the alterations in the present bill, which alterations regarded the manner of carrying into effect principles already adopted by the house. These principles consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed and inconsiderable boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent towns; and the introduction of a general new electoral qualification. As regards the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs, the former bill had taken the census of 1821 as the rule, and had fixed on a certain amount of population, disfranchising all those whose population did not at that time reach the amount. Since that time a new census had been taken. This census could not be thrown out of view, but, at the same time, it was liable to objection, having been taken after a particular point of population had been fixed as that of disfranchisement, it was not improbable that pains had been taken to raise certain boroughs above the line of disfranchisement. Ministers had, therefore, rather taken the number of houses than that of inhabitants, it being less likely that improper practices would be adopted in regard to the former than to the latter. It had been found difficult, he continued, to draw a line which should mark where the census should be attended to, and where it was to be disregarded. Ministers had used every effort to obtain a correct account of the size and importance of the boroughs which were to be abolished; and on the data they had obtained schedule A of the new bill was to be founded. The drawing of the line at which disfranchisement should stop, he said, must necessarily be arbitrary, whether the population, the houses, or the amount of the assessed taxes, or the number of boroughs, was to be taken into consideration. It had appeared to ministers that the number which had been fixed last session to be disfranchised was proper, and therefore they proposed to strike off fifty-six, the number which stood in schedule A of the former bill. The consequence of this was that some of the boroughs which formerly escaped disfranchisement in consequence of the population of their parishes being large, though the boroughs themselves were inconsiderable, would now be placed in schedule A, whilst others would be raised out of it, and placed in schedule B. Another part of the disfranchising clauses of the bill regarded the boroughs in schedule B, which were to be deprived of only one of their two members. Ministers had now resolved to give an additional member to a certain number of boroughs in this schedule, taking the number to be included in it to be forty-one, as it had been fixed last session, and dividing the rest of the twenty-three members, with two exceptions, among the newly enfranchised towns which, under the late bill, were to have only one representative.

Of the twenty-three members required to fill up the numbers of the house, it was proposed that ten should be given to the most considerable towns in schedule B, one to Chatham, so as to render it independent of Rochester, and another to the county of Monmouth, from which there had been several petitions, stating that there was only one district of boroughs in that county, although its population exceeded 100,000. The rest of the twenty-three, he continued, were given to the large towns to which the late bill gave one representative each. The consequence of all this was, that there would be only thirty boroughs in schedule B, instead of forty-one, and that in schedule C. instead of twelve members, there would be forty-two: instead of ninety-six places, as by the old bill, there would be only forty-nine returning one representative each. His lordship next proceeded to the ten-pound qualification clause. As it stood in the last bill, he said, the right of voting in boroughs was to be enjoyed by occupiers of houses assessed to the house-duty, or poor-rates at ten pounds, or rented, or of the annual value of the same; but then this right was afterwards limited thus:—that no one whose landlord compounded for the rates should be entitled to vote unless he claimed to be rated in his own name, and that no one should be entitled to vote for airy premises, unless he had occupied them for twelve calendar months, and had not been in the receipt of parochial relief during that time. He now proposed that every one who occupied a lease of the value of ten pounds should have a right to vote in behalf of it, provided he was rated,—not that he should be rated at ten pounds, but that he should be assessed to the poor-rates, and then the only question to be decided would be, whether he was the occupier of a house or a warehouse of the stated value. It would also be enacted, that any person who was not rated to the poor-rates might demand to be placed upon them, and being so placed upon them, might claim to be put on the registry. In other matters, his lordship said, connected with the right of voting, the present bill would be found to differ from the last, though most of what stood in the latter was still allowed to remain. Thus the former bill had allowed the right of voting to freemen during the lives of those now in possession; the present bill did the same, but it went a step further, in preserving the rights of freemen, acquired by birth or servitude, for ever. Another change related to officers, about which some difficulty arose in the committee on the late bill: it was this, that in any case where his majesty might grant a charter of incorporation to any of the new boroughs to be created by the bill,—such as those in schedule C,—it was intended that the mayor or other chief officer of such corporation should be returning officer of such borough. It was thought much better, he said, to unite the voters in such