Chapter XLII: {william IV. 1832–1833} (1)

_Reform Bill passed by the Commons..... Debates on the Reform
Bill in the Lords..... Disturbed State of the Nation.....
Re-assembling of Parliament..... Failure of the Attempts to
form a New Administration..... Ministers Recalled.....
Reform Bill passed..... Irish and Scotch Reform Bills
passed..... Bill to Prevent Bribery at Elections, &c.
Committees on Irish Tithes..... Financial Statements.....
Committee on the Charter of the East India Company, &c.
The Affairs of the West Indies..... Prorogation of
Parliament..... General Election..... Resignation of the
Speaker..... State of Ireland..... State of the Continent_

REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

{A.D. 1832}

When parliament reassembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th. Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee, Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the 24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said, that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them, while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker’s motion was negatived; and then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority. On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall “be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in this present parliament,” Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will; while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill, and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and propose that each county should return four members. He offered this suggestion _bona fide_, as an alteration that would simplify the operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected. As for Sir Robert Peel’s proposition, there was the great objection which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs, which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties, would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result with Sir Robert Peel’s proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough, and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum. Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now, although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion. By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained. Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed. Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties; but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A; but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place. No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members, moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population, wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr. Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy, Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand, maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved to allow the latter place a member of its own: “treating it,” he said, “rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough.” By the 9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that it should be read a third time that day six months.

The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool, and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived without a division.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

When the reform bill had been thus carried through the commons a second time, the reformers began again to be apprehensive of its fate in the upper house, and to bring again into operation their various engines of clamour and intimidation. It was industriously reported abroad that ministers had been armed with a _carte blanche_ for the creation of peers, in order to carry the measure; but though they did not deny it, it does not appear that any such power had been delegated to them. At all events the bill was laid before the house of lords without a single peer having been created, and it was read a first time on the 26th of March. The most important part of its reception consisted in the speeches of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had led the opposition of last session, but who now declared their intention to vote for the second reading. The Bishop of London was also so impressed with the dangers hanging over the country, that he resolved to follow this example. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Londonderry, expressed their undiminished aversion to the measure. The second reading was moved on the 9th of April, and the debate was continued up to the 13th. Before the discussion commenced, the Duke of Buckingham gave notice that if there should be, as he trusted there would be, a majority against the second reading of this bill, he would bring in, after the Easter recess, a bill for the purpose of giving representatives to such of the large towns therein to be named, whose importance entitled them to representation; and also for the purpose of joining and consolidating the representation of certain boroughs which now elected members, so as to make room for the new representatives without adding to the members of the house of commons, and to extend the franchise in such a way as to prevent its abuse in boroughs. In proof of his sincerity, his grace moved the insertion of this notice on the journals of the house.

