XXIII. 1832. 100. tithe out rages in Wexford and New tonbarry. Nov. 25. CHAP. of tithe generally ceased; when it was recovered, it was only by distraining, which generally led to conflicts between the police and peasantry, ending in wounds and Dreadful death, terminating in still more unseemly struggles for vengeance or impunity in the courts of justice. In the end of November, five of the peasantry were shot dead by the military in a tithe riot, when the latter had been assailed by a band of ruffians; but soon after the insurgents took a bloody revenge. A strong party of police having gone to protect a legal officer employed to serve a tithe notice, the peasantry assembled in multitudes on the road-sides, armed with pitchforks, bludgeons, and scythes, and having closed with the procession of the police, the commanding-officer and twelve of his men were killed. Such was the ferocity of the mob, that they beat out the brains of five of the police, who lay on the ground wel Dec. 14. 1 Ann. Reg. tering in their blood, and put to death the captain's son, 1831, 324, 326, 328. a boy of ten years of age, who was with the procession, and the pony on which he rode! 1 101. While these frightful scenes were going forward, and Resolution the country, from one end to the other, was in a state of the Cabi- of the most violent excitement, from the dread of yet peers. greater calamities impending over it, the Cabinet were anxiously engaged in the consideration of the all-important question, how the declared hostility of the Peers to the bill was to be overcome. The King had, in the outset of the discussions on the Reform Bill, distinctly declared to his Ministers that he would not dissolve the House of Commons if it should reject the bill, nor create peers if the Upper House did the same. "He had been induced, however," says the Whig historian, the Whig historian, "under the mixed influence of vanity and alarm, to dissolve the intractable Parliament of 1830; but he declared he never would consent to any coercion of the Peers by means of crea2 Roebuck, tions."2 The Cabinet, however, distinctly saw that matters had now come to such a point that such a measure was unavoidable, to avoid a rejection of the bill; and ii. 223. XXIII. 1832. great division of opinion existed in the Ministry on the CHAP. subject. Lord Brougham and Lord Durham strenuously supported the measure, which they represented as unavoidable, and even urged a creation of sixty, to neutralise an anticipated majority to that amount. Lord Grey, on the other hand, manifested the utmost repugnance, and declared that he could never bring himself to acquiesce in any such unconstitutional measure. Lord Durham combated Earl Grey's objections in a written memoir, dated in January 1832; and Sir James Graham recommended the creation of a small batch of peers in the first instance, to show that Government were determined, and had the power to enforce their determination. The discussions in the Cabinet were long and anxious; and when Parliament met, on 6th December, no decision was arrived at on the subject. It was not till the first week of January 1832 that the repugnance of Lord Grey was over- 1 Roebuck, come; and a majority of the Cabinet had resolved to ii. 223, 224. present the creations to the King as a Cabinet measure.1 violently and reluc sents. Meanwhile the King, who also foresaw that the matter 102. would ultimately come to his decision, was in a state of The King is the utmost anxiety and agitation, and he repeatedly and agitated, vehemently declared that he considered a creation of tantly coupeers a revolutionary proceeding, and tending directly to the destruction of the House of Lords. It was on the 1st January, for the first time, that the majority of the Cabinet was brought round to the creation of peers, and on the 3d of the same month, after a long conference with Earl Grey, he was, with great reluctance, induced to give his consent to "the measure of peer-making,” as he termed it, if, on reflection, the Cabinet should remain of opinion that it was absolutely unavoidable; but, to be satisfied of that, he required all the members of the Cabinet to give him their opinion in writing; adding at the same time, that nothing but the most stern necessity would induce him to consent to so fatal a measure, and that, if done at all, he would prefer doing it at once to proceeding by XXIII. 1832. CHAP. Successive small creations. He insisted, also, that the new peerages, with the exception of two, or at most three, should be in favour either of the eldest sons or heirs-presumptive of peers, and he expressed a hope that twentyone might be sufficient. These conditions he said he considered essential to the preservation of the hereditary character of the peerage, and he expressed the utmost alarm at the revolutionary spirit which was abroad 1 Roebuck, in the country, and entreated his Ministers, in the most earnest manner, to do everything in their power to check and restrain it.1 ii. 226, 227, note. 103. tiations with the waverers. The In the mean time a negotiation was secretly commenced, Secret nego- through Sir Herbert Taylor, the King's private secretary, between his Majesty and some of the Opposition peers, particularly Lord Wharncliffe and Lord Harrowby, the object of which was to induce them to vote for the second reading of the bill as a matter of absolute necessity, and in the hope of effecting some important improvements upon it