WILLIAM IV.

1830-1837.

Born 1765 = Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, 1818.

CONTEMPORARY PRINCES.

France. Austria. Spain.

Charles X., 1824. Francis II., 1792. Ferdinand VII., 1813.

Louis Philippe, 1830. Ferdinand, 1835. Isabella II., 1833.

Portugal. Prussia.

Miguel, 1828. Frederick-William III., 1797-1840.

Maria, 1834.

Russia. Denmark. Sweden.

Nicholas, 1825. Frederick VI., 1808-1839. Charles XIV., 1818-1844.

POPES.—Pius VIII., 1829. Gregory XVI., 1831.

Lord Chancellors. First Lords of the Treasury.

April 1827. Lyndhurst. Jan. 1828. Wellington.

Nov. 1830. Brougham. Nov. 1830. Grey.

Nov. 1834. Lyndhurst. July 1834. Melbourne.

April 1835. In Commission. Nov. 1835. Wellington.

Feb. 1836. Cottenham. Dec. 1834. Peel.

April 1835. Melbourne

Chancellors of the Exchequer. Secretaries (Foreign and Home).

Jan. 1828. Goulburn. Nov. 1830 { Palmerston.

Nov. 1830. Althorp. { Melbourne.

Nov. 1834. Wellington. July 1834 { Palmerston.

Dec. 1834. Peel. { Duncannon.

April 1835. Spring Rice. Nov. 1834 { Wellington.

{ Wellington.

Dec. 1834 { Wellington.

{ Goulburn.

April 1835 { Palmerston.

{ Russell.

Character of William IV.

It was perhaps fortunate that George IV. was succeeded by a man of very different character, whose simplicity and geniality speedily made him as popular as his brother had been the reverse. The little care with which he preserved the outward forms of dignity shocked the older Tories; the freedom with which he admitted men of both parties to his table and his Court seemed to promise a reign conducted on constitutional principles and without party bias on the part of the Crown. The popularity of the King was at the time of great importance, because the excitement of the days of July in France spread rapidly over Europe, especially in Belgium and Poland, and met with great sympathy in England. Had an unpopular monarch been upon the throne the Crown might easily have been involved in the quarrel with the people.

Effect of the July Revolution in Belgium and Poland.

In Belgium the revolutionary spirit assumed the form of a national desire on the part of the French-speaking Belgians to sever themselves from the Dutch kingdom to which they had been attached by the Treaties of Vienna. There was good ground for their discontent. The King of the Netherlands, a clever but injudicious man, had failed to fulfil his engagements, and had ruled entirely in the interests of the Dutch part of his kingdom. The liberty of the press granted by the constitution had been superseded by a royal ordinance, intended to be temporary, but still remaining in force; a judicial system by which the judges were the nominees of the Crown had superseded the enactments of the constitution, by which the judges were elective and irremoveable; the King had twisted the clause recommending to his care the interests of education to mean that education should be entirely in the power of the Crown; the French language had been proscribed in all public acts, and business had to be carried on in Dutch; an undue proportion of the taxes was laid upon Belgium, and Protestants were chiefly employed both in public and educational offices, though absolute equality of religions had been guaranteed. There is no need to explain the grievances of the Poles. Destroyed as a nation, divided recklessly among their powerful neighbours, it was only too natural that they should at once accept any hope of freedom.

Effect of the July Revolution in England.

In England the Revolution in France met with universal sympathy and admiration. Among those classes which of late years had been in a constant state of discontent, it was accepted as an example to be at once followed. But the orderly and self-restrained manner in which the change in France had been effected had a far different and more important effect than this. It seemed to show the possibility of great and thorough changes being carried out without the excesses which had hitherto accompanied revolutions, and had frightened the well-to-do middle classes from any co-operation with the more eager and innovating working-men. It seemed possible that the great question, which had been almost crushed by the French wars and by the lengthened tenure of office by the Tories, might be revived and brought to a successful conclusion without opening the flood-gates of social anarchy. Parliamentary reform was at once taken up by the Whigs and by the great middle class of England, who determined to try whether they could not win it in some less objectionable form than it had assumed in the hands of radical demagogues.

Position of Wellington's ministry.

In the midst of this renewed excitement both on the Continent and in England, the ministry of Wellington, cut off from its old friends and disowned by those whose policy it had been enforced to adopt, stood as representative of the bygone system. The minister, though he had already so frequently yielded to the pressure of circumstances, was regarded as the friend of Polignac, the fallen French minister. His foreign policy read by this light seemed to be directed entirely to uphold the principles which had actuated the Tory Government at the time of the Vienna Treaty. He was known to be at heart an enemy of all change, and his conduct was therefore watched at this crisis with extreme anxiety. It was felt at the time, and has since been confessed, that his ministry during the last session had existed only by the toleration of its enemies. With the death of the King the chief necessity for retaining the Duke in his position had disappeared, and the time seemed to have arrived for sweeping away the Government, which was merely obstructive and bent at the best in keeping things exactly as they were. The dissolution which necessarily followed the accession of the new King afforded the Duke's enemies the opportunity they required. In the midst of much excitement, for the reformers had already begun to cover the land with associations, the elections took place, with a result disastrous to Government. There was a loss of at least fifty Government seats. While the Liberals made extreme and successful efforts in places where the elections were open, the Tory proprietors of boroughs, in their hatred to Wellington, whom they regarded as their betrayer, brought in anti-ministerial nominees. The temper of the people was shown by the election of Brougham, voluntarily and without expense, to the representation of Yorkshire, by the loss of their seats by two brothers and a brother-in-law of Peel, undoubtedly the most important member of the Government after the Premier, and by the fact that of the eighty-two representatives of English counties not more twenty were ministerial. Such a change no doubt offered much hope for the peaceful and parliamentary character of the constitutional advance which it seemed now impossible to avoid.

Danger from O'Connell's agitation for repeal,

But there were still great dangers threatening the country. In Ireland O'Connell was spending all his energies in preaching the necessity of repeal, and heaping fierce and unmeaning words of hatred upon the ministry. He had re-established the Association under the name of "The Friends of Ireland," and when the Irish Government declared this illegal, it assumed a new form as the Society of Irish Volunteers. The lower classes were in a state of wild excitement, and their belief in their leader was not checked by the inconsistency with which he now extolled the Revolution in Belgium and in France, though hitherto, in his love of Catholicism, the Catholic and Jesuit-loving Bourbons had been the main subjects of his praise; nor did even the want of courage with which he refused to give satisfaction for the insults he had heaped on Lord Hardinge injure him with his followers. In October it was found necessary in Tipperary to take means for suppressing an outbreak by the use of the soldiery. In England events bearing a strong resemblance to the opening of a revolution began to be visible. The breaking of machines both in and from rick-burning. manufacturing and agricultural districts, and worse than that, in the South of England rick-burning, became constant. No efforts and no rewards could arrive at a true knowledge of the perpetrators of this crime. The farmers were kept in a constant state of nervous anxiety. A certain number of people were apprehended and hanged on the charge, but any man was still liable to find his ricks, in spite of all his care, suddenly and mysteriously bursting into flames. In London, too, the old demagogues began to make their appearance. Hunt and Cobbett were again haranguing crowds and filling their minds with hopes of social equality. Meanwhile the ministry took no step to declare its intention, and made no advances towards strengthening itself by union with any other party. It seemed indeed possible for a moment that the Duke would again yield, readmit the Canningites to his party, and produce some very moderate reform. If such a plan existed, it disappeared after the Death of Huskisson. death of Huskisson. On the 15th of September a number of guests, among whom were the Minister, were asked to attend the opening of the first great railway in England, running between Manchester and Liverpool. The train, in which the guests were, stopped for water at Parkside. Several gentlemen left their seats, and a mutual friend brought Huskisson to the carriage where Wellington sat to attempt a reconciliation. The door was open as the old friends greeted each other warmly. Suddenly a train came up upon the other line, there was a cry of "Get to your seats;" flurried and unable, apparently, to pass the open door, Huskisson fell across the line, and was so severely injured that he died the same evening. The rest of Canning's followers, although their great leader had been an enemy to reform, at once made it plain that they had joined the Opposition.

Parliament. Nov. 2, 1830.

