Character of the new King—Position of the Ministry—Discussion in the Lords on a Regency—Brougham\'s Speech in the Commons—The King in London—Brougham\'s Slavery Speech—The Dissolution—Sketch of the July Revolution—Its Effects in England—The Elections—Their Results in England and Ireland—Death of Huskisson—Disturbances in England—The King\'s Speech—Declarations of Grey and Wellington on Reform—Broughams Notice—Effect of the Duke\'s Speech—-Agitation in Ireland—And against the Police—Postponement of the King\'s Visit to the Mansion House—Resignation of Wellington\'s Ministry—Grey forms a Ministry—Brougham\'s Position—The Ministry—Grey\'s Statement—Agricultural England—Cobbett and Carlile—Affairs in Ireland—Lord Anglesey—His Struggle with O\'Connell—O\'Connell\'s Prosecution dropped—The Birmingham Political union—Preparation of the Reform Bill—It is entrusted to Lord John Russell—The Budget—The Bill introduced—The First Reading carried—Feeling in the Country—The Second Reading carried—Gascoigne\'s Amendment—A Dissolution agreed upon—Scene in the Lords—The Press—The Illuminations and Riots—The New Parliament—Discussions on the Dissolution and O\'Connell—The Second Reform Bill—The Second Reading—The Bill in Committee—It is carried to the Lords—Debate on the Second Reading—The Bill rejected—Popular Excitement—Lord Ebrington\'s Resolution—Prorogation of Parliament—Lord John Russell\'s Declaration—The Bristol Riots—Colonel Brereton.

William IV. was welcomed to the Throne with great acclamation. Called "The Sailor King," he was endowed with many of the personal qualities which make the sailor\'s character popular with Englishmen. He had been Lord High Admiral, and in that capacity he had lately been moving about the coasts, making displays and enjoying fêtes, although this was thought by some to be unseemly in the Heir Presumptive to the Throne, at a time when its occupant was known to be in a very infirm state of health. Heavy bills connected with these vainglorious displays were sent to the Treasury, which the Duke of Wellington endorsed with a statement that such expenses were not allowed. Although opinions differed about William very much, not only between the friends of Reform and the Conservatives, but between the leaders of the Liberal party themselves, he was esteemed the most popular king since the days of Alfred. William was certainly a more exemplary character than his brother. He had indeed formed an attachment to a celebrated actress, Mrs. Jordan, by whom he had a numerous family, one of whom was subsequently admitted to the ranks of the nobility with the title of Earl of Munster, and the others were raised to the dignity of younger sons of a marquis. He had, however, been married for several years to the Princess Adelaide, of Saxe-Meiningen, who became Queen of England, and adorned her exalted station by her virtues and her beneficence. They had two children, both of whom died in infancy; and as the king was in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and the queen was not young, there was no longer any hope of a direct succession to the Throne. Altogether, Charles Greville\'s verdict on the king—"something of a buffoon and more of a blackguard"—is excessively severe. If eccentric and hot-tempered, William IV. was straightforward and upright. He had some knowledge of foreign affairs, and thoroughly understood his position as a constitutional king.

The Ministers and their supporters were complimentary, as a matter of course, to the new Sovereign, who had graciously continued them in their offices; and the Whigs, who had ascribed their exclusion from power to the personal dislike of the king, were resolved that there should not be again any obstacle of the kind, and that they would keep upon the best possible terms with the Court. During the previous part of the Session they had kept up a rapid fire of motions and questions upon the Government, especially with regard to the public expenditure, the distress of the operatives, and the necessity of rigid economy and large retrenchment. The attacks were led by Sir James Graham, who, though he was always left in a minority in the divisions on his motions, did much to weaken the Government by exciting public feeling against them on the ground of their alleged heartless extravagance, while many of the people were starving and the country was said to be going fast to destruction. The Duke of Wellington, however, moved an answer to the Royal Message, declaring that they would forward the measure necessary to provide for the temporary supply required. He suggested that as everybody would be occupied about the coming elections, the best mode of proceeding would be to dissolve at once. Lord Grey, in the name of the Opposition, complained of this precipitancy, and delivered a long speech full of solemn warnings of evil. He supposed that the king might die before the new Parliament was chosen; the Heir Apparent was[313] a child in fact, though not in law. No regency existing, she would be legally in the possession of her full regal power, and this was a situation which he contended would be fraught with danger. A long, unprofitable wrangle ensued, dull repetitions dragged out the debate, when at length the Duke wisely refused to accede to the proposition for a useless interval of delay, and proved the numerical strength of the Administration. Lord Grey having moved for an adjournment to allow time for providing a regency, the motion was lost by a majority of 44, the numbers being 56 against 100.