in committee. The fixed opinion of the King, which he expressed on all occasions, was, that a large measure of reform had become indispensable, but that a creation of peers to effect it would give an irremediable wound to the constitution, and that every possible effort should be made to avert so dire au alternative. influence of his Majesty, as well as the obvious reason of the thing, had a decisive effect upon a considerable number of peers, respectable alike by their talents and their position, and the result appeared in the vote which followed, though it did not avert the catastrophe which was apprehended. Indeed, to any one who calmly considers the circumstances of the British empire at this period, it must be evident that the view taken by the King and these peers was well founded, and that there was now no alternative between an extensive reform and revolution.2 The nation had been worked up to such a pitch by the long dependence of the question and the efforts of the press, that it had become altogether ungovernable, and it Martineau, ii. 56, 57; Ann. Reg. 1832, 100, 102; Roe buck, ii. 259. XXIII. 1832. had determined upon a change, which, for good or for CHAP. evil, must be conceded. "A majority," says Roebuck, "of the wealthy, intelligent, and instructed, as well as the poor and laborious millions, had now resolved to have the Reform Bill. They had resolved to have it, if possible, by peaceable means, but, if that were not possible, BY FORCE." 104. ings to Peers. Decisive proof of this ungovernable and revolutionary spirit speedily appeared during the three weeks which Revolutionimmediately preceded the second reading of the bill in the ary meetUpper House. The political unions and Radicals turned coerce the the Easter recess to good account in the furtherance of agitation to overawe and coerce the House of Peers. The assembly of numbers made, and violence of the speeches delivered at the meetings which they called in all the great towns, much exceeded anything witnessed even during the earlier stages of this disastrous contest. Everything breathed approaching civil war. Argument or persuasion was little thought of: threats, denunciations of vengeance, predictions of approaching and prepared rebellion, formed the staple of the harangues. The great object was to make as imposing as possible a display of numbers and physical strength, and certainly the multitudes assembled did give fearful évidence of the extent to which the passions of the people had at length come to be stirred. At Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds, Paisley, Sheffield, and all the great towns, meetings attended by thirty thousand or forty thousand persons were held, at which the most violent language was used, and the most revolutionary ensigns were exhibited. Charles X., from his windows in Holyrood, gazed on a scene in the King's Park of Edinburgh which recalled the opening events of the French Revolution; and a speaker at Newcastle reminded the Sovereign that a "fairer head than that of Adelaide had ere this rolled on the scaffold." The object of all these petitions and speeches was the same to induce the Lords, by threats of revolution, to VOL. IV. 2 A CHAP. pass the bill, and the King by similar threats to create XXIII. peers sufficient to coerce them if they refused to do so. 1832. The National Union, on 3d May, spoke the voice of all May 3. Martineau, the unions when it said that there was reason to expect Ann. Reg. that, if the Lords denied or impaired the bill, "the pay1832, 170, ment of taxes would cease, the other obligations of society sonal know- would be disregarded, and the ultimate consequence might be the extinction of the privileged orders.” 1 ii. 56, 57; 171; Per ledge. 105. Second reading of the bill car- Amidst this tumult and anarchy the second reading of the bill came on in the House of Peers. The debate commenced on the 9th, and was not concluded till seven o'clock on the morning of the 13th, when it was carried by a majority of NINE. The solicitations of the King, the threats of the people, had not been without their effects. Seventeen peers had changed their vote; twelve, who had formerly been absent, now appeared, and voted for the bill; ten, who had voted against it, were now absent. Among the twelve were the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of London, St David's, Worcester, and Chester. "It was the bishops," says the liberal historian, "who saved the bill this time, but this deed did 2Martineau, not restore the credit they had lost in October." 2 It ii. 57. never does so concession to democracy never either satisfies its desires or commands its esteem. It is ascribed to fear, and that generates nothing but contempt.3 3 Parl. Deb. xii. 454. 106. hurst's thirty-five. It soon appeared, however, that the object of this Lord Lynd- defection had been to meet the wishes of the Soveamendment reign, or avert the wrath of the people, but by no means carried by to pass the bill entire in obedience to the mandates of either. On May 7, when Parliament met after the recess, and when a meeting of not less than one hundred thousand persons was held in Birmingham, Lord Lyndhurst proposed in committee to defer the consideration of the disfranchising clauses in the bill till the enfranchising clauses had been considered. Begin," said he, "by enfranchising, by conferring rights and privileges, by granting boons and favours, and not by depriving a por 66 |