It was thus, with unusual anxiety as to the conduct to be expected from the ministry, that the opening of Parliament on the 2nd of November was awaited. The worst enemies of the Duke could scarcely have hoped for a more ill-judged production than the King's speech. There was no sign that the very critical state of the country was even acknowledged. The change of dynasty in France was mentioned and accepted, the unpopular policy of the Government with regard to Miguel praised, the civil war in Belgium spoken of in terms of severe reprobation, and a determination expressed to uphold the present political system; the disturbed temper of the people in England and Ireland was mentioned with indignation, and the firm purpose of Government declared to repress it by every means in their power. Of recognition of the necessity of listening to what had now become the expressed wish of the nation there was not a word. If anything could be wanted to strengthen the impression caused by the speech, and to make it clear that the ministry was more conservative than ever, it was afforded by Wellington's words in the debate on the address in answer to Lord Grey's recommendation that some plan of reform should be undertaken. He declared his belief in the perfection of the legislative system. It possessed the full and entire confidence of the country; he was not therefore prepared to bring forward any measure of reform, and might declare at once that "as long as he held any station in the government of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others." It was a challenge to the reformers which was speedily answered. On the same night Brougham announced his intention of bringing forward a motion for reform on the 16th, and on that night the fate of the ministry must have been decided. In the interval before the critical day the excitement of the people was so great that the King's visit to the Resignation of the ministry. City had to be postponed, because Wellington was afraid to accompany him unless under a strong armed escort. But before that day arrived the ministry found an opportunity for resigning. Among the topics of the speech was the reform of the Civil List. On the 15th Sir Henry Parnell brought in a motion for a Select Committee; the ministry opposed it on the ground that no further economy was possible, and being beaten by a majority of twenty-nine, after taking one day to consider, announced on the 16th that their resignation had been accepted, and thus saved themselves from defeat on the more momentous question of reform. During the formation of the new ministry Brougham's motion was postponed, and it was almost immediately known that he had passed into the Upper House as Lord Chancellor, and that the first business of the new Government would be the production of a Reform Bill.

Formation of Lord Grey's ministry.

At such a crisis it was impossible that any statesman except Lord Grey should be intrusted with the formation of a Cabinet. Now nearly seventy years of age, he had been the prominent leader in every attempt at parliamentary reform for the last forty years. He found no difficulty in selecting his ministers. As far as talents and debating power went the Liberal party was very strong; it was not yet discovered that the long absence of the party from office, and its consequent ignorance of the routine and traditions of official work had rendered most of its members rather weak administrators. The Chancellorship of the Exchequer was given to Lord Althorp, a most amiable and excellent man, a steady partisan of reform and retrenchment, but of an easy and not very vigorous character. Lord Lansdowne was President of the Council; Lambton, now become Lord Durham, Grey's son-in-law, was Lord Privy Seal; the Secretaryships were supplied from the ranks of the Canningites; Palmerston, Melbourne, and Goderich were respectively Foreign, Home, and Colonial Secretaries. Charles Grant was President of the Board of Control. Holland, Auckland, and Graham were also in the Cabinet. In office, but not of the Cabinet, were Lord John Russell as Paymaster-General, and Mr. Stanley, subsequently Lord Derby, as Secretary for Ireland.

The duty which this ministry undertook was by no means a light one; for though it was plain that reform in some shape or other could no longer be delayed, its introduction was beset with difficulties, of which the greatest was by no means the opposition to be apprehended Difficulties attending reform. from the open opponents of the measure. Any advance towards a fair representation was certain to meet with the strongest opposition from men who regarded any change as revolutionary, and saw a diminution of their own interests in the slightest attacks upon the system of nominee boroughs. But such bigoted and selfish opposition might certainly sooner or later be overcome. A far greater danger was to be found in the exaggerated hopes which had been fostered for many years among the suffering artisans, who had been taught by their leaders and demagogues to ascribe all their miseries to the want of fair representation. No measure which a ministry, aristocratic in its character as the present ministry was, could introduce, no measure which could satisfy the intelligent middle classes, to whom social change was almost as abhorrent as to the Tories, could fail to cause disappointment to the hopes of the lower classes; and when they found how little practical relief they would gain by the measure, there was only too much danger lest the revolution of which the opponents of the measure were so fond of talking might really come into existence. Signs of popular discontent were, as has been already mentioned, clearly to be seen. Rick-burning still continued its course in the South, and trades unions in their most aggravated form, and accompanied by murder, had made their appearance in the manufacturing districts. Extreme measures, such as the issuing of a special commission in the disturbed districts, were urged upon the Government; but Lord Grey replied that he considered the regular powers of the Government, if properly used, were sufficient for all purposes. In fact, the ministry understood that the contest was not an ordinary parliamentary one; it was scarcely to be expected that of its own free will the House of Commons should accept a Bill which must exclude many of its members from their seats; it was as the spokesmen of a great national wish that the ministers regarded themselves, and they intended to rely upon the nation for their support. Not only did they therefore refrain from any exceptional measures for the suppression of disturbance, they also allowed to pass unquestioned the legality of the numerous political unions which, following the example of the Union of Birmingham, of which Mr. Attwood was the president, had sprung into existence all over England, and which aimed at bringing into some sort of harmony the demands of the wealthy and poorer classes. The ministry had in fact determined to use all expressions of the national temper, even when verging upon breaches of the Constitution, to forward what they conceived to be the great healing measure which the evils of the times demanded. The struggle thus assumed a far more dignified form than that of an ordinary political question. In its first stage it was the people, as usual with aristocratic leaders, who demanded and insisted upon their will being heard by the Lower House. When that House had been reconstituted, and become favourable to the popular claims, it was the people speaking by the voice of their constitutionally chosen representatives, supported by an irresistible and probably unconstitutional action from without, which engaged in a life and death struggle with the aristocracy, clinging tenaciously to their ancient privileges.

On the 3rd of February, when the Parliament reassembled, the intention of the ministry to produce a measure of parliamentary reform in both Houses was made known. The day for its introduction was fixed for the 1st of March. The interval was passed in Parliament in the ordinary business of the session, and in the introduction of a budget which, betraying as it clearly did a tendency towards the policy of Huskisson in favour of the manufacturing industries, was received with an opposition which showed the temper of the House, and which would probably under ordinary circumstances have caused the fall of the ministry. But it was understood that it was upon reform and upon no other question that the fate of the Government depended. Without the walls of Parliament agitation was vigorously at work. Petition after petition for and against the approaching measure was prepared, and the whole country was upon the tiptoe of expectation when on the appointed day Lord John Reception of the Reform Bill. March 1, 1831. Russell made his statement as to the character of the Bill. Although it has since been found necessary more than once to enlarge it, at the time the completeness of the Bill surprised even the friends of Government, while it seemed to its opponents little better than an ill-timed jest. As in all Bills for reform of the representation, there were two points to be regarded: in the first place, to secure that the representatives of the people should be really representatives and not nominees; in the second place, to secure by the arrangement of the franchise that they should as far as practicable represent all classes of the nation. On the first of these points the Bill was complete, with very few exceptions rotten boroughs were entirely swept away; it is on the second point that subsequent legislation has been found necessary. The Bill as originally presented destroyed at once sixty rotten boroughs, but with regard to the franchise and the distribution of seats, as will be seen subsequently, it showed considerable favour to the counties, that is to the landed interest and to the middle classes, excluding entirely the artisan class, which, when its members are prosperous and possess property, is one of the most valuable elements in the constitution of the nation. As Lord John Russell read the list of disfranchised boroughs, he was greeted with shouts of laughter and ironical cries of "Hear" from the members who represented them. The debate on the first reading continued for seven nights; the chief objection raised was that the balance of the Constitution would be changed and the power of the House of Lords diminished. It was, however, passed without division, the struggle being deferred to the second reading. Although its deficiencies were obvious enough to the advanced reformers, the importance of securing the one great step in advance which it promised in the annihilation of rotten boroughs caused its general acceptance, and "The Bill and nothing but the Bill" became the watchword of the Liberal party in England. There was considerable disturbance, as was to be expected, throughout the country, and in anticipation of a strong opposition many of the political unions came to the formal determination that, if necessary, they would refrain from paying taxes, and would even march to London; they issued lists showing the numbers on which they could count, and it began to be plain that, if constitutional means failed, the Bill would be carried by unconstitutional pressure.

The second reading of the Reform Bill. March 21.

The second reading at length came on, and in the fullest House ever known, 608 members being present, the ministry secured a majority of one. Precedent would have demanded their resignation, but regarding themselves as charged with a great national duty they kept their places, and all England illuminated at the news. The next process was to pass the Bill through Committee, and there the weakness of the Government at once disclosed itself. They were defeated by a majority of eight on a clause for reducing the whole number of members, and three days afterwards the House refused to go into a question of supply. The ministry, determined to bring matters to a crisis, regarded this, not without some exaggeration, as a refusal of supplies, and declared that they could do nothing but resign; but the King, as yet true to them, refused their resignation, at the same time expressing a very strong wish not to dissolve the House. As the Parliament was now in its first session, this wish of the King was by no means unnatural, yet only by a dissolution could the ministers and the Reform Bill be saved. They themselves subsequently declared their belief that this was the real crisis of the question. The Opposition also felt the importance of the moment, and through their leader, Lord Wharnecliffe, moved an address to the King, remonstrating against the intended dissolution. What the arguments of Dissolution of the Parliament. April 22. the ministry had been unable to effect was done at once by this ill-judged piece of violence, which the King considered an attack upon his prerogative. He immediately declared his determination to dissolve the House. The scene of excitement in the Lords has rarely been equalled when he suddenly made his appearance and demanded the presence of the Commons. An equally tumultuous scene had been going forward in the Lower House, the Speaker had himself been unable to obtain a hearing. At the summons of the Usher of the Black Rod, the Commons appeared at the bar of the Upper House, and were at once told by the King, in an unusually cheerful and firm tone, that he had come there for the purpose of proroguing them, with a view to immediate dissolution, in order to ascertain the sense of his people on the question of representation.