In moving the second reading of the reform bill, Earl Grey said, that he considered himself almost relieved from entering into discussion of its principles, because there were few of their lordships who did not now recognise those principles, and admit that some degree of change was necessary. After briefly mentioning the nature of the bill, its interesting object, the large majority that had sent it from the commons to the lords, and the support it had received from the people, he proceeded to notice the Duke of Buckingham’s intended motion for reform. His very notice, he said, admitted all the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extension of the right of voting. He felt, therefore, justified in calling on the house to sanction the second reading of a measure founded upon a basis which was acknowledged to be just, even by those who opposed the measure itself; inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of proposing in the committee such alterations in its details as might appear necessary and expedient. The noble earl next proceeded to notice the alterations introduced into the bill, and to defend the ten-pound qualification from objections that had been raised against it. He concluded with an appeal to their lordships on the unjust attacks made on him for having proposed a measure which, in his opinion, was required by that duty which he owed to his sovereign and his country. He especially called their lordships’ attention to the awful silence on the part of the people now prevailing, and taking place of that outcry which first marked the progress of the bill. Silence, he said, might perhaps lead some to imagine that they were not viewing this measure with the same feelings of interest; but he cautioned their lordships against forming such an opinion. “Though the people are silent,” he added, “they are looking at our proceedings this night no less intensely than they have looked even ever since the question was first agitated. I know that it is pretended by many that the nation has no confidence in the peers, because there is an opinion out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separated from those of the people. On the part of this house, however, I disclaim all such separation of interests; and therefore I am willing to believe that the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still existing in their bosoms.” Lord Ellenborough opposed the motion for the second reading, and moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. His lordship admitted that the bill had passed the commons by a large majority, and that the majority was seconded by a large body of the people: but when he recollected how often material alterations had been made in the bill; that the qualification clause had been remodelled eleven times; that a town had been enfranchised at the very last moment; that among forty-six boroughs of the original bill there had been forty-seven changes; and that no such sweeping alteration had ever been made in the established constitution of a great country, he could not see any reason for adopting this last emanation of an ever-changing mind. There could be no doubt that there were many respectable persons whose opinions ought to be held in proper regard, who were anxious that some change should take place in our system of parliamentary representation. He contended, however, that if this bill passed it was clear, from the constituency which would be created by it, that parliament must be prepared to go further. It would be impossible, he said, to resist the demands of the most numerous and most necessitous class in the state: concession must proceed until universal suffrage was established. Lord Melbourne spoke briefly in favour of the bill, and the Bishop of Durham opposed it. At the same time, the latter said, he by no means considered that the rejection of the present measure implied a rejection of reform _in toto_; it was the duty of ministers to have proposed a measure calculated to satisfy both the party that was anxious for reform, and the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party. Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched, though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand, the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it. The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops. The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contrary, the opinion which more than another he was anxious to express was, that they should not treat the present bill as they had treated the last; that though they had then acted right in rejecting the bill, they would not be warranted to do so again; and that they could not hope again successfully to resist a measure which the house of commons had sanctioned a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which the people of England had expressed a decided opinion. It was for this reason that he had prepared a resolution by which the house would pledge itself, in the then next session, to take into serious consideration some plan for extending the franchise to his majesty’s subjects, and for correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of the constitution. He was on the point of moving this resolution, when he was persuaded by some noble friends that to do so then would do more harm than good; that it would be better to wait till the excitement of the public mind had been somewhat allayed before a more moderate measure of reform than that brought forward by ministers should be submitted to parliament. He yielded to the suggestion, hoping that the interval between the two sessions would afford the public and their lordships time to consider maturely the merits of the question, and that both would see that, if the ministers’ plan were adopted, it would prove injurious to all existing interests. In this he had been disappointed; there had been time enough to allow a reaction to have manifested itself; but it could not be denied that, notwithstanding the potent objections which had been urged against the bill, no such reaction had occurred. On these grounds, with others, his lordship said he would vote for the second reading. