arms on both nations, and recognized the independence of Belgium by a protocol of the 4th of November.

The autumn of 1830 witnessed in England the most remarkable contrast between the disgraces of ignorance and the triumphs of intellect. In the Southern Agricultural Counties there was a war of the labourer against the farmer, in the shape of the destruction of barns and corn-stacks, and of all implements of industry beyond the commonest tools. On the 15th of September, the first Railway for the conveyance of passengers was opened

On the 2nd of March, 1825, there had been a debate in the House of Commons on the motion for the second reading of the Bill for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. The subscribers to this undertaking were the bankers, merchants, traders, and manufacturers of Liverpool and Manchester, whose great object was the increase of commerce. The Bill passed in spite of the most strenuous opposition from canal companies, and from proprietors of land through or near which the line was intended to run. For four years the works went on, under the superintendence of George Stephenson, by whose skill and perseverance difficulties were overcome which then appeared insuperable. Stephenson persuaded the directors of the railway to offer a prize for the best locomotive. The Rocket engine, constructed by him, with the aid of his son Robert, won the prize. The old modes of transit were from the hour of that experiment changed throughout the whole civilized world. The railway was opened with a magnificent ceremonial. Eight locomotive engines with their attached carriages formed a procession to proceed from Liverpool to Manchester. On quitting the tunnel at Liverpool the Northumbrian engine, which drew the three carriages containing the directors and their most distinguished visitors, took the south line of the railway, the seven other engines with their carriages proceeding along the north line. At Parkside there was a stoppage, and many of the gentlemen in the Northumbrian carriages got out, Mr. Huskisson amongst the number. Suddenly a cry was heard"Get in-get in." The Rocket was coming. Mr. Huskisson lost his presence of mind; fell upon the north rail as he attempted to escape; and his right leg being crushed by the Rocket, he felt at once that the injury was fatal. He died that night after nine hours of agony; and was buried in the cemetery at Liverpool, followed to the grave by thousands of his sorrowing constituents.

On the 2nd of November, King William the Fourth opened the Parliament in person. The sympathy of the British population with the revolution of France was too manifest to be set at nought by the government of this country, and "the ready manner in which ministers recognized the new government of France" was cordially approved by earl Grey. In the Royal Speech it was indirectly but unmistakeably intimated, that a reform in parliament, for whose necessity public opinion had been so loudly expressed in the recent elections, would have no sanction from the government. All possible doubt on this head was soon dissipated by the announcement of the duke of Wellington that "He was not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but he would at once declare that as far as he was concerned, as long as he held any station in the government

A.D. 1831.

EARL GREY APPOINTED PREMIER.

853

of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.' In the House of Commons not a moment was lost by Mr. Brougham in declaring his determination to bring the great question of reform to an immediate practical issue. Men's minds in the metropolis and throughout the country were in a most unusual and in some respects alarming state of ferment. In Parliament it was sufficiently evident that upon the first important question the government would be in a minority.

The king having promised to dine with the Lord Mayor on Tuesday, the 9th of November, the Lord Mayor elect wrote to the duke of Wellington to suggest the propriety of his grace coming strongly and sufficiently guarded. The king was advised upon this warning to decline fulfilling the promise which he had made to the Lord Mayor. The most industrious attempts had been made to inflame the public mind against the new police, and the ministers feared that this force would not have been sufficient to keep the peace in the event of his majesty visiting the city. It was contended in Parliament that the unpopularity of the duke of Wellington, produced chiefly by his declaration against reform, ought not to have cast a doubt upon the universal popularity of the king.

On the 15th of November, in a debate on the Civil List, the government was in a minority of twenty-nine, in a house of four hundred and thirtyseven members. The next day the resignations of the Ministers were formally announced in both Houses. "I was defeated," the duke subse

66

quently said, on the Civil List. I admit I resigned next morning because I did not wish to expose his Majesty and the country to the consequences that might result from the government going out on the success of the question of Parliamentary Reform. Earl Grey was sent for by the king. His administration was readily completed when Mr. Brougham had been, with great difficulty, induced to accept the Great Seal. Lord Grey, in the House of Lords, made his statement, as Prime Minister, of the principles which would determine the conduct of his government. Moderate Reform; Economy and Retrenchment; repression of Outrage and Relief of Distress; the preservation of Peace with Foreign Powers. In the course of a fortnight all the minor offices were filled up, and were printed in the Gazette. On the 23rd of December, earl Grey, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved the adjournment of the Houses to the 3rd of February.