The dissolution thus taking place in the midst of the violent and strongly-organized agitation of the nation, virtually secured the passing of the Bill, although a long and dangerous period of contest had yet to be passed. That the mob should break out here and there in riots was inevitable; but it was the firm and determined attitude, not of the rioters, but of the great body of intelligent non-electors, which really influenced the elections. In all directions reformers were successful. Six county members only were opposed to the Bill, and when in July the second reading came on, the ministers found themselves in a majority of 136. Manifestly outnumbered, the opponents to the measure had recourse to an irritating form of warfare. Every single detail was fought over in Committee. There was a hope that, as the summer went on, the patience of members would be tired out, that the session must either be terminated or an accidental victory be snatched from the Government. So weary was the nation of the lengthened delay, that the political unions held a meeting to settle how much longer they would wait, but the question was too important to allow of any laxity on the part The Bill passes in the Commons. Sept. 23. of its supporters, and on the 7th of September the report of the Committee was brought up. On the 21st, after another debate of three nights, the Bill passed the Commons by a majority of 109. Its fate now rested with the Peers, and The Bill rejected in the Lords. Oct. 8. they were not long in showing how they meant to deal with it. On the first reading it was thrown out by a majority of forty-one. The opponents of the measure fondly hoped that its fate and that of the administration were now sealed, but the Lords had not yet secured a victory. Indignant at the rejection of their Bill, the Commons at once passed a vote of confidence in the ministry, and all fear of their resignation was thus removed.

Consequent riots in the country.

But the indignation of the Commons was nothing to that of the people at large, who saw the measure from which they hoped so much snatched from them by the votes of a few wealthy and important men, who in no sense represented them, and whose opposition bore in the popular eye all the appearance of a selfish struggle for an exclusive and injurious privilege. Again the disorderly mobs of London and other large towns broke out into riots, but the number of rioters was usually few, and many of them were known as belonging to the regular criminal and ruffianly class. Of these riots the most important was that which occurred in Bristol on the 29th of October. The occasion was the public entry of Sir Charles Wetherell, a bitter opponent of reform, into the city, of which he was recorder. It afforded another instance of the mismanagement of the local magistracy. A mob, which seems never to have reached a thousand in number, took possession of the town for two days, broke into the mansion-house, and got drunk in the cellars, and then, undisturbed, and after giving full notice of their intention, set fire to Queen's Square, and burnt two sides of it to the ground. The military had been in the town all day; at length they proceeded to act, and re-established order with little difficulty, though with some loss of life. Their commander was Colonel Brereton. The mayor and magistrates had weakly given him but a general authority to act on his discretion, willing no doubt to shift the responsibility to his shoulders. A man of kind heart, he had shrunk from acting without more distinct authority; he had tried his best to calm the crowd by friendly means, which only increased their confidence and encouraged them with hopes of impunity. He was tried by court martial, and, unable to face the prospect of a slur on his professional character, committed suicide. But far more important than these Organized action of the political unions. riots was the constantly increasing vigour shown by the organized unions. Hitherto left untouched by the Government, they now proceeded to measures which clearly brought them under the action of the law. The London Radicals held a great meeting on the 31st of October in Lincoln's Inn Fields, presided over by Sir Francis Burdett, when a National Union was established, intended to draw together the various unions of the country, and to form a central directory of delegates. Before the meeting separated, it was plain that some of its members were ready to go much further than the unions had yet gone, and the Metropolitan Union summoned a meeting for the 7th of November, and issued a programme demanding the abolition of all hereditary privileges and distinctions of rank. On this occasion the Government acted quickly and wisely. Lord Melbourne received a deputation of the Union, and persuaded them to postpone their meeting, and shortly afterwards, on the 22nd of November, a proclamation was issued for the suppression of such political clubs.

Opposition of the King.

This proclamation is believed to have been put forward at the instigation of the King, who had been much frightened by the riots at Bristol, and was constantly worked upon by the ladies of the Court, who were strong anti-reformers. His support could be no longer relied on by the ministry, and at this time his help was more especially necessary, as it began to dawn upon men's minds that nothing short of a large creation of Peers could overwhelm the obstinate majority of the Upper House, and secure the passage of the Bill. As the last Bill had been rejected, before the fight in the Upper House could be recommenced the whole work had to be gone through again in the House of Commons. It was not The Bill passes on the second reading in the Lords. April 14, 1832. long delayed there. Brought in by Lord John Russell on the 12th of December, it finally passed the Commons by a majority of 116 on the 23rd of March. On the 14th of April the second reading of the Bill in the Lords took place, and it became apparent that a certain number of the Peers had taken fright at the threatened increase to their numbers, and had begun to recognize the danger of their obstructive policy; the ministry succeeded in obtaining a majority of nine.

Preparations during the recess.

The 7th of May, after the Easter holidays, was the day fixed for the Committee on the Bill. The holidays were well used by the reformers outside Parliament. Monster meetings were everywhere held, and the Political Union of Birmingham, which held the first rank among the popular organizations, appointed a great meeting of all the unions of the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford for the same day as the opening of Parliament. The recess was not less eagerly employed by the anti-reformers; his Tory friends, his courtiers, his wife, and his sisters, worked upon the King's mind; he was persuaded to refuse the creation of Peers, and to try once more what coercion could do in suppressing the national ferment; the Duke of Wellington was applied to, and orders to keep the troops in readiness were sent to various parts of England, especially to Birmingham. Thus, when the day arrived, while 150,000 men assembled at Newhall Hill in Birmingham were swearing with bare heads and raised hands, "With unbroken faith, through every peril and privation, we here devote ourselves and our children to our country's cause," Lord Lyndhurst, The Bill rejected in the Lords. May 7. who had been most active in organizing the present opposition, had contrived to secure a majority of thirty-five in the House of Lords for a motion postponing the disfranchising clauses of the Bill.

The ministry resigns. The Duke of Wellington fails to form a ministry.

The antagonistic forces seemed to have come to a final issue, from which there was no escape except by the creation of Peers, a measure as repugnant to the aristocratic feeling of Lord Grey as to the King. The Prime Minister, however, explaining the situation, demanded of the King the one necessary step. He was refused, and resigned. His resignation was accepted, and the Duke of Wellington was sent for to attempt to form a Conservative ministry. At the same time things had gone too far for complete repression, and the Duke was instructed to form a ministry which would introduce some extensive measure of reform. The news of the fall of the ministry was received in fierce anger by the whole people. The papers came out in mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever should advise a dissolution was a public enemy. Petitions praying that no supplies should be granted till the Bill was passed were signed in a few hours by many thousands of people, and sent to London, where they were joyfully received by the House of Commons. The great Birmingham Union made preparations to march to London 200,000 strong, and encamp on Hampstead Heath. Two insurmountable difficulties met the Duke of Wellington, and prevented the inevitable ruin which must have followed his success. It became clear to him that the military could not be trusted, that repression by force was out of the question, and he could find no Conservatives sufficiently courageous The old ministry returns to office. May 15. to join him in the ministry. The King was obliged again to have recourse to his former ministers. It was plain to the Lords that further opposition was useless, and would lead only to a public proof of the powerlessness of their resistance by the creation of new Peers. They therefore wisely The Bill passes in the Lords. June 4. attended to a circular letter from the King himself, begging them to withdraw their opposition. Wellington left the House, and was followed by about a hundred other Peers; the Bishops in a body withdrew their opposition, and the Bill was finally carried by a considerable majority.

Description of the Reform Bill.

The measure as passed was not and could not be final, but it was a wide, comprehensive and judicious beginning. The chief evil of the representation had been the existence of nomination and rotten boroughs; of these 56, having less than 2000 inhabitants, were disfranchised, and 111 seats left vacant. Thirty boroughs, with less than 4000 inhabitants, were each deprived of one member; Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. There were thus 143 seats to dispose of. Of these 65 went to the counties, an arrangement which showed the still unbroken power of the landed aristocracy, twenty-two large towns received the right of returning two members, and 21 the right of returning one. The remaining 13 were left for Ireland and Scotland. The second evil was the very irregular and restricted franchise. In some towns the freemen alone elected; in others the suffrage was almost universal; the whole number of electors on the roll was very small. A uniform £10 household franchise was now established in boroughs, but, as a concession to the rights of vested interests, freemen of corporate towns who resided within the borough, and who had been created before 1831, were allowed to retain their votes. In the counties copyholders and leaseholders were added to the constituencies, and by a clause introduced by the Marquis of Chandos, and carried in opposition to the Government, tenants at will paying a rent of £50 were also enfranchised. In this point again the landed interest showed its power, as such tenants were only too liable to be influenced by their landlords. At the same time, to decrease the disorders and expenses of elections, the duration of the poll was shortened. The period of fifteen days during which in county elections votes could be taken was restricted to two in England and to five in Ireland. Along with the English Bill, Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were also produced and passed. In Scotland the representation had been far more imperfect than in England; it was now wholly remodelled. The county franchise was given to all owners of property, and long leaseholders of the value of £10 a year, and even to tenants for shorter periods paying a rent of £50; in the burghs the same £10 franchise was established as in England. The number of burgh representatives was changed from fifteen to twenty-three. The number of county members remained the same as before, but with some slight difference in distribution. To Ireland four additional boroughs were allowed, the counties there remained the same. But considerable discontent was caused by the adoption of the £10 freehold franchise in the counties, which very much restricted the number of the electors, from whom it will be remembered that till quite lately a 40s. qualification only was required.