boroughs in a corporate form on liberal principles, the same as those of London and other places, than to leave them the right of voting without such corporate form. Another right reserved in the bill related to the rights of freeholders in cities being counties in themselves. Freeholders were of three classes: some voted in the county at large; others only for the county of the city or borough; and others did not vote for either. It was intended that the voters for counties at large should remain undisturbed, and those who voted for the county of the city would also be allowed to continue that vote, but those who by the former bill were not to be allowed to vote for either place would now be allowed to vote for the county in which the city or borough happened to be situated. Lord John Russell added in conclusion, that by the late bill commissioners were appointed to make inquiries, and to ascertain the limits of boroughs, and that the reports of these commissioners would be laid before parliament, for it to determine the limits of each. In consequence of the inquiries of these commissioners a mass of information had been obtained, which he hoped to be able to lay before the house soon after the Christmas recess. There were other alterations of minor importance, he said, in the bill, and some verbal changes, but it was not necessary to allude to them, as the discussion of these would be more proper in the committee. Sir Robert Peel said that in one thing there must be an unanimous feeling on all sides—that of gratitude at the escape which the country had had from the bill of the last session, a danger which he had not till now fully appreciated. The new bill, he contended, was a full and complete answer to the calumnies of which they had heard so much in the last session against the factious delays, as they were then called, of those who sought to introduce some of those very modifications now adopted by the noble lord who brought forward the former measure. There was scarcely an amendment in schedule A which had been offered from the opposition side of the house which had not been adopted. The principle of population was abandoned; and the preservation of the rights of freemen, which the opposition had vainly struggled to introduce last session, was now voluntarily urged by the noble lord, as an improvement in his new plan of reform. He would not stop to inquire, he said, why when five boroughs were taken out of schedule A as many more should be added, so as to make the number fifty-six; nor would he now examine why the number of boroughs having but one member each should be reduced from sixty-nine to forty-nine; nor would he enter into any inquiry as to the cause of the change in the right of voting in cities and counties; he left all these matters for future discussion;—but he must congratulate himself and his friends on the effect of the opposition which they made to the last bill. He was not surprised that the noble mover should have been so severe on the last bill; but he must say, that he was not prepared for such a sacrifice to the manes of the late parliament as the adoption of the resolution of General Gaseoyne, by keeping up the number of members undiminished. After all that had been said, both in and out of the house, as to the nature and the object of the opposition, it was declared to be the deliberate conviction of the king’s government, that the objections which the opposition took were well founded. He rejoiced for the sake of the character of those on that side of the house with whom he had the honour to act, that such a triumphant refutation was brought forward of the charges which had been made against them. He rejoiced, also, not only on account of the amendments which had been made in the details of the bill; but because, if the house should determine, on the second reading of the bill, to adopt the principle of the measure, and to make so extraordinary and extensive a change in the frame and constitution of the government of this country, he could not help thinking that when they approached the discussion of the details, there would be a disposition on the part of the majority of the house to follow the course of ministers, and to introduce more amendments into the measure. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, said that he could not recollect a question moved from the opposition side of the house with respect to any of the alterations which had since been made in the bill. Ministers had given their attention to every reasonable suggestion with regard to the details of the bill, and some of those alterations now proposed might have been pressed upon their consideration; but he did not remember that an opportunity had been given them last session to adopt such resolutions. The bill having been rejected, ministers had employed the interval which had since elapsed in endeavouring to remove all objections to the details of the measure, and in introducing such improvements as were consistent with its great principle; and yet, because they had done so, the right honourable baronet taunted them with unstable conduct. The giving up the clause regarding commissioners, he asserted, was the necessary consequence of the fact of the commissioners having now made their inquiry. Great alterations were said to have been made in schedule A: fifty-one boroughs out of fifty-six remained as before. The ten-pound clause, again, it was admitted, had not suffered from the alteration which had been introduced in it: the fact was, the clause had been merely simplified in its wording and provisions; in its practical effect it was precisely similar to that contained in the late bill. Some of the Irish members complained that injustice was done to Ireland in not allowing her a greater number of members: twenty-three additional members, it was said, had now been given to England, and eight to Scotland; and yet Ireland was still to receive only the one hundred and five which had originally been allotted her under very different circumstances. The bill, however, was read a first time without a division, and the second reading was fixed for the 16th; after which, Lord Althorp stated that the house would adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