VIRGINIA WATER.
[See larger version]

In the House of Commons, on the same evening (the 30th of June), Sir Robert Peel moved an answer to the Address to the same effect. Lord Althorp, acting in concert with Lord Grey, moved the adjournment of the House for twenty-four hours to allow time for consideration. The discussion in the Commons, however, was not without interest, as it touched upon constitutional questions of vital importance. Mr. Brougham did his part with admirable tact. He dwelt upon the danger of allowing the people to learn that Government could go on, and every exigency of the common weal be provided for, without a king. The Act which had appointed the late Prince Regent had been passed without the Royal sanction, the king being insane, and no provision having been made to meet the calamity that occurred. The Act of Parliament was called a law, but it was no law; it had not even the semblance of a law; and the power which it conveyed was in those days called the phantom of royal authority. The fact, indeed, was that the tendency of that Act of Parliament, more than any other Act that had ever been passed by the legislature, was to inflict a blow on the royal authority; to diminish its influence and weight; to bring it into disrepute with, and to lessen it in the estimation of, the people at large; and that fact was in itself a sufficient comment upon the propriety of doing an act of legislation without having the Crown to sanction it. That, he said, was his first great and principal reason for proceeding with this question at once. He showed that one of the greatest advantages connected with the monarchical form of government was the certainty of the succession, and the facile[314] and quiet transmission of power from one hand to another, thus avoiding the inconveniences and dangers of an interregnum. The question was rendered more difficult and delicate by the fact that the Duke of Cumberland, the most unpopular man in the country, was the eldest of the remaining brothers of the king, in the event of whose death he would be Heir Apparent to the Throne of Great Britain, and King of Hanover. In the case supposed, the question would arise whether the next heir to the Throne was of right regent, should the Sovereign be incompetent, from infancy, insanity, or any other cause. If that right were established, then the regent, during the minority of the Princess Victoria, would be a foreign monarch, and one who was utterly detested by the mass of the people of Britain. Such a question, arising at a moment when the spirit of revolution was abroad, might agitate the public mind to a degree that would be perilous to the Constitution. The contingencies were sufficiently serious, therefore, to justify the efforts of Lord Grey and Mr. Brougham to have the regency question settled before the dissolution. They may not have been sorry to have a good popular case against the Government, but their conduct was not fairly liable to the imputation of faction or mere personal ambition. "Can we," asked Mr. Brougham, "promise ourselves a calm discussion of the subject when there should be an actual accession of the Duke of Cumberland to the Throne of Hanover, and Parliament is suddenly called upon to decide upon his election to the regency, to the supreme rule in this country, to which, according to the principle of Mr. Pitt, he has a paramount claim, although he has not a strict legal right?" The motion for adjournment was lost by a majority of 46—the numbers being, for it, 139; against it, 185. After this debate, on the motion for adjournment, Lord Althorp moved the amendment to the Address, almost in the words of Lord Grey in the other House. Sir Robert Peel stated that he meant no disrespect by abstaining from further discussion, which would be wasting the time of the House, by repeating the arguments he had already employed. Mr. Brougham, however, took the opportunity of launching out against the Ministry in a strain of bitter invective, of sarcasm vehement even to fierceness.

The question of the regency was again brought forward, on the 6th of July, by Mr. Robert Grant, in pursuance of a notice he had previously given. The unbounded personal popularity of the king—who, unlike his predecessor shut up in seclusion and resembling Tiberius, went about sailor-like through the streets, frank, talkative, familiar, good-humoured, delighting the Londoners with all the force of pleasant contrast—rendered it increasingly difficult and delicate on the part of the Opposition to propose any measure disagreeable to a Sovereign who was the idol of the multitude, from whom no evil could be apprehended, and whose death, even in the ordinary course of Providence, it seemed something like treason to anticipate as likely to occur within a few months. They were, therefore, profuse in their declarations of respect, of admiration—nay, almost of veneration—for a monarch whom a beneficent Providence had so happily placed upon the Throne of Great Britain. The division on Mr. Grant\'s motion was still more decidedly favourable to the Government, the numbers being—Ayes, 93; noes, 247—majority, 154.

On the 13th of July Brougham delivered his speech on slavery, which produced such an impression upon the public mind that it mainly contributed, as he himself admitted, to his election a few weeks afterwards as one of the members for Yorkshire—the proudest position which a Parliamentary representative could occupy. He proposed "that this House do resolve, at the earliest practicable period next Session, to take into its serious consideration the state of the slaves in the colonies of Great Britain, in order to the mitigation and final abolition of slavery; and more especially to the amendment of the administration of justice within the same." Mr. Wilmot Horton brought forward a series of resolutions, by way of evading the difficulty. Sir George Murray, the Colonial Secretary, entreated Mr. Brougham to withdraw his motion, as the public would come to a wrong conclusion from seeing the small numbers that would vote upon it at that late period of the Session, and on the eve of a dissolution. Sir Robert Peel pressed the same consideration, but Mr. Brougham persisted, and in a very thin House the numbers on the division were—Aye., 27; noes, 56—majority against the motion, 29. This division ended the party struggles of the Session. On the 23rd of July Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, and next day it was dissolved by proclamation. The writs, returnable on the 14th of September, were immediately issued for a general election, which was expected, and proved to be, the most exciting and most important political contest at the hustings recorded in the history of England.

[315]