Importance of the measure.

Thus was completed, after a delay of nearly an hundred and fifty years, the second act of the English Revolution. Incomplete and aristocratic in its character, the movement of 1688 yet established the superiority of Parliament as a whole, and its predominance over the royal power. From that time onwards the Government had been in the hands of the aristocracy, from whichever of the political parties the members of the administration had been drawn. The attempt of George III. to re-establish the power of the Crown had been attended with some success as long as it was supported by the good wishes of the people. Events had allied him with a party bent on the repression of all popular movements and of all constitutional growth. Submissive during the war, the people on the return of peace had been aroused to a sense of the injury under which they suffered by their exclusion from all share in the Government. Events in France had brought their discontent to a climax, and they had now at length gained possession of that part of the Legislature which had long pretended falsely to represent them.

Introduction of the middle classes to power.

But although the change effected by the Reform Bill at first sight appears to have been political, it was in fact social. It was the introduction of a wholly new class of society into the duties of Government. The aristocratic classes, which had hitherto had the monopoly of power, were forced to admit to an equality with themselves the middle class, which the progress of society, and the wonderful advance of material improvement during the last half century, had raised to a position so important that its claims could no longer be withstood. Its victory had been secured by a twofold alliance. On the one hand it had taken advantage of the real wants of the classes below it, and of the social ideas which had been called into existence by the French Revolution; it had not scrupled to employ the modern arts of agitation, or to bring what cannot be regarded in any other light than as an unconstitutional pressure to bear upon Parliament. On the other hand it had worked constitutionally by an alliance with one of the governing classes, namely, the Whigs. Long exclusion from office had as usual made this party alive to the existence of abuses, the defensive and obstructive attitude of the Tories had reawakened its desire for constitutional growth, and the philosophy and writings of the time, especially those of Bentham and of the authors of the Edinburgh Review, had taken considerable hold of its leading members. The Whig Government therefore, with complete honesty, and in the midst of considerable danger and difficulty, accepted the alliance which the middle classes offered it, and honourably fulfilled its share of the compact. Now that the great Bill was passed, it remained to be seen how far the Whigs were willing to forego their old aristocratic prejudices, and how far their strength would allow them to oppose the pressure of the extreme Radicals, whose alliance they had been forced to accept along with that of the middle class.

Anxiety as to the effect of the change.

It was with the utmost anxiety that the character of the first reformed Parliament was watched. There was a general feeling of terror throughout England. Timid investors began to seek securities for their money in America or Denmark. There was a constant apprehension of a coming revolution which might resemble that in France; a feeling which was not appeased by occasional acts of violence throughout the country, and a fierce and dangerous assault by the London mob upon the Duke of Wellington himself. It is possible that in any other country such a revolution might have resulted; but the practical character of the English mind, which prevents it from being carried away by a passionate desire for ideal benefits, the wide diffusion and extremely strong love of property, the firm and dignified attitude of the nobility, the loyalty with which the really active part of the Tory party accepted the change and determined to make the best of it, secured tranquillity for the country during its passage through the dangerous crisis. It may also be reckoned as no small advantage to the cause of order, that the English Radicals found themselves thrown into the company of O'Connell and the Irish agitators; the clamour for repeal, the lawless violence which showed itself in the sister island, and the unscrupulous character of the demagogue who represented it, gave a strength and unity to the moderate Whig party which it would otherwise have wanted. At the same time the twofold connections and interests of the Government could not but, sooner or later, prove a cause of weakness. Their aristocratic tendencies, which remained unabated, prevented them from throwing themselves heartily into the wishes of their more popular supporters, and laid them open to the constant suspicion of an inclination towards Toryism. Their dependence on the popular party compelled them to take in hand many difficult questions for the solution of which the nation was clamouring. They had therefore to be constantly steering a middle course, and assuming an appearance of weakness which rapidly undermined their popularity, while the two tendencies which they represented, affecting the individual members of the Cabinet in different degrees, speedily led to a division among themselves. It is for these reasons that the work of the first reformed Parliament, great as it was, has an appearance of weakness as compared with the burst of popular reform which might have been expected after so great a change.

Character of the reformed Parliament. Jan. 29, 1833.

When Parliament assembled it appeared that the Whigs had on the whole a very large majority; but, besides an active and important body of Tories headed by Sir Robert Peel, there were a considerable number of Radicals, of whom Hume may be regarded as the leader, and the Irish members, for the most part the mere nominees and puppets of O'Connell, from whom opposition might be expected. There were changes both in the appearance and character of the House; the average age of the members was visibly increased, and it was evident that there would be more individual opinion, less distinctly party voting, and a greater necessity for convincing argument to ensure a majority. It was plain, too, that with much less of oratory there would be a far greater quantity of talking; and as the Government, in the King's speech, promised to introduce a number of very important Bills, it was found necessary greatly to lengthen the hours of business. At the same time, as there were no less than three hundred new members in the House, it was thought advisable to reappoint the old Speaker, Manners-Sutton, although he was a Tory in politics, a step which at once excited the displeasure of the more advanced Liberals.

Critical questions to be settled.

The questions most generally occupying men's minds, and which it might be supposed would at once become prominent, were the disturbed and wretched condition of the poor, as evidenced by the late riots and constant rick-burning; the position of the Church; slavery; and the national relations to foreign countries, especially Belgium and the Peninsula; but, before all, the condition of Ireland, and the maintenance of the Protestant Church in that country.

Condition of Ireland.

It was the Irish question which became at once the most important, and which ultimately caused the fall of the ministry. It was understood that some measures of coercion would be necessary to restore tranquillity in that country, but that they should go hand in hand with measures of reform and relief. As though to render the coming Coercion Bill more palatable, Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February, introduced a Bill for the regulation of the Irish Church. Since the Catholic Emancipation Act the state of Ireland had been becoming constantly worse. Instead of accepting the Act in a conciliatory spirit, O'Connell had used it as a stepping-stone for further demands, and had continued his course of agitation. He had been prosecuted in 1831, had pleaded guilty to holding illegal assemblies, but by the carelessness of the Whig Government he had escaped without punishment. His present demand was repeal, but the outrages which filled Ireland were either agrarian or connected with the tithes; and O'Connell skilfully managed, while by his agitation he continually kept up the discontent, to keep clear himself of any participation in the violence of his countrymen. Of course the repeal of the Union could not be for a moment thought of, but the Government could not deny that the position of the Irish Church and the collection of tithes for its support were real grievances.

Position of the Irish Church.

In a country of which the population was somewhat over seven millions, there was established a dominant Protestant Church, the members of which numbered 853,000 only. It had a staff of no less than four archbishops and eighteen bishops, many of them with very large incomes, and a body of clergy supported principally by tithes, exacted not only from its own members, but from the six million and a half Catholics. To make matters worse, the tithe was paid by the tenants, and, as the land was infinitely subdivided, in minute sums which rendered its forcible exaction most irksome and ridiculous. In many instances a man's tithe was a farthing, and in some cases not more than seven parts of a farthing. So vexatious and unjust a tax was certain to cause exasperation. In 1831 the collection of tithes became almost impossible; the collectors were murdered, the police who came to their rescue fired upon, cattle driven off that the tithe might not be paid, and the clergy were consequently reduced to such a miserable plight that some of them were actually brought to the verge of starvation. But in spite of the glaring anomaly of the existence of the Church at all, and of the ill-feeling and violence excited by the exaction of the tithes, neither Lord Grey nor Mr. Stanley, his Secretary for Ireland, could bring themselves to think of any wide measure of reform, so great was their dread of touching property or vested interests, or of in any way injuring the Church. In February 1832 committees were appointed to inquire into the system. They reported that the complete extinction of tithes by a commutation or charge upon the land was absolutely necessary. The Irish took this as an authorization of their proceedings; the outrages increased, and a system of terrorism was established, which precluded the possibility of bringing the assassins and rioters to justice. In June the Government had adopted a plan which in fact made matters worse. They authorized the advance of £60,000 to the Irish clergy, who were unable to collect their tithes, and took upon themselves the duty of collecting former arrears, at the same time promising that the tithe commutation should be undertaken. A Bill to this effect was passed, rendering commutation necessary for a term of twenty-one years. Other Bills providing for the redemption of the tithe were unfortunately allowed to stand over to the next session. But Government had now made itself a tithe collector, and was so inefficient in that capacity that it had subsequently to allow that of £104,000 due £12,000 only had been levied, and that with some loss of life.

Irish Tithe Composition Bill passed. Aug. 28, 1833.