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, who said that he could not shift into the course which the Earl of Harrowby, and those who thought with him had adopted. Why he could not, he explained at great length; and he afterwards descanted at large upon the objections which he had to the bill itself. It was bad, he said, because it went to overturn the whole established system of representation; it destroyed for the mere pleasure of reconstructing: it totally revolutionised the representation of Scotland, and put an end to all the arrangements which, three years ago, had been entered into for the final settlement of the catholic question. It put an end, also, to that most valuable principle of our existing constitution—the principle of prescription—which sanctioned the descent, and secured the possession of all kinds of property in this country. It went to destroy a number of boroughs—some holding by prescription, and some by charter—and for no reason whatever, except that such was the will of the minister of the day. Lord Wharncliffe, who had moved the amendment which threw out the former bill, had now come to the conclusion that the danger of rejecting the bill was greater than that of taking it into consideration; and that, by going into committee they might get rid of those parts of it against which a strong objection was felt; and, at all events, would be enabled more thoroughly to weigh its provisions. The effect of rejecting the bill, in his opinion, would be to place all those who voted against the second reading in a perilous situation with the country. The Duke of Buckingham opposed the bill. His grace introduced no new argument, but urged the house at all costs to resist reform in every shape. He severely animadverted upon the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury, for attacking the constitution and the ministers of the protestant religion. The Bishops of Lincoln and Llandaff, who had opposed the last bill, now announced their intention of voting for the second reading; at the same time they did not pledge themselves to adopt the measure as a whole. On the other hand, the Bishop of Exeter announced his intention of giving the bill his decided opposition. His speech gave occasion to an angry episode, founded on a somewhat common occurrence. It was generally believed that the Times newspaper, which had recently distinguished itself by great abuse in favour of the bill, was not altogether excluded from the confidential communications of ministers. The Bishop of Exeter, in descanting on the tone and the temper of the press, spoke of some articles in this journal as “breathing the inspiration of the treasury.” On the following evening Lord Durham, son-in-law of the premier, assuming that he was the party pointed at, attacked what he called “the bishop’s gross and virulent invective—his malignant, calumnious, and false insinuations—his well-known powers of pamphleteering slang.” Here the noble lord was called to order, and the Earl of Winchelsea moved that the words “false insinuations” and “pamphleteering slang” should be taken down. After some observations from Earl Grey, Lord Holland, and the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his majesty’s ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution, in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions, he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives, and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own industry, they had as deep a stake in the country’ as any noble baron who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships. Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic, who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly incomes—revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might beat government on different clauses; but all that was done in the committee might be undone on bringing up the report. Lord Eldon, on the same side, said that no man was or could be an enemy to reform; but, he thought, the first duty of every peer was to consider whether what was proposed was or was not reform; whether it was a measure which the people ought to expect, and which would confer any additional happiness on those for whom it was intended. He had opposed reform for forty years, because he had seen no plan which, in his opinion, would improve the condition of the people: and this last was so vicious in its principles and details, that it would be impossible to carry it into effect with any safety to the institutions of the country. Lord Tenterden likewise declared his continued hostility to the bill; and he went so far as to say that he would never enter the doors of the house again if the bill should be carried, “after it had become the phantom of its departed greatness.” The Bishops of Rochester and Gloucester likewise expressed their determination to vote against the bill; and the latter took occasion to animadvert, with pointed but just severity, on the attack which had been made by the Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury on the ecclesiastical bench. The Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion, and Viscount Goderich spoke in favour of it. They were followed by the lord-chancellor, who referred to the petitions which had been addressed to the house, the resolutions adopted at public meetings of merchants and bankers, and the composition of the majorities and minorities in the house of commons, to show that the opinion of property, as well as of members, was in favour of the measure, and that the feeling of the people had in no degree subsided. Lord Lyndhurst said that he had not heard or seen anything to convince him that he had acted erroneously in voting against the principles of the former bill; and as the present bill was admitted to be the same, he should vote against the second reading. Earl Grey, in his reply, repeated the answers which had already been put forward to the views taken of the bill by its opponents, and denied the charge of having excited the country. On the subject of the threatened creation of peers, which had been so frequently alluded to, his lordship said that the best writers on the constitution admitted that, although the creation of a large number of peers for a particular object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet in some cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two houses, it might be absolutely necessary. For many reasons he was averse to such a scheme; but he believed it would be found that in a case of necessity, like that which he had stated, a creation of peers would be justifiable, and in accordance with the most acknowledged principles of our constitution. On a division, the second reading was carried in favour of ministers by a majority of nine, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-four against one hundred and seventy-five.