The French Revolution of 1830 exerted an influence so mighty upon public opinion and political events in England, that it becomes necessary to trace briefly its rise, progress, and rapid consummation. When Louis XVIII. was restored to the throne by the arms of the Allies, it was found that he had learnt little wisdom in his exile. He was, however, a man of moderation, and affected to pursue a middle course. His successor, Charles X., who ascended the throne in 1824, was violent and bigoted, a zealous Catholic, hating the Revolution and all its results, and making no secret of his feelings. From the moment he commenced his reign he pursued a course of unscrupulous reaction. At the general election the prefects so managed as to procure an overwhelming Ministerial majority, who immediately resolved to extend the duration of the Chamber of Deputies to seven years. They next passed a law to indemnify Emigrants, for which they voted an annual sum representing a capital of thirty millions sterling. In 1827 the Prime Minister, Villele, adopted the daring measure of disbanding the National Guard, because it had expressed its satisfaction at the defeat of a measure for the restriction of the liberty of the press. He next took the still more dangerous step of dissolving the Chamber of Deputies. This produced a combination of parties, which resulted in the defeat of the Ministerial candidates in every direction. The consequence was the resignation of Villele, on the 5th of January, 1828. He was succeeded by Martignac, whose Government abolished the discretionary power of re-establishing the censorship of the press, and adopted measures for securing the purity of the electoral lists against the frauds of the local authorities. They also issued an ordonnance on education, guarding society against the encroachments of the Jesuits, and the apprehension of clerical domination. The king, taking alarm at these Liberal tendencies, dismissed Martignac and his colleagues, and in August, 1829, he appointed a Ministry exclusively and devotedly Royalist, at the head of which he placed Prince de Polignac, a bigoted Catholic, who, during the Empire, had engaged in many wild schemes for the restoration of the Bourbons. This conduct on the part of the king was regarded by the people almost universally as indicating a design to suppress their constitutional liberties, which they resolved to counteract by having recourse to the constitutional remedy against arbitrary power—namely, refusal to pay the taxes. With this object an association was formed in Brittany, which established a fund to indemnify those who might suffer in resisting the levy of imposts. The press was most unanimous in condemning the new Ministry, and by spirited and impassioned appeals to the patriotism of the people and their love of freedom, roused them to a sense of their coming danger. Prince de Polignac was charged with the design of destroying the Charter; of creating a majority in the Chamber of Deputies by an unconstitutional addition of aristocratic members; of calling in foreign armies to overawe the French people; and of raising military forces by royal ordonnances. The Moniteur contained an authorised contradiction of all these imputations and rumours. Charles was assured, however, by the Royalists that surrounded him, that there always would be a majority against him in the Chamber, no matter who the Ministers might be, and that it was impossible to carry on the Government under the existing system. He was too ready to listen to such counsels, fondly attached as he was to the priesthood, the privileged orders, tithes, feudal services, and provincial administrations.

The Chambers were opened by the king on the 2nd of March, 1830, with a speech which conveyed a threat to the French nation. "If culpable man?uvres," he said, "should raise up against my Government obstacles which I do not wish to foresee, I shall find the power of surmounting them in my resolution to maintain the public peace, in my just confidence in Frenchmen, and in the love which they have always borne to their kings." The Chambers did not hesitate to express their want of confidence in the Government. The king having declared that his intentions were immutable, no alternative remained but a dissolution, as he was resolved to try once more whether a majority could be obtained by fair means or foul. In this last appeal to public opinion he was bitterly disappointed. It scarcely required a prophet to foresee the near approach of some great change; nor could the result of the impending struggle appear doubtful. Nine-tenths of the community were favourable to a constitutional system. Not only the working classes, but the mercantile and trading classes, as well as the professional classes, and all the most intelligent part of the nation, were decidedly hostile to the Government. In Paris the majority against the Ministerial candidates was seven or eight to one. The press, with scarcely an exception, was vehement in its condemnation of the policy of the Government, which came to the conclusion that it was not enough to abolish the Constitution, but[316] that, in order to insure the success of a purely despotic régime, it was absolutely necessary to destroy the liberty of the press, and to put down journalism by force. Accordingly, a report on this subject was addressed to the king, recommending its suppression. It was drawn up by M. Chantelauze, and signed by De Polignac and five other Ministers.