In the year 1833 a new arrangement was consequently attempted. The whole amount of arrears for the last three years amounted to about a million. This sum the Government proposed should be advanced by an issue of Exchequer bills, to be repaid gradually by a general land tax. As there seemed only too much probability that the land tax would be refused with as great determination as the tithes, most people regarded this sum as a mere gift to the Irish clergy. The Government was, however, able to pass the Bill. The final settlement of the tithe question was postponed for several years; meanwhile the violence which attended the attempts at collecting the tithes were the chief cause of the necessity of the Coercion Bill.

But the tithes, though the immediate cause of the disturbances, were only a part of the whole Church system; it was the Church itself which was the primary cause of the evil, and in the measure Althorp's Irish Church Bill. Feb. 1833. for the relief which was to accompany the Bill for the repression of disturbance, the ministers addressed themselves to lessen the more glaring defects of that institution; but at the same time they were as little disposed to injure the Church as the Tories themselves, and one of the chief objects of the proposed legislation was the improvement of the position of the clergy. It was thought that while the lessening of the hierarchy and the removal of some of the anomalies exhibited by the Church would be pleasing to the Irish, the Church would itself gain strength by the proposed changes. Besides the payment of tithes, a church cess, for the support of the buildings and expenses of the services, was paid indiscriminately by members of all religions, but managed by Protestant vestries. The annates, or first-fruits of livings, had been originally employed for these purposes, but in process of time had almost disappeared; such benefices as were still subject to them were to be now freed, a graduated tax to be laid upon all livings, and with the produce the Church cess was to be extinguished. This was a direct boon to the Catholics. Another common complaint was the disproportion between the number of bishoprics and the Protestant population; it was now proposed to destroy ten of these bishoprics, or rather, as the ministry was careful to explain, not to destroy but to consolidate them with those which remained. The incomes of some of the larger bishoprics were also curtailed; the surplus money thus arising was to be paid into the hands of ecclesiastical commissioners. Thus far there was not much objectionable in the Bill, though the Tories and High Churchmen of England disliked the destruction of so many sees. But there was a further measure, which opened the door to grave opposition. It was proposed to change the terms on which church lands were let so as to improve the position of the tenant without injuring the clergy. The tenant would be willing to pay for this advantage, and the sum thus gained was calculated at between two and three millions. This money would, as the mover of the Bill expressed it, be available for the purposes of the State. This had all the appearance of an act of confiscation, the property of the Church was to be taken and applied to purposes not ecclesiastical. But the Irish Secretary had as strong a view as the Tories of the sanctity of Church property, and the danger of tampering in ever so small a way with the rights of property. It was therefore found necessary by the supporters of the Bill to invent a theory to secure unanimity in the Cabinet; it was argued that the sum derived from the change of tenure did not exist before, but would be created by the present act of the Legislature, that it was therefore not Church property at all, and might be applied to the purposes of the State. The Bill in this shape was introduced by Lord Althorp on the 12th of February. It at once appeared open to objections on two sides. While O'Connell and the Irish scoffed at the relief, which consisted only in removing the church cess, and the English Radicals declared that instead of twelve bishops one was amply sufficient for the needs of the Irish Protestants, the Tories, refusing to recognize the delicate line between Church property and money gained by the Legislature from Church property, raised the cry that it was but a first step in confiscation, and threatened not the security of Church property only, but that of all other property. It appeared necessary to choose between the views of one or the other of these sets of critics, and in spite of his own views, Lord Althorp consented to be governed by the Conservative element in the Cabinet and to withdraw what was called the Appropriation clause. The removal of this clause, which contained the only important principle in the Bill, the right, namely, of Parliament to apply Church property to the wants of the State, rendered it so like a Tory measure, that with the assistance of that party it passed without difficulty in both Houses (July 30).

The Coercion Bill introduced Feb. 15, 1833, carried March 29.

But three days after the introduction of the Irish Church Bill in the House of Commons, Lord Grey introduced into the House of Lords its complement, the Coercion Bill. Here again the absence of broad liberality in the ministry was apparent. It was conceived in the spirit of the most absolute government, and implied a distinct determination to make no attempt at pacification by liberal concessions. It was the work of Mr. Stanley, the Irish Secretary, a man of great ability and vigour, but without much sympathy for the Irish character, and, as his subsequent career proved, at heart a Tory. There was no difficulty in making out a case for the Bill. A narration of a few of the crimes which had of late filled Ireland with horror made it evident that something must be done. In the province of Leinster alone, in the three months July, August, and September, there had been 1279 crimes, in the following three months the number had risen to 1646. During the year the catalogue of Irish crimes contained 172 homicides, 465 robberies, 568 burglaries, 454 acts of houghing cattle, 2095 illegal notices, 425 illegal meetings, 796 malicious injuries to property, 753 attacks on houses, 280 arsons, and 3156 serious assaults: in all upwards of 9000 crimes connected with the disturbed state of the country. Well might Mr. Macaulay say that he "solemnly declared he would rather live in the midst of many civil wars he had read of than in some parts of Ireland at this moment." It was not the number of crimes alone which rendered them terrible; they were carried on upon a system by which such terror had been excited that it was impossible to get juries to convict even after the clearest proof, or witnesses to give evidence as to what they knew. At the same time, the leaders of the people were teaching them, in public meetings and in assemblies of the so-called Association of Volunteers, to regard themselves as the victims of every form of oppression. To meet such a state of things it was proposed to place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, in accordance with the Proclamation Act of the 8th of George IV., 1828, power to suppress every meeting or association which he regarded as dangerous to the preservation of peace, under whatever name it might call itself, and further to declare any district to be in a disturbed state, which was then to be regarded as a proclaimed district; its inhabitants were to be confined to their houses from an hour after sunset till sunrise, the right of meeting and petitioning was withdrawn from them without leave of the Lord Lieutenant, and they were placed under martial law. The Bill further gave power to enter houses in search of arms, forbade the distribution of seditious papers, and suspended the Habeas Corpus in the proclaimed districts. The Bill passed without difficulty in the House of Lords, where it was in harmony with the general feeling. In the Lower House it was introduced on the 27th of February by Lord Althorp, who, while corroborating the accounts of the outrages in Ireland, could not help showing his dissatisfaction at the extreme severity of the Bill. Not so Mr. Stanley, who, with the fiery vehemence which characterized him, turned upon O'Connell, and overwhelmed him with a flood of bitter invective, carrying the House completely with him, and securing the passage of the Bill, which was also most ably supported by Sir Robert Peel and his friends. Its effect was immediate and most satisfactory. Within a week of its passage the Marquis of Anglesey, who had returned to his office on Grey's accession to the ministry, had suppressed the Association of Irish Volunteers, the town and county of Kilkenny were then proclaimed, but so effective was the mere dread of the measure, that it was never found necessary to hold a single court-martial in the district, and within two months there was a decrease of two-thirds in the general list of crimes. A rapid rise in the funds showed that the moneyed public at least were pleased with the vigorous measure.

Changes in the ministry. March 1833.

Mr. Stanley's share in the Bill, the severity of his views with regard to Ireland, and the personal bitterness between himself and O'Connell, rendered his further tenure of the office of Secretary undesirable. He was moved to the Colonial Office, from which Lord Goderich, now become Earl of Ripon, withdrew to accept the Privy Seal, while Lord Durham, who had hitherto held that office, retired from the ministry (March 12). Mr. Stanley was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse, who however only held the office for two months, and was in turn succeeded by Mr. Littleton (May). The withdrawal of Lord Durham, although attributed and partly due to ill-health, was probably caused principally by the growing divisions in the Cabinet. The Conservative tendencies of the Prime Minister and the severity of the Irish Act were not in accordance with Lord Durham's advanced liberalism. The shortness of Hobhouse's tenure of office may be traced to somewhat similar causes, or at least to the decrease of the popularity of Government. In company with several others he had at the late elections pledged himself to vote for the repeal of the house and window tax. In April the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, brought in his budget. By careful economy, the abolition of sinecures, and the reduction of the public expenses, he was able to show a surplus of about a million and a half after replacing the deficit of the former year. This surplus he intended to employ in reducing some taxes which he regarded as particularly heavy, such as those on soap, on marine insurances, and some of the assessed taxes. But he impartially refused to listen either to the outcry of the towns for the abolition of the house and window tax, or to the clamours of the agriculturists against the malt tax; he regarded them both as necessary sources of revenue. The carelessness of Government subjected it to a temporary defeat on a subsequent motion for the reduction of the malt tax to one half. Though the defeat caused great irritation to the ministers it was speedily retrieved. A motion against the house and window tax was also brought in, and Lord Althorp, in opposing it, argued that the removal of either tax alone would be an unfair advantage to one or other of the rival interests, and that the removal of both was impossible; he introduced an amendment to the effect that the reduction of the malt tax and the repeal of the house tax would necessitate a general property and income tax, and a change in our financial system. As this amendment was carried, both the taxes were retained; but the ministers could not but feel that they owed their success to the support of their enemies, and the popular indignation was great. Hobhouse, unable to vote against Government, and thus to redeem his pledge, felt it incumbent on him to resign both his place and seat. On appealing again to his constituents at Westminster he was rejected for Colonel de Lacy Evans, a more advanced Liberal. The same thing happened in the cases of Dr. Lushington and Mr. William Brown in the Tower Hamlets and Southwark. A great indignation meeting, attended with some violence, was held near Coldbath Fields, and several great towns passed resolutions to the effect, that the ministers, by violating the constitution of Ireland, refusing to inquire into the public distress, continuing the house and window tax, and by forcing the whole malt tax, already once repealed, upon the nation, had betrayed the confidence of the people.

