XXIII. 1831. 66 CHAP. ing waves of an overwhelming majority. First in position, as first in importance, must be placed a petition from the merchants and bankers of the city of London, which, presented at this time amidst the heat and din of the conflict, contains a mass of arguments, remarkable even at this day for the far-stretching ken by which it was distinguished. While," said they, we should have been far from opposing the adoption of any proposition, temperate in its character, gradual in its operation, consistent with justice and the ancient usages of the realm, and having for its object the correction of acknowledged abuses, or any amelioration in the administration of public affairs, we feel it impossible to regard in that light a measure which, by its unprecedented and unnecessary infringement on the rights and privileges of large and wealthy bodies of people, would go far to shake the foundation of that constitution under which our Sovereign holds his title to the throne, his nobles to their estates, and ourselves and the rest of our fellow-subjects to the various possessions and immunities which we enjoy by law; a measure which, while it professes to enlarge the representation of the kingdom on the broad basis of property, would, in its practical operation, have the effect of closing the principal avenues through which the monied, the comof London mercial, the shipping, and colonial interests, together with all their connected and independent interests throughout chants, our vast empire abroad, have hitherto been represented in 1831; Ann. the legislature, and would thus effectually exclude the possessors of a large portion of the national wealth from any effectual voice and influence in the national affairs.”1 At length the debate on the second reading of the bill Second came on on the 21st March. It lasted only two days, and was distinguished rather by increased vehemence and majority of acrimony than additional information or more enlightened 1 Petition Bankers and Mer March 19, Reg. 1831, 81. 57. reading of the bill car ried by a one. views. The opponents of the bill openly denounced it as ་ XXIII. 1831. revolution; and that the rejection of a bill on which the CHAP. nation was so unanimously set, could not fail to lead to the most terrible convulsions. The press opened with the utmost violence on the opponents of the measure, whom it held up to the hatred and contumely of the country. The nation was in anxious suspense for two days; but at length the public anxiety was terminated by the announcement that the bill had been carried by a majority of ONE in a House of 608. The numbers were 302 to 301, the Speaker and four tellers being excluded. It was the fullest House on record, there being only 50 awanting out of 658. An analysis of the vote showed how entirely the public voice had turned against the close boroughs, and how thoroughly the temper of the counties had been changed from what it once had been, by the low prices and agricultural distress of the last ten years; for 60 county members for England and Wales were for the second reading, and only 32 against it; while in Ireland the disproportion was still greater, there being 40 county 818. members for the bill, and only 21 against it.1+ Take as an example the following: "When night after night borough nominees rise up to infect the proceedings of the House of Commons, to justify their own intrusion into it, and their continuance there, thus imprudently maintaining what the lawyers call an adverse possession,' in spite of judgment against them, we really feel inclined to ask why the rightful owners of the House should be longer insulted by the presence of such unwelcome inmates? It is beyond question a piece of the broadest and coolest effrontery in the world, for these hired lacquais of public delinquents to stand up as advocates of the disgraceful service they have embarked in.”—Times, 14th March 1831. See also Ann. Reg. 1831, p. 82; and Parl. Deb. vol. iii. p. 602. + Over the whole empire the vote, when analysed, stood thus, pairs included :— Ann. Reg. 1831, 94; Parl. Deb. iii. 804, It is a singular circumstance how many of the most momentous divisions on record have been carried by a majority of one. The first triumph of the Tiers Etat in the National Assembly in 1789, when they constituted themselves a separate chamber, was carried by one; and it will appear in the sequel that a similar majority ousted the Whigs, and re-seated Sir Robert Peel in power in 1841.-See History of Europe, chap. iv. § 46. CHAP. XXIII. 58. General Gascoigne's carried against Government by eight. March 19. This memorable division was hailed in the country as a decided triumph by the Reformers, and immensly aug1831. mented the excitement already so great on the subject; but by the Ministry, and those more immediately acmotion is quainted with the working of parties in the House of Commons, it was with reason regarded as a defeat. They knew that many of those who had voted in the majority had done so from the dread of losing their seats at the next election, but were in secret averse to the measure, and would do their utmost in committee, by voting for amendments, or staying away from divisions, to defeat the measure. No less than sixty votes for the bill were for places to be disfranchised or reduced; and it was not to be supposed that their representatives could be very sincere in the wish to have the places they sat for extinguished. This accordingly soon appeared. On the 