This report was published in the Moniteur on the morning of Monday, July 26th. On the same day, and in the same paper, appeared the famous Ordonnances, signed by the king, and countersigned by his Ministers. By the first the liberty of the press was abolished, and thenceforth no journal could be published without the authority of the Government. By the second the Chamber of Deputies, which was to meet in the ensuing month, was dissolved. By the third a new scheme of election was introduced, which destroyed the franchise of three-fourths of the electors, and reduced the number of deputies to little more than one half. Thus the whole Constitution was swept away by a stroke of the royal pen. As soon as these Ordonnances became generally known throughout the city the people were thrown into a state of violent agitation. The editors and proprietors of twelve journals assembled, and having resolved that the Ordonnances were illegal, they determined to publish their papers on the following day. A statement of their case, signed by thirty-eight persons, was published in the Nationale. They said: "In the situation in which we are placed, obedience ceases to be a duty. We are dispensed from obeying. We resist the Government in what concerns ourselves. It is for France to determine how far her resistance ought to extend." In pursuance of this announcement the journalists were preparing to issue their papers when the police entered the offices and began to scatter the type and break the presses. In some of the offices the workmen resisted, and the locks of the doors had to be picked; but no smith could be got to do the work except one whose business it was to rivet the manacles on galley slaves. There was a meeting of the electors of Paris, who quickly decided upon a plan of operations. Deputations were appointed to wait on the manufacturers, printers, builders, and other extensive employers, requesting them to discharge their workpeople, which was done, and on the 27th 50,000 men were assembled in different parts of the town, in groups, crying, "Vive la Charte!" About thirty deputies, who had arrived in town, met at the house of M. Casimir Perier, and resolved to encourage the rising of the people. The troops were under arms; and it is stated that without any provocation from the people except their cries, the military began to sabre the unarmed multitude. The first shot seems to have been fired out of a house, by an Englishman, named Foulkes, who was fired on by the military, and killed. Alarming reports spread through the city that the blood of the people was being wantonly shed, and that women were not spared. The black flag was raised in various quarters, ominous of the desperate nature of the struggle. The night of the 27th was spent in preparation. The shops of the armourers were visited, and the citizens armed themselves with all sorts of weapons—pistols, sabres, bayonets, etc. In every street men were employed digging up the pavements, and carrying stones to the tops of the houses, or piling them behind the barricades, which were being constructed of omnibuses and fiacres at successive distances of about fifty paces. The fine trees of the Boulevards were cut down and used for the same purpose. The garrison of Paris was commanded by General Marmont. It consisted altogether of 11,500 men. At daybreak on the 28th the citizens were nearly ready for battle. Early in the morning national guards were seen hastening to the H?tel de Ville, amidst the cheers of the people. Parties of cavalry galloped up and down, and occasionally a horseman, shot from a window, fell back out of his saddle. At ten o\'clock Marmont formed six columns of attack, preceded by cannon, which were to concentrate round the H?tel de Ville. The insurgents retired before the artillery, and the troops, abandoning the open places, took shelter in the houses and behind barriers. In the meantime a desperate fight raged at the H?tel de Ville, which was taken possession of, and bravely defended by the National Guard. Their fire from the top of the building was unceasing, while the artillery thundered below. It was taken and retaken several times. It appears that hitherto the Government had no idea of the nature of the contest. The journals had proclaimed open war. They declared that the social contract being torn, they were bound and authorised to use every possible mode of resistance, and that between right and violence the struggle could not be protracted. This was on the 26th; but at four o\'clock p.m., on the 27th, the troops had received no orders; and when they were called out of barracks shortly after, many officers were absent, not having been apprised that any duty whatever was expected. The night offered[317] leisure to arrange and opportunity to execute all necessary precautions. The circumstances were urgent, the danger obvious and imminent; yet nothing at all was done. The contest lasted for three days with varying fortunes. Twice the palace of the Tuileries was taken and abandoned; but on the third day the citizens were finally victorious, and the tricoloured flag was placed on the central pavilion. Marmont, seeing that all was lost, withdrew his troops; and on the afternoon of the 29th Paris was left entirely at the command of the triumphant population. The National Guard was organised, and General Lafayette, "the veteran of patriotic revolutions," took the command. Notwithstanding the severity of the fighting, the casualties were not very great. About 700 citizens lost their lives, and about 2,000 were wounded. It was stated that the troops were encouraged to fight by a lavish distribution of money, about a million francs having been distributed amongst them, for the purpose of stimulating their loyalty. The deputies met on the 31st, and resolved to invite Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, to be lieutenant-general of the kingdom. He accepted the office, and issued a proclamation which stated that the Charter would thenceforth be a truth. The Chambers were opened on the 3rd of August; 200 deputies were present; the galleries were crowded with peers, general officers of the old army, the diplomatic body, and other distinguished persons. The duke, in his opening speech, dwelt upon the violations of the Charter, and stated that he was attached by conviction to the principles of free government. At a subsequent meeting the Chamber conferred upon him the title of the King of the French. He took the oath to observe the Charter, which had been revised in several particulars. On the 17th of August Charles X. arrived in England; and by a curious coincidence there was a meeting that day in the London Tavern, at which an address to the citizens of Paris, written by Dr. Bowring, congratulating them on the Revolution of July, was unanimously adopted. Meetings of a similar kind were held in many of the cities and towns of the United Kingdom. Feelings of delight and admiration pervaded the public mind in Britain; delight that the cause of constitutional freedom had so signally triumphed, and admiration of the heroism of the citizens, and the order and self-control with which they conducted themselves in the hour of victory. Thus ended the Revolution of July, 1830. It was short and decisive, but it had been the finale of a long struggle. The battle had been fought in courts and chambers by constitutional lawyers and patriotic orators. It had been fought with the pen in newspapers, pamphlets, songs, plays, poems, novels, histories. It had been fought with the pencil in caricatures of all sorts. It was the triumph of public opinion over military despotism. To commemorate the three days of July it was determined to erect a column on the Place de la Bastille, which was completed in 1840.

REVOLUTION IN PARIS: CAPTURE OF THE H?TEL DE VILLE. (See p. 316.)
[See larger version]

[318]

The effect of the issue upon the state of parties in England was tremendous. The Morning Chronicle, then the organ of the Whig party, said, "The battle of English liberty has really been fought and won at Paris." The Times thundered the great fact with startling reverberation throughout the United Kingdom. Mr. Brougham in the House of Commons spoke of it as that revolution which in his conscience he believed to be "the most glorious" in the annals of mankind, and he expressed his heartfelt admiration, his cordial gratitude, to the patriots of that great nation for the illustrious struggle they were making. This language expresses the feelings which prevailed through all classes of the people of Britain, and it may be easily supposed that the effect was most favourable to the Liberal party and most damaging to the Tories, especially as the exciting events occurred at the time of the general election; and Prince de Polignac being considered the particular friend of the Duke of Wellington, his Ministry was called in France the Wellington Administration. All these things were against the Premier: the hostility of the anti-Catholic party, the alienation of the Whigs, the accession of a liberal monarch, and the odium of the supposed intimate relationship with the vanquished despotism of France.