Weakness of the ministry.

Thus in all directions the power of the Government was decreasing; they were divided among themselves, and gradually losing the popularity of the country. Yet they were still able to carry out successfully some of the duties they had set themselves to perform; before the close of the session they had renewed the Bank charter, settled the affairs of the East India Company, and completed the emancipation of the slaves.

Renewal of the Bank charter. June.

The last renewal of the Bank charter had been in 1800; since then events of the greatest importance with regard to currency and credit had taken place,—the resumption of cash payments at the close of the war, and the great commercial crisis of 1825 and 1826. It was felt that the system of the Bank required close examination, and in May 1832 a very influential committee had been appointed to examine it preparatory to the renewal of the charter, which came to an end in August 1833. Upon the information gained by this committee the ministerial propositions were based. On the whole it appeared clear that a single bank of issue was better than several competing banks. The Bank was therefore to retain its monopoly. The principle of the Directors, that a third of the value of their obligations should be kept in hand in specie, was considered sound; but that the public might in future have control of the issue of notes, the Bank was required to publish a weekly account of its notes and deposits, and a quarterly average showing its general condition. No other bank of more than six partners, within sixty-five miles of London, was to be allowed to issue paper, while notes of the Bank of England and its branches were made legal tender, except at the bank from which they were issued. It was hoped by this means that country banks, being able to meet their demands with bank notes, would be saved from the necessity of making large and rapid demands upon the Bank of England, and thus dangerously lessening the supply of gold. The whole sum due from the Government to the Bank, and from which that institution derived its great credit, was fourteen millions. This was regarded as too much; it was to be reduced to eleven millions, twenty-five per cent., being at once repaid to the Bank, while to balance its advantages the Bank was to receive £120,000 a year less than hitherto for the management of the National Debt. On these terms the charter was to be renewed for twenty-one years, but with an option allowed to Government for breaking it off on a year's notice after eleven years. The two points which met with the greatest opposition were the terms which the Government had made with the Bank and the compulsory currency given to bank notes. On the first of these points it seemed almost unanimously felt that the Bank had made too good a bargain; on the second it was hastily urged by many that it was a partial resumption of the inconvertible currency. It was shown without much difficulty that this was not the case, as the Bank of England was bound ultimately to meet its liabilities in gold; but even Sir Robert Peel objected to the measure, avowing his fear that it would cause a depreciation of the paper. Experience has proved that this fear was groundless, and although the arrangements with the Bank had subsequently to be somewhat modified, the Bill passed, and was a distinct advantage.

Settlement of the East India Company. July.

But, if it had been thought well to continue the monopoly of the great banking corporation in England, the whole force of the commercial feeling of the time set directly against the perpetuation of the monopoly of the East India Company. The necessity for corporate trading had disappeared. The restrictions it laid upon free trade had become only so many obstacles in the way of extended commerce. Already, in 1813, this had been so clearly felt that the merchants of the great trading centres, Liverpool, Glasgow, Paisley, and Manchester, had succeeded in procuring the admission of traders to the territories of the Company, and to India generally, but the corporation still retained the trade with China. The accounts of the Company after this renewal of its charter rendered it plain that it could not compete with private merchants. It seemed clear that in China, as in India, the destruction of the monopoly would extend commerce. It was therefore determined to destroy the Company as a commercial body, allowing it to keep its territorial position. After April 1834 its commercial property was to be sold. It was, however, to retain the government of India, and to receive for forty years an annuity from the Indian revenue of £630,000, at the close of which period Parliament might redeem it by the payment of £12,000,000. It was further arranged that all restrictions in the way of the settlement of Europeans in the East should be removed, that natives and Europeans should have equal opportunities of employment and office, and should be under one law. The Bill was vehemently opposed by Lord Ellenborough, but was carried by large majorities, and proved to be the means of opening, in accordance with the principles of free trade, an enormous market for English commerce, so that in ten years the Chinese trade had doubled, and British exports to India and Ceylon had increased from two to six millions.

Emancipation of the slaves. Aug.

But the most important measure of the session was the Bill which was passed on the 30th of August for the emancipation of the slaves. The abolitionists had been successful in 1807 in putting an end to the traffic in slaves, but though raised in value and lessened in number, by means of smuggling and of the natural increase of the race the supply of human cattle had been kept up and slavery had continued. The Resolutions of 1823 had aimed at the gradual extinction of slavery, at alleviating its worst horrors, and raising the slaves to a fitting condition to receive freedom; but they had practically been inoperative: not Condition of trade in the West India Islands. only had they been continually thwarted by the planters, but the discovery that they had rights, and that those rights were acknowledged, caused a very natural uneasiness among the slaves, and had added greatly to the difficulties under which the planters laboured. Their position was constantly becoming worse. Injudicious protection had been afforded to sugar, their chief production. Enormous duties had been laid on it, with a preference always to the West Indian and slave-grown article. During the war the monopoly of production had fallen chiefly into their hands. They had been able to make enormous profits. As a consequence, just as in the case of corn in England, the cultivation of the sugar-cane had been carried on in the most reckless fashion. Plantations were temporarily occupied only to be exhausted or sold at a heavy loss, and fresh land taken in. In the midst of this false prosperity, a wasteful expenditure and a total want of economy, the natural consequences of easily-gotten wealth, had become prevalent; the planters as a body had become deeply involved. The cessation of the war had admitted other competitors to the market. The commercial crisis in England had seriously affected the planters' credit, and just as the greatest efforts would have been necessary to restore them at all to their old state of prosperity, their supply of slaves was diminished, it became more difficult to work their exhausted land, and the Resolutions of 1823, and subsequent orders in Council, made the employment of slave labour, which economists had long known to be really an extravagant form of labour, more and more difficult. These evils were naturally attributed to the abolitionists in England and to the Government which had even partially listened to them. As long as the unreformed Parliament existed, the West Indian interest was very strong in the House, and the planters, who believed that with some help from England, and with the management of the slaves left in their own hands, they might yet retrieve their position, were not without hopes. The accession of the Grey ministry was a heavy blow to them, for a large section of the supporters of the Government were almost as anxious for the abolition of slavery as for the passage of the Reform Bill, and it was impossible that a ministry of which Lord Brougham was the Chancellor, who had owed his last election chiefly to the abolitionists' votes, should postpone the settlement of the question long.

Opposition of the planters to the orders in Council. 1831.

The conduct of the planters forced on the crisis. A new series of orders in Council was issued in 1831 for the better and more merciful management of the slaves, for the limitation of the hours of labour, and for the establishment of official slave-overseers. All the colonies except the Crown colonies, where but little difficulty was met with, resented highly this interference with what they considered their rights and property. The language of their assemblies became disrespectful and almost rebellious. In Trinidad it was determined to stop the payment of taxes till the order was repealed, while on the other side the slaves in Jamaica burst into open rebellion, producing a loss estimated at £1,000,000. In April 1831, a great meeting in London declared that Government was liable for these losses, and claims were sent in to the Colonial Secretary for damages caused by the measures pursued by his Majesty's ministers. It was a sort of declaration of war, which was brought to a point when, on the 17th of April, Lord Harewood presented a petition from the West India interest begging for a full inquiry into the laws, usages, and condition of the West Indian colonies, and the possible future improvements, with due regard always to the rights of private property. This was in the very heat of the discussions on the Reform Bill. Bent upon his great measure, Lord Grey could not afford to risk anything at the moment. He therefore not only at once granted the committee, but allowed a sum of £100,000, which had been voted for the relief of the colonies, to be raised to £1,000,000 on account of a late destructive hurricane. On the 24th of May Sir Fowell Buxton, the leader of the abolitionists, brought the matter before the Lower House, while the Chancellor presented a gigantic petition, followed by many others, in favour of emancipation; for the great crisis was now over, Wellington's efforts to form a Government had proved futile, and the hope of the abolitionists were consequently high. But, somewhat strangely, Lord Althorp could not be induced in the Lower House to give up Canning's idea of gradual emancipation, and moved and carried amendments upon Buxton's motion in favour of the continuance of the policy of 1823. It must be remembered that the House of Commons was still unreformed, and that the great Bill was not yet carried.

