it; and his proffered resignation being accepted by the Duke of Wellington, led to the withdrawal of Lord Palmerston, Lord Dudley, Mr. Lamb, and Mr. Grant, the most liberal members of the government, the friends and colleagues of the late Mr. Canning. The cabinet was now entirely Tory; and less disposed than ever, to make concessions to the reformers. The Penryn bill was soon afterwards thrown out by the Lords on the second reading; and the East Retford bill,— having been amended so as to retain the franchise in the hundreds, - was abandoned in the Commons.2

enfranchise

mingham,

It was the opinion of many attentive observers of these times, that the concession of demands so reason- Proposal to able would have arrested, or postponed for many Leeds, Biryears, the progress of reform. They were re- and Manchessisted; and further agitation was encouraged. In ter, 1830. 1830, Lord John Russell, no longer hoping to deal with Penryn and East Retford, — proposed at once to enfranchise Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester; and to provide that the three next places proved guilty of corruption, should be altogether disfranchised. His motion was opposed, mainly on the ground that if the franchise were given to these towns, the claims of other large towns could not afterwards be resisted. Where, then, were such concessions to stop? It is remarkable that on this occasion, Mr. Huskisson said of Lord Sandon, who had moved an amendment, that he was young, and would yet live to see the day when the representative franchise must be granted to the great manufacturing districts. He thought such a time fast approaching; and that one day or other, His Majesty's ministers would come down to that House, to propose such a measure, as necessary for the salvation of the country." Within a year, this prediction had been verified; though the unfortu

66

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xix. 915.

2 Ibid. 1530.

8 Ibid. xxii. 859.

1

nate statesman did not live to see its fulfilment. The motion was negatived by a majority of forty-eight; and thus another moderate proposal,- free from the objections which had been urged against disfranchisement, and not affecting any existing rights, was sacrificed to a narrow and obstinate dread of innovation.

Other propo

In this same session, other proposals were made of a widely different character. Mr. O'Connell moved sals in 1830. resolutions in favor of universal suffrage, triennial Parliaments, and vote by ballot. Lord John Russell moved to substitute other resolutions, providing for the enfranchisement of large towns, and giving additional members to populous counties; while any increase of the numbers of the House of Commons was avoided, by disfranchising some of the smaller boroughs, and restraining others from sending more than one member.2 Sir Robert Peel, in the course of the debate, said: "They had to consider whether there was not, on the whole, a general representation of the people in that House; and whether the popular voice was not sufficiently heard. For himself he thought that it was." This opinion was but the prelude to a more memorable declaration, by the Duke of Wellington. Both the motion and the amendment failed; but discussions so frequent served to awaken public sympathy in the cause, which great events were soon to arouse into enthusiasm.

1830.

At the end of this session, Parliament was dissolved, in Dissolution in consequence of the death of George IV. The government was weak, parties had been completely disorganized by the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, much discontent prevailed in the country; and the question of parliamentary reform, which had been so often discussed in the late session,- became a popular topic at the elections. Meanwhile a startling event abroad, added to the usual excitement of a general election. Scarcely

1 Ayes 140, Noes 188.

-

2 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., xxiv 1204.

had the writs been issued, when Charles X. of France, having attempted a coup d'état, lost his crown, and was an exile on his way to England.1 As he had fallen, in violating the liberty of the press, and subverting the representative constitution of France, this sudden revolution gained the sympathy of the English people, and gave an impulse to liberal opinions. The excitement was further increased by the revolution in Belgium, which immediately followed. The new Parliament, elected under such circumstances, met in October. Being without the restraint of a strong government, acknowledged leaders, and accustomed party connections, it was open to fresh political impressions; and the first night of the session determined their direction.

laration.

A few words from the Duke of Wellington raised a storm, which swept away his government, and destroyed Duke of Welhis party. In the debate on the address, Earl lington's decGrey adverted to reform, and expressed a hope that it would not be deferred, like Catholic Emancipation, until government would be "compelled to yield to expediency, what they refused to concede upon principle." This elicited from the Duke, an ill-timed profession of faith in our representation. "He was fully convinced that the country possessed, at the present moment, a legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever had answered, in any country whatever. He would go further, and say that the legislature and system of representation possessed the full and entire confidence of the country, deservedly possessed that confidence, - and the discussions in the legislature, had a very great influence over the opinions of the country. He would go still further, and say, that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a legislature for any country, and particularly for a country like this, in possession of great property of various

1 Parliament was dissolved July 24th. The "three days" commenced in France, on the 27th.

descriptions, - he did not mean to assert that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence at once; but his great endeavor would be to form some description of legislature, which would produce the same results. . . . Under these circumstances he was not prepared to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble lord. 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 of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures, when proposed by others." 1

At another time such sentiments as these might have passed unheeded, like other general panegyrics upon the British constitution, with which the public taste had long been familiar. Yet, so general a defence of our representative system had never, perhaps, been hazarded by any statesman. Ministers had usually been cautious in advancing the theoretical merits of the system, even when its abuses had been less frequently exposed, and public opinion less awakened. They had spoken of the dangers of innovation, they had asserted that the system, if imperfect in theory, had yet "worked well," they had said that the people were satisfied and desired no change, they had appealed to revolutions abroad, and disaffection at home, as reasons for not entertaining any proposal for change; but it was reserved for the Duke of Wellington, at a time of excitement like the present, to insult the understanding of the people, by declaring that the system was perfect in itself, and deservedly possessed their confidence.

On the same night, Mr. Brougham gave notice of a motion on the subject of parliamentary reform. government. Within a fortnight, the Duke's administration re

Fall of the

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., i. 52. The Duke, on a subsequent occasion, explained this speech, but did not deny that he had used the expressions attributed to him. - Ibid. vii. 1186.

signed, after an adverse division in the Commons, on the appointment of a committee to examine the accounts of the Civil List. Though this defeat was the immediate cause of their resignation, the expected motion of Mr. Brougham was not without its influence, in determining them to withdraw from further embarrassments.

Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord Chancellor. The first announcement of the Lord Grey's premier was that the government would "take ministry. into immediate consideration the state of the representation, with a view to the correction of those defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of time; and with a view to the reëstablishment of that confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and the preservation of the government."

form.

8

The government were now pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the Christmas re- Agitation in cess, were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, favor of rethe cause was eagerly supported by the people. Public meetings were held, political unions established, and numerous petitions signed, in favor of reform. So great were the difficulties with which the government had to contend, that they needed all the encouragement that the people could give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king, the interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to overcome, had sought to purchase, the opposition of two thirds of the House of Lords, and perhaps of a majority of the House of Commons, - and above all,

1 Sydney Smith, writing Nov. 1830, says: "Never was any administration so completely and so suddenly destroyed; and, I believe, entirely by the Duke's declaration, made, I suspect, in perfect ignorance of the state of public feeling and opinion.". Mem. ii. 313.

2 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., i. 606.

8 See Chap. VIII. Press and Liberty of Opinion.

4 Supra, p. 120.