The progress that the electors had made in liberality of sentiment was evinced especially by two of the elections. Mr. Hume, the Radical reformer, the cold, calculating economist, the honest, plain-speaking man of the people, was returned for the county of Middlesex without opposition; and Mr. Brougham, a barrister, who owed nothing to family connections—who, by the steadiness of his industry, the force of his character, the extent of his learning, and the splendour of his eloquence, devoted perseveringly for years to the popular cause, had won for himself, at the same time, the highest place in his profession, and the foremost position in the senate—was returned for Yorkshire. These counties had hitherto been the preserves of the great[319] landed proprietors. Lord Fitzwilliam, though the personal friend of Mr. Brougham, did not like this intrusion of a foreigner into that great county. Indeed, it had been sufficiently guarded against all but very wealthy men by the enormous expense of a contest. In 1826, when a contest was only threatened, and the election ended with a nomination, Mr. John Marshall\'s expenses amounted to ￡17,000; and, on a previous occasion, it was rumoured that Lord Milton had spent ￡70,000 in a contest. No wonder Brougham was a friend of Parliamentary Reform.

The general result of the elections was considered to have diminished by fifty the number of votes on which Ministers could depend, and the relation in which they now stood to the more popular part of the representation was stated to be as follows:—Of the eighty-two members returned by the forty counties of England, only twenty-eight were steady adherents of the Ministry; forty-seven were avowed adherents of the Opposition, and seven of the neutral cast did not lean much to Government. Of the thirteen popular cities and boroughs (London, Westminster, Aylesbury, etc.), returning twenty-eight members, only three seats were held by decidedly Ministerial men, and twenty-four by men in avowed opposition. There were sixty other places, more or less open, returning 126 members. Of these only forty-seven were Ministerial; all the rest were avowed Opposition men, save eight, whose leaning was rather against the Government than for it. Of the 236 men then returned by elections more or less popular in England, only seventy-nine were Ministerial votes; 141 were in avowed opposition, and sixteen of a neutral cast.

The Duke had little to console him in connection with the general election. In passing the Emancipation Act he had made great sacrifices, and had converted many of his most devoted friends into bitter enemies. The least that he could expect was that the great boon which it cost him so much to procure for the Roman Catholics of Ireland would have brought him some return of gratitude and some amount of political support in that country. But hitherto the Emancipation Act had failed in tranquillising the country. On the contrary, its distracted state pointed the arguments of the Tories on the hustings during the Irish elections. O\'Connell, instead of returning to the quiet pursuit of his profession, was agitating for Repeal of the union, and reviling the British Government as bitterly as ever. He got up new associations with different names as fast as the Lord-Lieutenant could proclaim them, and he appealed to the example of the French and Belgian revolutions as encouraging Ireland to agitate for national independence. In consequence of his agitation many Ministerial seats in Ireland were transferred to the most violent of his followers. During these conflicts with the Government Mr. O\'Connell was challenged by Sir Henry Hardinge, in consequence of offensive language used by him about that gentleman, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. O\'Connell declined the combat, on the ground that he had a "vow registered in heaven" never again to fight a duel, in consequence of his having shot Mr. D\'Esterre. This "affair of honour" drew upon him from some quarters very severe censure.

On the 15th of September this year the Manchester and Liverpool Railway was opened. It was the first line opened for passenger traffic in the British empire. There was much difference of opinion as to the success of the experiment, and vast crowds attended to see the first trains running. The Duke of Wellington, Mr. Huskisson, and many persons of the highest distinction, started in the trains, which travelled on two lines in the same direction, sometimes nearly abreast. At Parkside the trains stopped to take in water, and Mr. Huskisson and several of his friends got out. He was brought round to the carriage where the Duke of Wellington was seated, who, as soon as he saw him, shook hands cordially with his old colleague. At this moment the other train started, when there was a general cry of "Get in, get in!" There was not time to do this, but Mr. Holmes, who was with Mr. Huskisson, had sufficient presence of mind to draw himself up close to the Duke\'s carriage, by which means he escaped uninjured. Mr. Huskisson, unfortunately, caught one of the doors, which, struck by the train in motion, was swung round, and caused him to fall on the other railway, so that his right leg was passed over and crushed by the engine. The Duke of Wellington and others ran to his assistance. The only words he uttered were, "I have met my death. God forgive me!" He was carried to Eccles, where the best medical advice was obtained, but he survived only a few hours, bearing his intense pain with great fortitude.

Napoleon\'s saying about French revolutions was verified in 1830. The shock of the political earthquake was felt throughout the Continent, and severed Belgium from Holland. The inhabitants of Brussels began their revolt by resistance to local taxes, and ended by driving the[320] Dutch garrison out of the city, and proclaiming the independence of Belgium. The Duke of Wellington had no difficulty about the prompt recognition of the de facto Government of France. The change of dynasty had not been officially communicated to him many hours when he sent instructions to the British ambassador to enter into friendly relations with the new Government. He had not, however, the same facility in recognising the independence of Belgium. He had been instrumental in establishing the kingdom of the Netherlands; and he regarded the union as being a portion of the great European settlement of 1815, which ought not to be disturbed without the concurrence of the Great Powers by which it was effected. This hesitation on his part to hail the results of successful revolution added to his unpopularity. In the meantime a dangerous spirit of disaffection and disorder began to manifest itself in the south of England. Incendiary fires had preceded the Revolution in France, especially in Normandy, and they were supposed to have had a political object. Similar preludes of menaced revolution occurred during the autumn in some of the English counties nearest the French coast, in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and Hampshire. Night after night, in the most fertile districts, the sky was reddened with the blaze of burning stack-yards. Crowds of the working classes, complaining of want of employment, went about throughout the country, breaking the threshing-machines, which had then come into extensive use. The Government were compelled to employ force to put down these disturbances—a fact which supplied inflammatory arguments to agitators, who denounced the Duke of Wellington as the chief cause of the distress of the working classes. Such was the state of things when the new Parliament met on the 26th of October.