CHAPTER LXIII.

WHEN the Legislature re-assembled on the 3rd of February, 1831, numerous petitions were presented to the House of Commons praying for Reform of Parliament. Lord Althorp, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then informed the House that on Tuesday the 1st of March, the government

plan for the improvement of the representative system would be brought forward by lord John Russell. In the House of Lords earl Grey made a corresponding announcement. A Committee of four members of the government-lord Durham, sir James Graham, lord John Russell, and viscount Duncannon,-had been selected by lord Grey to consider the manifold details connected with so large a change, and to prepare a Bill. The measure, which was finally adopted by the Cabinet, was submitted to the king on the 30th of January. In the interval between the announcement of the 3rd of February, and the bringing forward the Reform Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced his budget. The duties on newspapers and advertisements were to be reduced; those on coals, on candles, and on printed cottons were to be abolished. The propositions to reduce the duty on glass and the duty on tobacco were withdrawn ; for some of the taxes offered as substitutes had been strenuously opposed.

During the month of February the scope of the Reform Bill had been kept profoundly secret. On the 1st of March, in a remarkably full House, with every empty seat bearing a label of the name of its proposed occupant, not a dozen of that crowd had the slightest conception of the nature of the measure which they might be called upon to support or to oppose. The speech with which lord John Russell introduced the proposition of the government was lucid, slightly argumentative, entirely free from rhetorical ornament. It caused both wonder and ridicule when it was proposed to a House of Commons, of which one hundred and sixty-eight members for England were returned by boroughs, that sixty boroughs should be wholly disfranchised, as having each less than two thousand inhabitants. Fortyseven boroughs, having less than four thousand inhabitants each, were to return one member instead of two; and a single borough which had formerly returned four members was to be reduced to half its number of representatives. The existing number of six hundred and fifty-eight members was to be curtailed to five hundred and ninety-six. Seven unrepresented large towns were to have the right of returning two members each; twenty smaller towns unrepresented were to return one member each. London was to be divided into four districts, each having two members. Fifty-four members were to be added to the county representation. Instead of the old rights of election in boroughs, a household franchise of 107. was substituted. Corporations were deprived of the exclusive privileges which some possessed of returning members. The duration of elections was to be reduced to two days by a previous registration. When lord John Russell proceeded to read the names of the boroughs to be disfranchised wholly or in part, then indeed was the excitement of the House at an unprecedented height. For many members it was a personal question of the last importance. Statesmen, too, who looked beyond individual interests were aghast at a proposal so sweeping, so revolutionary as they were warranted in believing. Sir Robert Inglis, the member for the University of Oxford, was the first to reply to the arguments of lord John Russell. His speech was an able one, anticipating most of the arguments which were employed for the seven wearisome nights of debate on the introduction of the Bill. He maintained the impossibility of the co

A.D. 1831.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL.