18th April, Lord John Russell moved that the House go into committee on the bill, and stated several alterations on the details of the measure which he proposed to make, not affecting its general principles. Upon this General Gascoigne moved, as an instruction to the committee, "that it is the opinion of the House that the total number of knights, burgesses, and citizens returned to Parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, ought not to be reduced." The motion was seconded by Mr Sadler, in a powerful and argumentative speech; but strongly opposed by the Chancellor of the 1 Ann. Reg. Exchequer, who declared that "the object of the amend108; Parl. ment was to destroy the bill." An animated debate 1606, 1687. ensued, which terminated in a majority of EIGHT against Ministers, the numbers being 299 to 291.1 1854, 104, Deb. iii. 59. both sides This was the crisis of the reform question. It was Dangers on now apparent that a majority of the House was adverse in ulterior to the bill, and that the only course which remained to Ministers, if they desired to carry it, was to dissolve the House of Commons. But this course was neither easy nor free from danger. It was well known that the King measures. XXIII. 1831. had become seriously alarmed at the probable effects of CHAP. the measure, and was to the last degree reluctant to appeal to the people on a question of such moment, and on which the public mind was so vehemently agitated. There was no saying what a House of Commons, elected in a moment of such unparalleled excitement, might force upon the King and the Government. On the other hand, the danger appeared to be not less in the end, and much more pressing in the beginning, if the sense of the country were not taken on a question concerning which the anxiety of the public mind had become so strongly excited. To do so was to follow the course prescribed by the constitution, and generally adopted in similar circumstances; and there was too much reason to apprehend that, if it were not followed, the threats of the Radicals might be realised, and the monarchy and constitution be overturned in some terrible convulsion. Ministers have since confessed that they beheld equal perils on both sides, and felt as if crossing the bridge figured by the poets, ii. 149, 150; consisting of a single arch of sharp steel, spanning a fiery ii. 34. gulf on either hand! 1 1 Roebuck, Martineau, tlement on Earl Grey, however, had judiciously taken one step, 60. calculated, in some degree, to lessen these difficulties, by Liberal setsmoothing the way to a better understanding with the the Royal Sovereign. The whole Cabinet were impressed with the Family. idea that William IV. was in reality as averse to them as his predecessor would have been; that they had been intrusted with the government merely because it could not be avoided; and that the first opportunity would be gladly seized to displace them. It is not surprising that, entertaining this belief, they were desirous of establishing themselves on a more solid foundation with the King; and with sovereigns, as well as individuals, it is not the least effectual way of establishing a good understanding to remove all difficulties about money matters. This was accordingly done. The committee on the civil list which, on Sir H. Parnell's famous motion which displaced the XXIII. 1831. CHAP. Ministry, had been appointed, had reported that a reduction of £12,000 a-year should be made in the expense of the royal household, chiefly in the departments of the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse. This report gave great offence to the King, who required the Lord Chancellor to give him his opinion as to whether the committee were empowered to make such a proposal. Finding his Majesty thus disposed, Ministers conceded the point, and proposed £510,000 a-year for the civil list, instead of £498,480, as recommended by the committee; and at the same time a liberal jointure of £100,000 a-year was settled on Queen Adelaide. This dexterous move gratified the King in the highest degree; 1 Roebuck, the bill, settling the civil list as he desired, passed the Ann. Reg. House of Commons with very little opposition, and it received the royal assent on the very last day of the session, a few minutes before Parliament was dissolved.1 ii. 159, 160; 1832, 19, 22. 61. Efforts made to won the King by his vanity. Ministers, however, had still a very difficult task before them in obtaining the royal assent to a dissolution of Parliament; for his Majesty was very reluctant to take so extreme a step, and the Opposition lost no opportunity, in public and private, of impressing upon him the great danger with which it would be attended. The great reliance of the Ministry was on the vanity which was the principal foible in the royal character; and this worked with surprising effect. The historian of the Whigs has given the following account of the manner in which they acted on this occasion: "The King was vain, and he was timid; he was flattered by his extraordinary popularity, and he was fearful lest confusion might follow a rejection of the bill. The Ministers were now compelled to play upon these two strings; to take every opportunity of making the King the subject of eulogy, of noisy and vociferous applause. He was delighted by the extravagant manifestations of his own popularity, with which the eager and confiding populace supplied him whenever he appeared in public. And he was, with great dexterity, made to |