After the reform bill had been read a second time, the lords broke up for the Easter recess. Previous to their breaking up, however, the Duke of Wellington thought proper to enter a protest against the second reading on the journals. This protest embodied all the objections urged against the bill; and it was signed by seventy-four other peers, including the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester. The committee was appointed the first day after the Easter recess.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

The interval which elapsed before the reassembling of parliament was a very memorable one in the annals of the country. Every association and political union, tremblingly alive for the fate of the bill, was on the alert, it being conceived that it was in imminent clanger of being lost in committee. At Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, as well as throughout the south of England, meetings were held, at all of which resolutions were passed expressing confidence in Earl Grey and his colleagues; and petitions were got up to the king and the house of lords, beseeching them to pass the bill unmutilated. In the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford, all the associations agreed to meet at the foot of Newhall Hill, and an immense assembly was collected on the day appointed, when a petition to the house of lords was carried, “imploring them not to drive to despair a high-minded, generous, and fearless people; nor to urge them on, by a rejection of their claims, to demands of a much more extensive nature; but rather to pass the reform bill into a law, unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions, more especially uninjured in the clauses relating to the ten-pounds franchise.” At Birmingham, the council of the union declared its sittings permanent until the fate of the bill should be decided. In the metropolis, an extraordinary assembly of the national union took place. Mr. Hume was in the chair, and various resolutions were agreed to, all urging the necessity of the bill being passed without alterations; while a petition to the house of lords stated that, in case of its mutilation or rejection, “there was reason to expect that the payment of taxes would cease; that other obligations of society would be disregarded; and that the ultimate consequence might be the utter extinction of the privileged orders.”

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled after the Easter recess on the 7th of May. The house of lords then went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt having been made by the opposition to move any obstructions to it. In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the house would probably be inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the commons; namely, to dispose of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules for future consideration. He proposed that the number fifty-six should not be specified, but that their lordships should come to a successive vote on each individual borough as part of the clause. He thought this the best method of obviating objections which had been made to the clause as it now stood. Lord Lyndhurst, however, thought it would be still more convenient to postpone the consideration of the first clause altogether. If this were done, he should likewise propose the postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course for the purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places to be enfranchised—a matter which, he thought, ought to be discussed before the house entered on the question of disfranchisement. His lordship admitted that he considered the second reading of the bill to have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage; but he contended that the house was not fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory to intelligent reformers. He observed, that Lord John Russell had said on a previous day, “Let us first agree as to what towns shall be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose.” He would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore, he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six. There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that no such intention was entertained; if it were, he would not support it. It was his belief that the amendments which would be proposed would comprise the whole of schedule A. Earl Grey, however, asserted that nothing could have been devised better calculated to defeat the bill than this amendment; and he would state at once that, if it were carried, he would consider it fatal to the bill. He was pledged to the principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to listen to any suggestions which might be made with a view of preventing injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. His lordship also stated that he would resist with the most fixed determination any proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the effect of raising the qualification. These things being fixed, he was so far from considering the proposed motion of little consequence, that it appeared to him of the greatest importance. If it did not subvert the principle of the bill, it materially affected it; and therefore it was impossible that he should give it his assent. He was unable to understand why enfranchisement should be proceeded with before disfranchisement; he might reverse the proposition, and say, that the amount of enfranchisement could not be ascertained till the extent of disfranchisement was settled. A noble lord had expressed a hope that ministers would confide in the peers on the other side of the house, to grant a proper measure of reform to the people; had he observed any such disposition, no one would have been more ready than himself to have met it in a proper spirit; always recollecting that he was irrevocably fixed to the bill. Another noble lord had said, that if any alteration should be proposed which would defeat the principles of the bill, ministers might reckon upon many coming over to them from the opposite side: he could not rely on such a hope consistently with his duty to his king, his country, and himself. It was his opinion that if the present motion should be carried, there would be a difficulty in bringing the bill to a successful issue; and if it should, it would then be necessary for him to consider the course he should be constrained to adopt. At length the house divided, and ministers were left in a minority, the votes for Lord Lyndhurst’s amendment being one hundred and fifty-five, and those against it, one hundred and sixteen.

On this defeat of ministers, Earl Grey immediately moved that the house should resume; and stated that he would then move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till Thursday, the 10th. Lord Ellenborough expressed his regret that ministers should interpose delay; and took the opportunity of detailing the amendments which his party, after serious consideration, intended to propose. These consisted in a disfranchisement of one hundred and thirteen boroughs, their privileges to be distributed among other places; a prohibition of persons to vote for counties in respect of property situated in boroughs; the adoption of a clearer and more certain mode of ascertaining the genuineness and value of holdings; and the retention, not only of the ten-pound qualification, but of scot and lot where it existed.

