XXIII. 1832. democratic the bill. and the schedules A and B, which disfranchised property CHAP. and the colonies, were retained. The first of these schedules, being that containing boroughs which were to 94. be entirely disfranchised, was kept up at its original Increased amount of fifty-six, and there was no addition to the one character of hundred and forty-four county members, as proposed by the new first bill. Eleven towns were taken from Schedule B, and placed in Schedule C, containing new towns returning two members each. The general result was, that the borough members for England amounted to three hundred and twenty-eight, and the county to one hundred and fortyfour, or considerably less than a half! Yet did Government still persist in the belief that the landed interest would not be impaired by the change. "The House," said Earl Grey, on introducing the bill into the House of Peers, "know how unfounded must be the alarm of those who thought that the present measure would be fatal to 22, 23. the influence of the landed interest."1 Ann. Reg. 1832, 16, 104; Parl. Deb. xii. 95. the bill, R. Peel's The second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of 136; the numbers being 367 to 231. This was a much Division on larger majority than had yet been obtained on the sub- and Sir ject, and demonstrated the progress which the question speech was making in the public mind. It was strenuously and against it. firmly, though temperately, opposed by Sir R. Peel. “I shall oppose this bill," said he, " to the last, believing as I do that the people are grossly deluded as to the practical benefits to be derived from it; that it is the first step, not directly, to revolution, but to a series of changes which will affect the property and alter the mixed constitution of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the House of Lords, and that it will force on a series of farther concessions. I will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because it will in some degree oppose a bar to future concessions. If the whole House were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist future concessions. On XXIII. 1832. CHAP. this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any wellconsidered reform of any of our institutions which the well-being of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution, because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it which are founded in prejudice perhaps, as well as in higher sources of veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this, and I will wield all the power that I possess to oppose the gradual progress of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to yield; for if we make these concessions, it will only lead to establish the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may be enabled to establish a republic, full, I have no doubt, of energy-not wanting, I have no doubt, in talent-but fatal, in my conscience I believe, to our mixed form of government, and ultimately 1 Ann. Reg. destructive of all those usages and practices which have long insured to us a large share of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the proudest kingdom in the annals of the world."1 1832, 43, 44; Parl. Deb. xi. 729, 780. 96. ing carried mons by 116, and Lord J. Russell's closing de claration. March 23. The third reading of the bill was carried, on 23d March, Third read- in the Commons, after a very long discussion in committee, in the Com- by a majority of 116, in a House of 594, being less than the majority on the second reading, but larger by 7 than the final division on the first bill. Lord John Russell closed his arduous task with these remarkable words, which, without doubt, expressed in good faith the opinion of Government regarding the measure: "With respect to the expectations of the Government, I will say that, in proposing this measure, they have not acted lightly; but, after much consideration, they were induced to think, a year ago, that a measure of this kind was necessary, if they would stand between the abuses which they wished to correct and the convulsions they desired to avoid. I am convinced that, if Parliament should refuse to entertain a measure of this nature, they would place in collision that party which, on the one hand, opposed all reform in CHAP. XXIII. 1832. the Commons House of Parliament, and that which, on the other, desired a reform extending to universal suffrage. The consequence of this would be, that much blood would be shed in the struggle between the contending parties; and I am perfectly convinced that the British constitution 1 Parl. Deb. would perish in the conflict. I move, sir, that this bill xi. 780. do now pass. "1 Before following the bill to its next stage, and recording 97. tress in the country, and Mr Hunt's the momentous conflict between the Crown and the demo- General discracy which ensued in the Upper House, it is necessary to mention two circumstances which occurred at this period, motion rewhich threw an important light both on the causes that garding it. had produced the reform passion, and the effect its gratification was likely to have on the prosperity and welfare of the nation. Before the first half of the year 1831 had passed, all branches of industry in the country had come to be sensibly affected by the consternation which generally prevailed, and the feeling of danger which existed on the part of the holders of property in regard to the security of their possessions. Before the end of the year this feeling had become so strong that enterprise and speculations of all sorts were paralysed, expenditure was generally contracted, and industry of every kind in consequence became depressed to a most alarming degree. Mr Hunt, the Radical member for Preston, brought this under the notice of the House of Commons, by an amendment on the Address, which expressed the feeling of the democratic classes in regard to the remote causes of their distresses.