Chapter LXXXIX: Introduction: Of the Reform Bill (2)

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}