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 Ellen-borough 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 counter-balancing, 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.

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which styled itself "a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster," assured the king, that, unless their advice was complied with, "tumult, anarchy, and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with the extinction of the privileged orders," The national political union resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed, no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground that it was taken from "that admirable resolution adopted by the house of commons in 1642." The national union also resolved "that the betrayal of the people's cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the lords of the treasury." The common-council met at Guildhall, and passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers, that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that "they viewed with distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical, to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform." The speeches at this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government, without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords, however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington. At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey's resignation had no sooner arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at New-hall Hill, and a petition was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: "Your petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any circumstances that may arise." Some of the inhabitants defied the laws of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed. Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May. The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of the people, felt, and their determination of having "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," be the cost what it might. At a public meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, "that military were marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military yoke?" He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also, was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that "extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on which such a ministry must be based." Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his majesty's commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington. The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king's service, he was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty's declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an "extensive reform" he assumed to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington's motion interposed insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill; office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst, therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the 17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter. The Duke of Wellington remarked:—"When his majesty found that he could not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman, whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics, to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place, my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government." Lord Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. "As far as I am myself concerned," he said, "I despise these calumnies. They may wound, however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of others, I hold them in the utmost scorn." Several noble lords, although they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and "dinned their lordships' ears" with denunciations of the measure, and declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently. There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships' table, unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved that "the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged." He added:—"Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work." The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of having received the king's request to that effect, and in consequence of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill. In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser. He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable. But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form. Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the bill? Earl Grey replied, "I do not feel myself called on to answer the questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that I wish to be bound only by what I state myself." Lord Wharncliffe rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord Wharn-cliffe's question, whether it was intended to create peers? but the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put, and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty's wish that they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves from the house when any important part of the measure to which they could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a new administration.



REFORM BILL PASSED.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833}

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and, as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house. The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst's suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that which was in the noble mover's mind. Schedule C was voted at the first sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed, with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by commission on the 7th of June.



IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed, those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant. Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued, it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose. The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs. Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O'Connell and Shiel defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and, instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also, half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O'Connell moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill? Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O'Connell's motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that "the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings, provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did net exceed two-pounds." This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground, that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property, and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O'Connell then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland. Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O'Connell and his party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr. O'Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland, and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed. In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr. Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and especially of Mr. O'Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill, and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of Irish members. Mr. O'Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing, as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr. Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had received the royal assent.



BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of August, moved for leave to bring in a bill "for allowing further time for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the present session to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales." This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case, it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject, however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the mischief might be remedied by substituting for "the 6th of April," in the 27th clause of the reform act, "the 25th of September last" for the payment of the poor rates, and the "10th of October last" for the payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on the 10th of August, by moving "that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the people in parliament." This motion was opposed by ministers, and was not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause. About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed, principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it, but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period, complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents, or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served. The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal, in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne, by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member's seat. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would arise from a government measure, government should introduce a remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the motion was negatived.



COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833}

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was this clause:—"In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint." Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state