The influence of the Crow for merly able to reconcile them. sistency, still retain him upon the same side of the House, or upon the neutral "cross-benches," his son will probably be found an acknowledged member of the Opposition. Party ties, without patronage, have been slack, and easily broken. While the influence of the Crown was sufficiently great to direct the policy of the country; and while a large proportion of the members of the Lower House were the nominees of peers, collisions between the two Houses, if not wholly averted, were at least easily accommodated. There had been frequent contests between them, upon matters of privilege. It was not without protracted struggles, that the Commons had established their exclusive right to grant supplies and impose taxes. The two Houses had contended violently in 1675 concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords; they had contended, with not less violence, in 1704, upon the jurisdiction of the Commons, in matters of election; they had quarrelled rudely, in 1770, while insisting upon the exclusion of strangers. But upon general measures of public policy, their differences had been rare and unimportant. George III., by inducing the Lords to reject Mr. Fox's India Bill, in order to overthrow the Coalition ministry, brought them into open collision with the Commons; but harmony was soon restored between them, as the Crown succeeded, by means of a dissolution, in obtaining a large majority in the Lower House. In later times, the Lords opposed themselves to concessions to the Roman Catholics, and to amendments of the Criminal Law, which had been approved by the Commons. For several years, neither the Commons nor the people were sufficiently carnest, to enforce the adoption of those measures: but when public opinion could no longer be resisted, the Lords avoided a collision with the Commons, by acquiescing in measures of which they still disapproved. Since popular opinion has been more independently expressed by the Commons, the hazard of such collisions has been greatly increased. The Commons, deriving their authority directly from the people, have increased in power; and the influences which formerly tended to bring them into harmony with the Lords, have been impaired. Bill of 1831 re the Lords. The memorable events of 1831 and 1832, arising out The Reof the measures for extending the representation of form the people, exposed the authority of the House of jected by Lords to a rude shock; and even threatened its constitution with danger. Never since the days of Cromwell, had that noble assembly known such perils. The Whig ministry having, by a dissolution, secured a large majority of the Commons in favour of their second Reform Bill; its rejection by the Lords was still certain, if the Opposition should put forth their strength. For seventy years, the House of Lords had been recruited from the ranks of the Tory party; and was not less hostile to the Whig ministry, than to Parliamentary reform. The people had so recently pronounced their judgment in favour of the Bill, at the late election, that it now became a question, who should prevail, the Lords or the Commons? The answer could scarcely be doubtful. The excited people, aroused by a great cause, and encouraged by bold and earnest leaders, were not likely to yield. The Lords stood alone. The king's ministers, the House of Commons, and the people were demanding that the Bill should pass. Would the Lords venture to reject it? If they should bend to the rising storm, their will indeed would be subdued,their independent judgment set aside : but public danger would be averted. Should they brave the storm, and Ministers supported by the Commons. Reform Bill of 1831-2. stand up against its fury, they could still be overcome by the royal prerogative. Already, before the second reading, no less than sixteen new peers had been created, in order to correct, in some measure, the notorious disproportion between the two parties in that house; but a majority was still known to be adverse to the Bill. A further creation of peers, in order to ensure the success of the measure, was then in contemplation; but the large number that would be required for that purpose, the extreme harshness of such a course, and the hope-not ill-foundedthat many of the peers would yield to the peril of the times, discouraged ministers from yet advising this last resource of power. The result was singular. The peers hesitated, wavered, and paused. Many of them, actuated by fear, by prudence, by policy, or by public spirit, refrained from voting. But the bishops, -either less alarmed, or less sensible of the imminent danger of the occasion, -mustered in unusual force. Twenty-two were present, of whom twentyone voted against the Bill. Had they supported ministers, the Bill would have been saved: but now they had exactly turned the scale, had warned them that they might, lost by a majority of forty-one. as Lord Grey and the Bill was The House of Commons immediately supported the ministers by a vote of confidence: the people were more excited than ever; and the reformers more determined to prevail over the resistance of the House of Lords. Parliament was prorogued merely for the purpose of introducing another Reform Bill. This Bill was welcomed by the Commons, with larger majorities than the last; and now the issue between the two Houses had become still more serious. To" swamp the House of Lords" had, at length, become a popular cry; but at this time, not a single peer was created. Lord Grey, however, on the second reading, while he declared himself averse to such a proceeding, justified its use in case of necessity. The gravity of the crisis had shaken the courage of the majority. A considerable number of "waverers," as they were termed, now showed themselves; and the fate of the Bill was in their hands. Some who had been previously absent, including five bishops, voted for the Bill; others, who had voted against the former Bill, abstained from voting; and seventeen who had voted against the last Bill, actually voted for this! From these various causes, the second reading was carried by a majority of nine. Meanwhile it was well known, both to the ministers The crisis. and the people, that the further progress of the measure was exposed to imminent danger; and while the former were contemplating, with reluctance and dread, the immediate necessity of a further creation of peers, the popular cry was raised more loudly than ever, that the House of Lords must be "swamped." Such a cry was lightly encouraged by reckless and irresponsible politicians; but the constitutional statesmen who had to conduct the country through this crisis, weighed seriously a step which nothing but the peril of the times could justify. Lord Brougham-perhaps the boldest of all the statesmen concerned in these events-has thus recorded his own sentiments regarding them:-"When I went to Windsor with Lord Grey, I had a list of eighty creations framed upon the principles of making the least possible permanent addition to our House and to the aristocracy, by calling up peers' eldest sons,-by choosing men without any families, by taking Scotch and Irish peers. I The ministers advise a creation of peers. had a strong feeling of the necessity of the case, in the very peculiar circumstances we were placed in; but such was my deep sense of the dreadful consequences of the act, that I much question whether I should not have preferred running the risk of confusion that attended the loss of the Bill as it then stood,-rather than expose the constitution to so imminent a hazard of subversion."1 No sooner was the discussion of the Bill commenced in committee, than the ministers suddenly found themselves in a minority of thirty-five. 2 Now, then, was the time, if ever, for exercising the royal prerogative; and accordingly the ministers unanimously resolved to advise the king to create a sufficient number of peers, to turn the scale in favour of the Bill; and in the event of his refusal, to tender their resignation. He refused; and the resignation of the ministers was immediately tendered and accepted. In vain the Duke of Wellington attempted to form an administration on the basis of a more moderate measure of reform the House of Commons and the people were firm in their support of the ministers; and nothing was left for the peers, but submission or coercion. The king unwillingly gave his consent, in writing, to the necessary creation of peers3; but, in the meantime,-averse to an offensive act of authority, he successfully exerted his personal influence with the peers, to induce them to desist from further opposition. The to ensure the passing of the Reform Bill,-first calling up peers' eldest sons. WILLIAM R. Windsor, May 17th, 1832."-Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 331–333. 4 See his Circular Letter, supra, p. 119; and infra, Chapter VI, |