* No one seconded his amendment, and it was negatived * "That by the present critical and alarming state of our country, when trade and manufactures are reduced to such difficulties by the withdrawing of, and narrowing the circulation, without a proportionate reduction of taxation, by which the incomes of all those classes but those who lived upon the taxes are reduced one half in value, the greatest distresses existed; that these were aggravated by the baleful system called Free Trade, by which a competition of foreign silks, gloves, and other articles is permitted with our own manufactures; that by these means the people have been driven to desperation and phrenzy; and that to these causes are to be attributed those incendiary proceedings going on in the country.”—Ann. Reg. 1831, p. 13. XXIII. 1832. CHAP. without a division. Posterity will probably reverse the sentence, as it has already done the unanimous vote of the National Assembly finding Louis XVI. guilty, and come to regard the contraction of the currency, and introduction of Free Trade, to which he referred the whole 1832, 31. existing distress, as the real cause of all the convulsions into which the nation had been thrown.1 1 Ann. Reg. 98. state of the public re venue. But how insensible soever the House of Commons, Declining during the heat of the reform contest, might be to the real causes which had induced the general distress, and with it the desire for change, its effects were soon brought to light in a form which could neither be overlooked nor mistaken. The revenue exhibited a falling off to a most alarming extent. On October 3d, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his second budget for the year, the first having been abandoned, as already stated,2 and he was obliged to admit a very considerable defalcation in the principal articles of revenue. The Customs, in the preceding quarter, had fallen £644,000 below the corresponding quarter in the preceding year, and the Excise, in the same period, no less than £1,909,000. Upon the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the revenue at £47,250,000, and the expenditure at £46,756,000, leaving an apparent excess of income of £500,000 a-year. 3* But 2 Ante, c. xxii. §§ 103, 104. 3 Ann. Reg. 1831, 289 290, and for 1832, 229, 230; App. to The income and expenditure for the year 1831, as actually realised, stood as follows: XXIII. 1832. 99. so far were these expectations from being realised that the CHAP. total income, deducting the cost of collection from both sides, for the year ending 5th January 1852, was only £46,424,000, and the total expenditure £47,123,000, leaving a deficit of £700,000 a-year, which of course more than extinguished the last remnants of the Sinking Fund. Ireland also, before the end of the year, exhibited a most afflicting increase of predial outrage and disorder. State of IreThen was seen how utterly fallacious an idea it had been land. that the exclusion of the Catholics from the legislature had been the real cause of the disturbances of the country, and how little their admission into it had done to remove them. So far from it, their success on the former occasion had only made them more audacious; and the agitators and priests over the whole country had now banded the people together in a general combination for resistance to tithes, which led to the most frightful tragedies. The misery and crimes of the people were daily increasing, and never had this increase been so great as since emancipation had passed. Murder, robbery, searching for arms, were committed in open day, and by such large bodies as set resistance at defiance even by the armed police. In daylight they dug up the potatoes in the fields. Five were shot dead while attacking a house in Tipperary; but this had no effect in deterring from similar outrages. Nine persons were killed during a conflict between the insurgents and police at Castle Pollard, in the county of Westmeath, on the 23d of May. Twelve May 23. were killed and twenty wounded during an affray at New- June 18. tonbarry, in Wexford, originating in a sale for distraining of tithes. The coroner's jury, after sitting nine days, Ann. Reg. could arrive at no verdict, six Catholics being on the one 326. side, and six Protestants on the other.1 As winter approached, and the severities of nature were added to the animosities of man, these outrages assumed a still more sombre and alarming character. Payment 1 1831, 324, |