On the 16th, on the motion being made that the bill be read a second time, Lord Porchester moved an amendment that it should be read a second time that day six months. He had hoped, he said, that ministers would have framed a bill which would have been generally acceptable. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment on the 17th. Sir E. Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better. There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first, and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed, nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore, the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which might, to a great extent, have met the ‘wishes of those who, like himself, were disposed to mitigate their opposition, if it could be done without sacrificing the principles for which they contended. He had been disappointed: and, therefore, notwithstanding the improvements made in the bill, he could not give it his support. He was satisfied that in principle, and in some of the details, this bill was dangerous: yet if members on the other side would declare their willingness to admit of further amendments, he would not be indisposed to give up the point of disfranchisement to a considerable extent, as being the point on which the popular feeling was most strongly excited; provided that, on the other hand, concessions were made in parts of the bill on which the public did not feel so strongly. Lord John Russell contended that it signified little whether they took away this or that number of nomination-boroughs; the time was gone by when any government could be earned on by means of their operation. It must be carried on under the control of the intelligent and respectable part of the community, which control would be provided by the bill. If the bill passed into operation, he had no doubt that men would be returned of sound views, and entitled to the confidence of the country. Sir C. Wetherell, on the other hand, maintained that while the present was the most unfit of all seasons to agitate reform, in consequence of the violent excitement into which the country had been thrown, that excitement itself was mainly attributable to ministers, who had fostered it for the express purpose of carrying the bill. Sir Robert again combated the details of the bill, arguing that they tended to the destruction of the British constitution. He added, in conclusion, “This bill, therefore, I shall oppose to the last, believing, as I do, that the people are grossly deluded as to the practical benefits which they have been taught to expect from it; that it is the first step, not directly to revolution, but to a series of changes which will affect the property, and alter the mixed constitution of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the house of lords; and that it will force on a series of further concessions. I will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because the opposition now made will oppose a bar to further concessions hereafter. If the whole of the house were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist future changes. On this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any well-considered reform of any of our institutions, which the well-being of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution, because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it, which are founded in prejudice, perhaps, as well as in higher sources of veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this; and I will wield all the power I possess to oppose the gradual progress of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to yield; for if we make those concessions, it will only lead to establish the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may be enabled to establish a republic full, I have no doubt, of energy—not wanting, I have no doubt, in talent; but in my conscience I believe fatal to our mixed form of government, and ultimately destructive of all those usages and practices which have long ensured to us a large share of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the proudest kingdom in the annals of the world.” The bill was supported by Sir H. Willoughby, Lord William Lennox, Messrs. Bulwer and Slaney, and other members, who all insisted on the absolute necessity of yielding, and of yielding precisely what was contained in the bill, because all the principles therein contained, and the extent to which they should be applied, had been submitted to the people, and had been adopted by them, with a determination which rendered resistance useless. On the other hand, the bill was opposed by Lord Mahon, Sir E. H. Inglis, and other members. It was stated that most members of the house had seen an address to the inhabitants of Leeds, signed “Thomas Babington Macaulay,” in which that gentleman stated that he by no means considered the bill as final, but that he looked upon it only as a step towards a more extended suffrage. The house divided on the morning of the 18th, which was Sunday, and the motion for the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and sixty-two. Immediately after the division, the house adjourned for the Christmas holidays, till the 17th of January.