Mr. Manners Sutton was again chosen Speaker of the House of Commons, having already presided over four successive Parliaments, occupying a period of fourteen years, during which he performed the onerous duties of his high position to the satisfaction of all parties. A week was occupied in the swearing-in of members. All the preliminary formalities having been gone through, the Parliament was opened by the king in person on the 2nd of November. The Royal Speech, which was of unusual length, excited the deepest interest, and was listened to with breathless attention and intense anxiety. The concluding paragraph of the Speech, while expressing the strongest confidence in the loyalty of the people, intimated the determination of the Government to resist Parliamentary Reform. This attitude was regarded as a defiance to the Opposition; and it roused into excitement the spirit of hostility, which might have been disarmed by a tone of conciliation, and by a disposition to make moderate concessions. Nothing, therefore, could have been more favourable to the aims of the Whig leaders than the course taken by the Administration; and if they wanted an excuse for breaking forth into open war, it was supplied by the imprudent speech of the Duke of Wellington. The Royal Speech, indeed, suggested revolutionary topics to the Reformers, by its allusion to Continental politics. The king observed that the elder branch of the House of Bourbon no longer reigned in France, and that the Duke of Orleans had been called to the throne. The state of affairs in the Low Countries—namely, the separation of Belgium from Holland—was viewed with deep regret; and "his Majesty lamented that the enlightened administration of the King of the Netherlands" should not have preserved his dominions from revolt; stating that he was endeavouring, in concert with his allies, to devise such means of restoring tranquillity as might be compatible with the welfare and good government of the Netherlands, and with the future security of other States.

Earl Grey was not slow to avail himself of these exciting topics in order to point the lightning of popular discontent against the head of the Government. "We ought," he said, "to learn wisdom from what is passing before our eyes; and, when the spirit of liberty is breaking out all round, it is our first duty to secure our own institutions by introducing into them a temperate reform. I have been a Reformer all my life; and on no occasion have I been inclined to go farther than I am prepared to go now, if an opportunity were to offer. But I do not found the title to demand it on abstract right. We are told that every man who pays taxes—nay, that every man arrived at the years of discretion—has a right to vote for representatives. That right I utterly deny. The right of the people is to have a good Government, one that is calculated to secure their privileges and happiness; and if that is incompatible with universal, or very general suffrage, then the limitation, and not the extension, is the true right of the people."

This speech, which was regarded as the manifesto of the Reform party, called forth a reply from the Duke of Wellington, which was pregnant with revolution, and which precipitated the[321] downfall of his Administration. He said:—"The noble Earl has recommended us not only to put down these disturbances, but to put the country in a state to meet and overthrow the dangers which are likely to arise from the late transactions in France, by the adoption of something like Parliamentary Reform. The noble earl has stated that he is not prepared himself to come forward with any measure of the kind; and I will tell him farther, neither is the Government.... Nay, I will go yet farther, and say that if at this moment I had to form a legislature for any country, particularly for one like this, in the possession of great property of various descriptions, although perhaps I should not form one precisely such as we have, I would endeavour to produce something which would give the same result; namely, a representation of the people containing a large body of the property of the country, and in which the great landed proprietors have a preponderating influence. Further still, I beg to state that not only is the Government not prepared to bring forward any measure of this description, but, in so far as I am concerned, while I have the honour to hold the situation which I now do among his Majesty\'s counsellors, I shall always feel it my duty to oppose any such measures when brought forward by others." When he sat down the hum of criticism was so loud that he asked a colleague—probably Lord Lyndhurst—the cause. The answer was, "You have announced the fall of your Government, that is all."

LORD GREY.
[See larger version]

So soon as the House of Commons assembled, and before the Speaker read the Speech which had been delivered from the Throne, Mr. Brougham made the first significant move in the game that was about to be played, by announcing[322] that he would that day fortnight submit to the House a proposition on the great question of Parliamentary Reform. Having determined to give notice of his intention when there was a question before the House, he was enabled to accompany his notice with an explanation. This was his explanation:—"He had," he said, "by one party been described as intending to bring forward a very limited, and therefore useless and insignificant, plan; by another, he was said to be the friend of a radical, sweeping, and innovating, and, I may add, for I conscientiously believe it would prove so, a revolutionary reform." Both these imputed schemes he disavowed. "I stand on the ancient way of the Constitution." To explain at that moment what the details of this plan were to be would have then been inconvenient—was, indeed, impossible. "But," said Mr. Brougham, "my object in bringing forward this question is not revolution, but restoration—to repair the Constitution, not to pull it down." This notice was a master-stroke of policy.

The Duke of Wellington\'s declaration against Reform had all the effect of an arbitrary prohibition thrown in the way of a violent passion. The effect was tremendous; a revolutionary flame was kindled everywhere at the same instant, as if the whole atmosphere—north, south, east, and west—was wrapt in a sheet of electric fire. No words from any statesman in English history ever produced such an impression. The transports became universal; all ranks were involved; all heads, save the strongest and most far-seeing, were swept away by the torrent of excitement. John Bull\'s patience was gone. Parliamentary Reform was right; the time was come when it should be granted; and no man, not even the Duke of Wellington, should be allowed to withstand the nation\'s will. The unpopularity of the Duke with his own party swelled for the moment the current of the movement. High Churchmen declared that Reform would raise a barrier against Papal aggression, which they felt to be necessary, as experience had shown that the existing Constitution afforded no security. The old Tories, in their resentment on account of the concession to the Catholic claims, appeared to be ready to support the popular demands, if by so doing they could mortify or overthrow the Government. The inhabitants of the towns, intelligent, active, progressive, longed for Parliamentary Reform, because they believed it would remove the impediments which retarded the advancement of society. There were only two classes of the community who were believed at the time to be opposed to the Reform movement: first, the aristocratic Whigs, because Parliamentary Reform would destroy the influence by which they had for a century after the Revolution governed the country, but their accidental position as popular leaders obliged them for the time to go with the current; second, the class to whom Mr. Cobbett applied the term "borough-mongers," including all those who had property in Parliamentary seats, and could sell them, or bestow them, as they thought proper. The former, it was argued, were obliged to conceal their attachment to the old system, which had secured to a few great families a monopoly of government and its emoluments. The latter had become so odious to the nation that their opposition availed little against the rapid tide of public feeling and the tremendous breakers of popular indignation.