Having postponed the further consideration of the bill, Earl Grey and the lord-chancellor proceeded to Windsor, and tendered his majesty the alternative of either arming the ministers with the powers they deemed necessary to enable them to carry through their bill—namely, a creation of peers—or of accepting their resignation. The ministers seem to have expected that he would have adopted the former alternative; but the king hesitated on account of the great number requisite, and the danger of such a precedent. He did not give his answer till the next day, when he informed Earl Grey that he had determined to accept his resignation rather than have recourse to the only alternative which had been proposed. Ministers then resigned _en masse_; and on the 9th Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, announced that the ministry was at an end, and that they held their offices only till their successors should be appointed. Earl Grey in doing so moved that the order for going on with the committee next day should be discharged; and he did not think it necessary to name another day for that purpose. The Earl of Carnarvon strenuously resisted this proposition: the house would not do its duty, he said, to the country or the sovereign, if it left them in this extraordinary state, by suspending so important a subject as reform. The motion for taking the committee on the following Monday was agreed to.

In the commons, on the announcement of the resignation of ministers, Viscount Ebrington gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king on the state of public affairs, and that he would likewise move a call of the house, that he might “guard against backsliders and time-watchers,” and show the people who were their honest and consistent representatives and who were not. In pursuance of this notice, on the 10th of May his lordship moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty the deep regret felt by this house at the change which has been announced in his majesty’s councils by the retirement of those ministers in whom this house continues to repose unabated confidence. That this house, in conformity with the recommendation contained in his majesty’s most gracious speech from the throne, has framed and sent up to the house of lords a bill for a reform in the representation of the people, by which they are convinced that the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured. That, to the progress of this measure, this house considers itself bound in duty to state to his majesty that his subjects are looking with the most intense interest and anxiety; and they cannot disguise from his majesty their apprehension that any successful attempt to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest disappointment and dismay. This house is therefore compelled, by warm attachment to his majesty’s person and government, humbly, but most earnestly, to implore his majesty to call to his councils such persons only as will cany into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for the reform of the representation of the people, which has recently passed this house.” The motion was opposed by Mr. Baring, who, before proceeding to speak against it, expressed a hope that Lord Althorp would give some explanation of the nature of that advice which ministers had tendered to the king, and his majesty’s refusal of which had led to their resignation. Lord Althorp declined answering, and Mr. Baring then went on to say that the house was thus left in utter ignorance. He asked on what facts, therefore, was the proposed address to be rested? Lord Althorp, in reply, said, that he had no objection to state plainly that the advice which ministers had given to the king was, that he should create as many peers as would enable them to carry the reform bill through the house of lords in all its efficiency. It was true he had treated a similar proposition to Lord Lyndhurst’s, when made in the house of commons, as a matter of small importance; but after the decision to which the lords had come, there was no hope left of carrying the measure. From that moment the bill had passed into the hands of its declared enemies; and ministers had to choose between two alternatives,—either to resign immediately, or to tender such advice as would place them in a situation in which they might be responsible for the further progress of the bill; they had adopted the latter alternative, and their advice having been rejected, all that was left them was to resign. Mr. Hume, in supporting the proposition, stated that it did not go far enough. Lord Morpeth supported, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. The latter said, that the first resolution implied a complete confidence in the existing government. He could not consent to this; with reference to the general course they had taken, he could not say that they deserved his confidence. With respect to the reform question, and with reference to some other points, he was decidedly opposed to the course which the government had pursued. Mr. Macaulay, in supporting the proposition, contended that the house had a right, with respect to the prerogative of the sovereign in the choice of his ministers, as with regard to all the other prerogatives of the crown, to offer its respectful advice. The prerogative vested in the crown of creating peers, for the purpose of carrying any public question, was a valuable and useful power, the existence of which was absolutely necessary, in order, on important questions, to obviate great and pressing inconveniences. He argued, also, that there existed a strong necessity for counterbalancing, by a creation of peers from the Whig party, the number of peers which, during the last forty years, had been made from the Conservative party. There could not be a strong objection to the creation of fifty peers in one day, when no objection had been raised to the creation of two hundred in the course of a generation by the one party that held power during that period. He heartily concurred in the advice which ministers had given to the king, and he regretted it had not been taken: unless ministers were recalled, the reform bill would be lost. On a division, the resolutions were carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-eight against two hundred and eight.

FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS RECALLED, ETC.