855

existence of a monarchy with a free press and a purely popular representation. The destruction of the monarchy was to involve the simultaneous destruction of the House of Peers. The abolition of the House of Lords was the most stirring and practical of the prophecies of the alarmists. In or out of Parliament the cry was that the destruction of the aristocracy by the passing of the democratic Reform Bill was inevitable. The second night of the debate was memorable for the speeches of Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Stanley, of which sir James Mackintosh said, they were "two of the finest speeches ever spoken in Parliament." M. Guizot says Macaulay's "powerful language carried some disturbance into the soul of Peel." The debate being closed on the seventh night without a division, the Bill was read a first time on the 14th of March. On the 21st of March, lord John Russell moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Reform Bill. Sir Richard Vivian moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The second reading was carried by a majority of one only in a house of six hundred and eight. In ordinary times this bare majority would have compelled the retirement of a Ministry from office. On the 18th of April the House went into Committee on the order of the day, to consider the provisions of the bill for the amendment of the representation. General Gascoigne, following lord John Russell, moved an amendment, on which the ministry were beaten by a majority of eight, in an adjourned debate on the 19th. On the 21st, in the House of Peers, lord Wharncliffe gave notice that he should the next day move that an address be presented to his Majesty praying that he would be graciously pleased not to exercise his undoubted prerogative of dissolving Parliament. On the same evening in the House of Commons, ministers were again defeated by a majority of twenty-two on a question of adjourn ment. The next morning, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were with the king. They had come either to lay the resignations of the ministry at his Majesty's feet, or to request him to dissolve the Parlia ment. His Majesty was startled at their proposition of a dissolution, but the "daring Chancellor," as Mr. Roebuck terms him, overcame all obstacles. He had even ventured so far as to give orders for the attendance of the troops. The speech to be read by his Majesty was in the Chancellor's pocket; and the ministers were dismissed with something like a menace and a joke upon the audacity of their proceedings. The Lords had begun to assemble at two o'clock. Lord Wharncliffe was just completing the reading of his resolution when there were cries of "The King, the King." Lord Londonderry rose in fury, and exclaimed, “I protest, my Lords, I will not submit to" The Chancellor, hearing the king approaching, clutched up the seals and rushed out of the House. There was terrible confusion, amidst which lord Mansfield proceeded to deliver a general harangue against the Reform Bill. The king entered the House, cut short lord Mansfield's oration, and after the Speaker of the House of Commons and about a hundred members had attended at the bar, commenced his speech with these very decisive words :-"My Lords and Gentlemen, I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its immediate dissolution." The House of Commons, before the Usher of the Black Rod had tapped at the door,

had been a scene of turbulence and confusion-even outrivalling that of the Lords-which the Speaker had vainly endeavoured to repress. On the dissolution of Parliament there was an illumination in London, sanctioned by the Lord Mayor, which was attended with more mischief from the turbulence of a mob-who broke the windows of the duke of Wellington and other anti-reformers,—than productive of any real advantage to the popular cause. After the Edinburgh election the Lord Provost was rudely assaulted, and was with difficulty rescued by the soldiery. Such proceedings seriously damaged the just cause of peaceable Reform, and became to the government a source of anxiety and alarm, producing distrust and desertion amongst the ranks of Reformers.

The appeal to the people was signally triumphant. Parliament opened on the 14th of June, when Mr. Manners Sutton was chosen Speaker for the sixth time. On the 24th, lord John Russell again brought in the Reform Bill, with a few alterations. The measure thus proposed was confined to England. There was to be a separate bill for Scotland, which was brought in by the Lord Advocate on the 1st of July; and a separate bill for Ireland, which was brought in by Mr. Stanley on the 30th of June. On the second reading of the English Bill, which was moved by lord John Russell on the 4th of July, there were three nights of debate. On the third night the House divided: For the second reading, 367; against it, 231. On the 12th of July the House went into Committee. During thirty-nine sittings there were debates upon every clause of disfranchisement and every clause of enfranchisement. The leader of this mode of opposition was Mr. John Wilson Croker, whose power of mastering the most obscure details was perhaps unrivalled, and, we fear we must add, whose application of his minute researches was not always quite honest. The minister who was always ready to repel his attacks was one of very different character. Lord Althorp subdued his adversaries, and was a buckler to his supporters, by his singleness of purpose. Before the bill came out of Committee, an important alteration was carried by the mar quis of Chandos,-that tenants-at-will paying fifty pounds per annum for their holdings should have a vote for the county. This proposal, which involved other amendments of a similar tendency, was carried by a majority of eighty-four. Freed from the Committee, having been read a third time, the Reform Bill passed the House of Commons on the 21st of September, the numbers being three hundred and forty-five for the measure, and two hundred and thirty-six against it. On the 22nd of September the House of Lords presented an unusual attendance of peers. Peeresses were accommodated at the bar, and the space allotted to stran. gers was thronged to an overflow. Lord Althorp and lord John Russell, bearing the Reform Bill in their hands, appeared at the head of a hundred members of the Lower House. The words, usually of mere form and ceremony, by which a message of the Commons is communicated to the Lords, were spoken by the Lord Chancellor with unusual solemnity of tone and manner amidst breathless silence. The Bill was then read a first time, and was ordered to be read a second time on Monday the 3rd of October. During the five nights of debate in this memorable week, the House of Lords stood before the nation presenting examples of the highest