O\'Connell also wielded against the Government the fierce democracy of Roman Catholic Ireland. Sir Robert Peel had irritated him by some contemptuous remarks on his Repeal agitation, and he rose in his own defence, like a lion in his fury. He proceeded to give a description of the condition of Ireland, "which," said Mr. Brougham, "if not magnified in its proportions, if not painted in exaggerated colours, presents to my mind one of the most dismal, melancholy, and alarming conditions of society ever heard of or recorded in any State of the civilised world." Mr. O\'Connell thus addressed the Treasury bench:—"Tell the people of Ireland that you have no sympathy with their sufferings, that their advocate is greeted with sneers and laughter, that he is an outlaw in the land, and that he is taunted with want of courage, because he is afraid of offending his God. Tell them this, and let them hear also in what language the Secretary of State, who issued the proclamation to prevent meetings in Ireland, has spoken of Polignac." A powerful defence of his system of peaceful agitation, and a fierce defiance and denunciation of the existing Administration, closed this remarkable speech, whose effect upon the House, Mr. Roebuck said, was great and unexpected. Its effect upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, it need not be added, was immense.

Indeed, the perusal of the debates, in connection with the Royal Speech, threw the whole United Kingdom into a ferment of agitation. Public meetings were held to express indignation at the anti-Reform declaration of the Duke of Wellington. Petitions were presented, pamphlets were published, harangues were delivered, defiances were hurled from every part of the country. It was[323] in these circumstances that the king was invited to honour the City with his presence at the Lord Mayor\'s banquet, which was to be held on the 9th of November, the day on which the new Lord Mayor enters upon his office. It had been the custom for a new Sovereign to pay this compliment to the City, and William IV. was advised by his Ministers to accept the invitation. The Metropolitan Police force had been recently established. It was a vast improvement upon the old body of watchmen, in whose time thieves and vagabonds pursued their avocations with comparative impunity. The new force, as may be supposed, was the object of intense hatred to all the dangerous classes of society, who had organised a formidable demonstration against the police, and the Government by which the force was established, on Lord Mayor\'s Day. Inflammatory placards had been posted, and handbills circulated, of the most exciting and seditious character, of which the following is a specimen:—"To arms! Liberty or death! London meets on Tuesday next an opportunity not to be lost for revenging the wrongs we have suffered so long. Come armed; be firm, and victory must be ours.... We assure you, from ocular demonstration, 6,000 cutlasses have been removed from the Tower for the immediate use of Peel\'s bloody gang. Remember the cursed Speech from the Throne—these——police are to be armed. Englishmen! will you put up with this?" Appeals of this kind, and sinister rumours of all sorts, industriously circulated, created the greatest alarm throughout London. It was reported that a conspiracy of vast extent had been discovered—that society was on the eve of a terrible convulsion—that the barricades would immediately be up in the Strand, and that there would be a bloody revolution in the streets. The inhabitants prepared as well as they could for self-defence. They put up iron blinds and shutters to their windows, got strong bolts to their doors, supplied themselves with arms, and resolutely waited for the attack. So great was the public consternation that the Funds fell three-and-a-half per cent. in two hours. This panic is not a matter of so much astonishment when we consider that the three days\' fighting in the streets of Paris was fresh in the recollection of the people of London. The Lord Mayor Elect, Alderman Key, had received so many anonymous letters, warning him of confusion and riot if his Majesty\'s Ministers should appear in the procession, that he became alarmed, and wrote to the Duke of Wellington, pointing out the terrible consequences of a nocturnal attack by armed and organised desperadoes in such a crowded city as London. The Duke, thinking the danger not to be despised, advised the king to postpone his visit. Accordingly, a letter from Sir Robert Peel, as Home Secretary, appeared posted on the Exchange on the morning of the 9th. The multitude of sightseers, disappointed of their pageant, were excited beyond all precedent, and execrations against the Government were heard on every side. In fact, this incident, concerning which no blame whatever attached to the Ministers, exposed the Duke of Wellington and his colleagues to a hailstorm of popular fury. The two Houses of Parliament hastily met, in a state of anxiety, if not alarm. Unable to restrain their feelings until the arrival of Ministers to give explanations, they broke forth into vehement expressions of censure and regret. Lord Wellesley more justly described it as "the boldest act of cowardice of which he had ever heard."