With the change in the character of the House all prudential reasons for opposition on the part of the ministry disappeared, and The Emancipation Bill passed. Aug. 30, 1833. the pressure brought to bear upon them had become much stronger. They therefore now undertook the question, and the appointment of Mr. Stanley to the Colonial Office insured the success of the measure. It was not wholly satisfactory to the abolitionists. It still bore traces of the lingering wish for gradual emancipation. All children of slaves born after the passing of the Act, and all children of six years of age and under, were declared free, but the rest of the slaves were to serve a sort of apprenticeship; three-fourths of their time was for a certain number of years to remain at the disposal of the masters, the other fourth was their own, to be paid for at a fixed rate of wages. The complete failure of the Resolutions of 1823 should have taught the Government the impossibility of this scheme. The period of apprenticeship was shortened from twelve to seven years, and subsequently, after a four years' trial, the plan was given up. The second part of the Government scheme was the remuneration of the planters by a loan of £15,000,000; but as Parliament regarded this as much too small a boon, it was subsequently changed for the enormous gift of £20,000,000. The vastness of the sum was held by many as totally disproportionate to the loss of the planters; by others it was thought that, as slavery was in itself contrary to all right, the planters deserved no compensation for the loss of what they should never have possessed. On the whole, however, it was thought better that so great an act of justice should be generously completed, and the great sacrifice was willingly made. Wilberforce, the father of the movement, lived just long enough to bless God that the object of his life had been reached; he heard the success of the second reading of the Bill, and died a few days afterwards, on the 29th of July.

Weakness of the ministry shown in the Parliament. Feb. 4, 1834.

Of the great questions of the day there still remained the all-important one, the condition of the labouring classes, but it was to another Prime Minister and to a modified Cabinet that the honour of the introduction of the new Poor Law was to belong. In spite of their large majorities, no single measure of the Government had been passed without important modifications, no scheme had been introduced that did not bear upon it the marks of compromise, and afford a distinct proof of the inherent weakness of a Cabinet divided against itself. The speech from the throne in the opening of the year 1834 did not give any hope of a firmer and more united Government. The Duke of Wellington was not wrong in complaining that there was no definite promise of a single Government Bill, that the foreign policy of the Cabinet had not produced European peace, that in spite of its majorities the Church policy of the Government had failed, and that it had carefully avoided, even while vaunting the success which had attended it, to state whether it intended the Coercion Bill to be renewed in Ireland or not. Nor was it doubted that he was uttering the opinions of some at least of the Cabinet itself when he warned the Lords against the tendency visible in several of the late proceedings of the Government towards tampering with property and the introduction of the beginnings of the policy of confiscation.

Rejection of repeal, a Government victory.

In the Lower House both the strength and weakness of the Government were shortly to be displayed. O'Connell, who had talked so long about the repeal of the Union, and had thus kept up the agitation which was so lucrative to himself, was compelled at length to make good his promises and to introduce a substantive motion for repeal. A lengthened debate followed, but terminated in a most complete victory for the Government; the division showing a majority of 485 in favour of an amendment exactly contradicting O'Connell's motion. The central position occupied by the Government enabled it, when it occasionally joined heartily with one side or the other, still to command the House of Commons, but when questions arose of a more doubtful sort its weakness became visible. Measures for the relief of Ireland had been promised, and Mr. Ward, a private member, determined to bring these promises to a test, by introducing a motion (May 27) with regard to the difficult question of the Irish Church, which the ministers would gladly have left quiet. Mr. Ward's resolution stated that the Protestant Episcopal Establishment of Ireland Ministerial difficulty on Mr. Ward's motion on the Irish Church. much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population, that it was the right of the State and of Parliament to distribute Church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish Church ought to be reduced. This motion put the Government into the greatest perplexity; to uphold the direct negative was to resign its pretensions to be the party of progress; to accept it was to shock some of its most important members. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course, and appoint a commission of inquiry. They hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in Government hands, but they seemed at the same time to pledge themselves to act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. Armed with this compromise, Lord Althorp went to the House to meet Mr. Ward's motion. But the seconder, Mr. Grote, had advanced but a short way in the speech when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and said, that since the beginning of the debate information had been brought to him which induced him to beg for a postponement. His personal influence was so great that the House at once granted his request. The news he had received was the resignation of Mr. Stanley, the Colonial minister, and of Sir James Graham, First Lord Resignation of the most conservative ministers. of the Admiralty, who regarded any interference with Church property with great abhorrence. They were followed by the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-General, and by Lord Ripon, Privy Seal. The more conservative members of the Cabinet had thus openly retired from it. It might have been expected that Lord Durham, who had previously left it upon opposite grounds, would have now returned to office, and the Government have assumed a more distinctly radical character. He was, however, personally obnoxious to such members of the party of Canning as still remained in office, and his influence was dreaded by Lord Grey, who, though he continued as yet to hold the Premiership in accordance with the generally expressed desire of the Liberal party, sympathized at heart more with the Tories than with the Radicals. He expressed his feelings in his answer to an address which Lord Ebrington got up intreating him to retain his place. "In pursuing," he said, "a course of salutary improvement I feel it indispensable that we shall be allowed to proceed with deliberation and caution; and, above all, that we should not be urged by a constant and active pressure from without to the adoption of any measures the necessity of which has not been fully proved, and which are not strictly regulated by a careful attention to the settled institutions of the country both in Church and State. On no other principle can this or any other administration be conducted with advantage or safety." No difficulty was found in filling the vacant places; Mr. Spring Rice, who had distinguished himself in the debate on the Union, became Secretary for the Colonies, and Lord Auckland succeeded Sir James Graham.

Difficulties of Grey's position.

Under Lord Grey's leadership the Government was enabled to continue its course, because it was recognized at the time as the only possible Government; the Conservative feeling in England was far too strong to allow the success of a Radical Government with Durham at its head. On the other hand, on the great questions of the day it was impossible to go back. Sir Robert Peel clearly understood this position of affairs. He saw that a Tory Government would have no hope of permanence if it rested only on the support of the extreme members of the party. If the party was ever to be reconstituted it must loyally accept the changes which had been made, admit within its limits the more conservative-minded of the reformers, and take its stand on the great Conservative instincts of the nation—the love of the State Church, and the dread of any attack upon property. For the formation of a Liberal Conservative Government the time had not yet arrived, and the present Government of compromise was therefore allowed to continue. But the difficulties of the Premier, from the divergence of his opinions from those of his colleagues, soon became overwhelming. It was necessary to determine whether the Coercion Bill should be renewed or not. But it was possible to renew it in a softened form, and to omit the most objectionable parts—the suppression of the right of petition and the establishment of military courts. Such a course seemed advisable to Mr. Littleton, the Chief Secretary, and recommended itself also to the more liberal members of the Government, Lord Brougham and Lord Althorp. The mischievous activity of Lord Brougham led him to suggest to the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Wellesley, who had succeeded Anglesey, the advisability of officially informing the Government that he could do without these stringent clauses. Wellesley had already expressed himself privately to the contrary effect, but was overpersuaded, and followed the advice of Littleton and Brougham in his official despatches. These contradictory opinions from the chief of the Government were naturally very embarrassing to Lord Grey. To make matters worse, Littleton had attempted a personal reconciliation with O'Connell. Lord Althorp had known and approved of this step, but had warned Littleton against making any pledges. The Secretary unluckily allowed himself to be drawn into an admission that neither himself nor the Lord Lieutenant nor Lord Althorp approved of the renewal of the obnoxious clauses. To complete his blunder, he did not inform Lord Althorp what he had done, and trusted to a promise of secresy on the part of O'Connell, the most untrustworthy of men. So strong was Lord Althorp's opinion on the subject, backed as he believed it to be by that of Wellesley and of Littleton, that after being outvoted in the Cabinet, he in fact tendered his resignation, but was overruled by Lord Grey.

On the 1st of July the Premier introduced the Bill in its full form, asserting, as from Wellesley's private letters to him he had a right to assert, that it was considered necessary by the Irish Government. On this, O'Connell, forgetful of his promise, disclosed in the Resignation of Grey's ministry. July 1834. Lower House his conversation with Littleton, which was in fact a direct contradiction of Lord Grey's assertion, at the same time implicating Lord Althorp in the deception played upon him. The Government seemed convicted not only of internal division, but of duplicity. Lord Grey reiterated his assertion in the Upper House with regard to the feelings of the Irish Government as expressed to him, while Lord Althorp admitted that he disliked the clause, and that Mr. Littleton was justified in telling O'Connell that the question was unsettled at the time of their conversation. The divergence of opinion in the Cabinet was thus fully brought out, and Lord Althorp was made to appear as guilty at once of having held out false hopes to O'Connell, and of having waived his own opinions for the sake of retaining office. Nothing could have been more alien to his nature than this charge, especially as, far from having really pledged himself to O'Connell, he had particularly warned Littleton against committing himself. But there seemed no way of escape without rendering still more glaring the weakness of the administration. On this ground, Littleton's offer to resign, which he felt in honour bound to make, was rejected; but, when in their eagerness to embarrass Government the Opposition moved for the production of the private letters of the Cabinet, Lord Althorp, in disgust at his equivocal position and at the attempted introduction into Parliament of matters which he held to be wholly beyond its jurisdiction, determined to resign. Lord Grey, by no means wedded to office, and feeling that Althorp's personal influence was the main security of the Government, at once declared the administration at an end. The King had already shown, when giving an answer to an address from the Bishops, a strong feeling against any attack upon the property of the Church. This known division between the sovereign and his advisers, and the evident weakness of the Cabinet itself, rendered the resignation of the ministry less surprising than it otherwise would have been.

Lord Melbourne's ministry. July 16.

Seeing the impossibility of forming a distinctly Tory ministry, the King was persuaded by Lord Brougham to send for Lord Melbourne, whom he instructed to give effect as far as possible to his previously expressed wishes, and to form a combined ministry, admitting to office some Tories and some of those who had left office on Conservative grounds. The attempt was fruitless. Peel did not yet see his desired opportunity, and foreseeing the gradual reaction which must arise from the unsatisfactory character of the Whig administration, determined to await his time. The King was therefore compelled to consent to the reconstruction under Melbourne of the old ministry. There was very little change in the construction of the Cabinet. Lord Melbourne's own place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon (Ponsonby), Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat in the Cabinet as First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave.

The change, such as it was, did not add to the strength of the ministry. The introduction of the Coercion Bill on the 18th of July, without the stringent clauses, seemed a confession that some of the ministers at all events were acting contrary to conviction, or that they had weakly yielded to Irish clamour. The Bill was however passed with a strong protest in the Lords. An attempt on the 29th of July again to settle the tithe question displayed still further the inefficiency of the ministry; they allowed themselves to be beaten in the Lower House upon an amendment of O'Connell, who, instead of the proposed land tax, suggested the immediate payment of the tithes, diminished forty per cent., by the landlord. In spite of their defeat, which so completely changed their Bill that out of 172 clauses 111 had to be removed, Church policy of Melbourne's ministry. they proceeded with it, but suffered a heavy defeat on the second reading in the Lords. Their Church policy was indeed throughout entirely ineffective. The feeling that the Church was in danger had begun to take hold not only of the Lords, who systematically resisted innovation, but of the people in England. The efforts of the Dissenters, excited to demand religious equality by the success of Irish agitation, were fruitless. Their petitions were indeed of a character to cause some fear. They begged for the separation of Church and State, for the exclusion of Bishops from Parliament, for the admission of Dissenters to all the privileges of the universities. On this last point a Bill was introduced. Largely signed petitions were sent in against it by the universities. All the leaders of the Conservative, or partially Conservative party, combined to oppose it, and though it passed the Lower House it was rejected in the Lords (Aug. 1). In the same way the efforts of Government to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates, and from the restrictions laid upon the right of dissenting ministers to celebrate marriage, being all conceived from a Church point of view, and assuming the form of concessions rather than the granting of rights, were distasteful to the Dissenters themselves, and came to nothing. The plan for the commutation of the English tithes met with the same fate. It was indeed a period of general ecclesiastical excitement; the introduction of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill had closely touched the feelings of English Churchmen; the nature of the Church as distinct from an institution founded by and connected with the State began to be examined. A party in Oxford undertook to enlighten the nation upon the character of the Church in a series of tracts, which gained for the authors the title of Tractarians. In these they urged with great force all the tenets of what is now known as the High Church party—the doctrine of apolostic succession, the sole efficiency of the sacraments, the sacred nature of the priesthood, and the insufficiency of the Bible as apart from the explanations of Church tradition. Their principles rapidly spread. At the same time the Evangelical party lost several of its chief leaders and began to decline. And though three parties could still be traced, public opinion began to divide itself chiefly between the two great views of those who regarded the Church as an institution independent in itself, and beyond the reach of secular interference, and those Liberals who, attached as they might be to the Church as a political institution, regarded it as lying within the sphere of politics.

Reform of the Poor Law. Aug. 1834.

But if their liberal Church policy was doomed to failure, the ministry was able to do one great work by the reform of the Poor Law. The chief effects of the old Poor Law have been already mentioned. Its lax administration, the power of relief in the houses of the paupers, the system of allowances in aid of wages, and the distribution of relief in proportion to the number of children, had pauperized the agricultural poor, had withdrawn the chief restraints on early and imprudent marriages, had fostered immorality, and increased the amount of the poor rate till it seemed as though England would sink beneath the burden. It had become necessary to adopt some sounder principles, even although they had the appearance of harshness. Nor was the Government without experience by which to guide its action. Already in about a hundred parishes an improved administration had been tried, and in every instance it had succeeded; while, on the other hand, in certain parishes where the old system remained in vigour cultivation had been actually abandoned, and the neighbouring parishes having to support their poor, there was every risk of the plague spreading throughout England. The chief error in the old system was the complete confusion which existed between poverty and pauperism, between the industrious poor man and the self-pauperized idler. It was this point on which a commission issued in 1832 chiefly insisted. The Bill based on their report was in fact little more than a recurrence to the true principles enunciated in the first general Poor Law of the reign of Elizabeth. To separate these two classes it was necessary that outdoor relief should be discontinued and the allowance system put an end to. Those only who were really in want were to receive relief, but upon conditions which should render it certain that the want was real. In the workhouse every able-bodied man must work; it was not fair that the industrious should be called upon to support an increasing race of paupers raised in the workhouse, husbands and wives must therefore be separated; for the sake of training and education, children must be kept from the possible contamination of the adult paupers; and as the maintenance of industry was one of the chief objects of the reform, free circulation of labour and the removal of most of the restrictions of the old law of settlement were indispensable. The system no doubt had a very harsh appearance, but its principles could scarcely be questioned. But these principles were in fact nothing new; all the evils to be rectified had arisen from the bad way in which such principles had been carried out. The machinery then by which relief was to be administered was of almost more importance than the principles on which it was to be granted. For economy, parishes were formed into unions, with one workhouse instead of several. The method of collecting the rates was left unchanged, the distribution was still left to guardians and select vestries; but this local management was placed under a central board, consisting of three commissioners, with assistants, at first twenty-one, diminished subsequently to nine. There was one other point which bore an appearance of extreme harshness, was much objected to at the time, and was subsequently changed; this was an attempt to check immorality by throwing the charge of the maintenance of illegitimate children upon the mother. This appeared completely to shield the guilty father, and to punish only the weak and misguided mother, but in fact, as many wise people saw at the time, it roused a feeling of self-dependence and respect among women, and produced the very best effects; the decrease of illegitimate births was extraordinary. The decrease in England was nearly 10,000, or thirteen per cent. in two years. In one point only did it appear that party interests could interfere with the passage of the Bill. It almost necessarily implied the subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws. Freedom of labour, the abolition of the Act of Settlement, rendered such a change indispensable; but this the ministry, very anxious to avoid the appearance of touching laws which were very dear to the hearts of the agricultural interest, still refused to believe, and denied in the most absolute terms. Nevertheless, between the second reading on the 9th of May and the third reading of the Bill on the 1st of July, a very powerful opposition had been aroused. It was spoken of as a Bill cruel against the poor. From a radical point of view the centralization of the system was decried. The commissioners were spoken of as three-tailed Bashaws. It was however carried by 157 to 50 votes. This was on the 2nd of July, when Lord Grey was still in office. Under the new ministry the management of the Bill in the Upper House passed into the hands of Lord Brougham; he supported it in one of his ablest speeches, and it was carried on the second reading by a very considerable majority, and became law on the 14th of August. Although some subsequent amendments were necessary, it has on the whole proved highly successful. The poor rate, which at the end of the American War, when the population of England was about 8,000,000, amounted to £2,132,487, which during the subsequent forty years of mismanagement had risen till in 1833, when the population was 14,000,000, it had reached £8,606,501, was in the course of three years reduced by upwards of £3,000,000.

Discontent and misery of the poor.

But though its character was so free from taint of party, though its action was on the whole so beneficial, the new Poor Law was used, and used with effect, to excite the deep-felt discontent which was prevalent in the lower classes, and which continued to increase and to acquire form and organization during the next four years, till it assumed the definite form of Chartism, and produced the very dangerous outbreak in the year 1839. It was scarcely possible but that such discontent should exist; the hopes of the poor man, raised to an exaggerated height by the excitement of the Reform Bill, had been cruelly disappointed. While no doubt some good and useful measures of reform had been carried, it was impossible to deny that the reform ministry had on the whole proved itself unwilling and unable to handle the great social questions of the time, that disputes in Parliament had fallen back into their old grooves, and had assumed the form of party contests rather than of efforts for the improvement of the great mass of the people. Hitherto trade had been fairly prosperous, but in 1835 symptoms were evident that this prosperity was disappearing; and when want was added to the justly-felt disappointment of the workmen, when agitators were exciting them with dismal stories of the cruelty of the Poor Law, of the tyranny of the manufacturing masters, and when every good and popular measure seemed to be first stripped of half its value by the ministry which introduced it, and then totally rejected by an obstructive House of Lords, it is not to be wondered at that the unrepresented masses believed that they had been used merely as an instrument, and that if increased representation was so good for their betters, it would prove the cure for them also, and began to clamour for a wide extension of the franchise, and more efficient security that the particular wants of their class should receive attention.