It was quite evident that a Ministry assailed in this manner, and left almost without defenders in Parliament, while the public out of doors were so excited against them that no act of theirs could give satisfaction or inspire confidence, could not long remain in office. Accordingly, they made up their minds to retire on the first opportunity. Three important questions stood for discussion, on any one of which they were sure to be defeated. The Duke selected the question of the Civil List. In the Royal Speech his Majesty surrendered the hereditary revenues of the Crown to the disposal of Parliament. The Opposition could see no merit in that, and Lord Grey contended that those revenues were not private but public property, assigned by the State for the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the Sovereign, and that from this purpose they could not be alienated. The debate came on upon the 12th of November, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House do resolve itself into committee on the Civil List, the scheme which he had brought forward fixing the amount to be settled at ￡970,000. Several of the details in this scheme were objected to, and on the following day Sir H. Parnell moved, as an amendment to the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the estimates and accounts printed by command of his Majesty regarding the Civil List. After a short debate the House divided, when the numbers were—for the amendment, 233; and against it, 204, giving a majority of twenty-nine against the Government. Mr. Hobhouse immediately asked[324] Sir Robert Peel whether Ministers intended to retain office after this expression of the sentiments of the House. To which he gave no answer at the time; but the next day the Duke in the Upper House, and Sir Robert in the Lower, announced that they held their offices only till their successors were appointed. The defeat was brought about, in a great measure, by the former supporters of the Ministry. The blow was struck, and none recoiled from it more immediately than the section of angry Tories who were mainly instrumental in delivering it. They had achieved their purpose, and stood aghast, for no time was lost with the Duke in placing his resignation in the hands of the king.

William IV. then sent for the veteran Grey, who formed a Ministry with unusual ease, chiefly of the Whig and Canningite elements. His chief difficulty was how to dispose of the volatile Brougham. The king had no objection to accept him as one of the Ministers, and Brougham himself wished to be Master of the Rolls, assuming that Sir John Leech was to become Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with a peerage, and that Mr. Plunket was to be Lord Chancellor of England. To this arrangement, however, the king and Lord Grey peremptorily objected. Brougham was then offered the Attorney-Generalship, which he calmly refused, upon which Lord Grey declared that his hopes of being able to form an Administration were at an end, and he waited on his Majesty for the purpose of communicating to him the failure of his negotiations. "Why so?" inquired the king. "Why not make him Chancellor? Have you thought of that?" The answer was, "No; your Majesty\'s objection to the one appointment seemed to preclude the other." "Not at all, not at all," replied the king; and the reasons for one appointment and against the other were very clearly stated by his Majesty, namely, that Brougham as Master of the Rolls and member for Yorkshire would be far too powerful. Mr. Brougham was left in the dark for some time about the intentions of Lord Grey, for on the 17th of November he said he had nothing to do with the Administration, except in the respect he bore them, and as a member of the House. On the 19th he presented petitions, and spoke on them in the Commons, without intimating any change of position. Hence it may easily be supposed that he surprised the world, as well as his friends, by suddenly appearing on November the 22nd in the House of Lords as Lord Chancellor of England. This was certainly a high office to which he was elevated, and for which the exigencies of party made him necessary; but, in accepting it, he sacrificed a great position which seemed to gratify all the desires of intellectual ambition; and, in order to induce his compliance, Lord Grey was obliged to appeal to his generous sympathies, his public spirit, and his devotion to his party. Lord Brougham and Vaux became, said a wag, "Vaux et praeterea nihil."

The celebrated Reform Ministry consisted of the following members:—In the Cabinet: First Lord of the Treasury, Earl Grey; Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham; Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the Commons, Lord Althorp; President of the Council, Marquis of Lansdowne; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Durham; Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne; Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston; Secretary of the Colonies, Lord Ripon; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir James Graham; President of the Board of Control, Mr. Charles Grant; Postmaster-General, Duke of Richmond; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Holland; without office, Lord Carlisle. Not in the Cabinet there were: President of the Board of Trade, Lord Auckland; Secretary at War, Mr. C. W. Wynn; Master-General of Ordnance, Sir James Kemp; Paymaster-General of the Forces, Lord John Russell; Lord Chamberlain, Duke of Devonshire; Lord Steward, Marquis Wellesley; Master of the Horse, Lord Albemarle; Groom of the Stole, Marquis of Winchester; First Commissioner of Land Revenue, Mr. Agar Ellis; Treasurer of the Navy, Mr. Poulett Thompson; Attorney-General, Sir T. Denman; Solicitor-General, Sir W. Horne. In Ireland the office-bearers were: Lord-Lieutenant, Marquis of Anglesey; Lord Chancellor, Lord Plunket; Commander of the Forces, Sir John Byng; Chief Secretary, Mr. Stanley; Attorney-General, Mr. Blackburne; Solicitor-General, Mr. Crampton. In Scotland they were: Lord Advocate, Mr. Jeffrey; Solicitor-General, Mr. Cockburn. The saying of Lord Grey, that he would stand by his order, has been often quoted as characteristic of his aristocratic spirit. He certainly did stand by it on this occasion, for his Cabinet could scarcely have been more aristocratic than it was. It consisted of thirteen members, of whom eleven were peers, or sons of peers, one was a baronet, and one an untitled commoner.

The Ministerial statement was anticipated with great interest. It was delivered by the new Premier, on the evening of the 22nd, Brougham presiding as Lord Chancellor. Foremost and most conspicuous in his programme was the question of Parliamentary Reform; next, economy and peace. Having gone in detail through the principles of[325] his policy, and the reforms he proposed to introduce, the noble lord summed up all in the following words:—"The principles on which I now stand, and upon which the Administration is prepared to act, are—the amelioration of existing abuses; the promotion of the most rigid economy in every branch of the public expenditure; and lastly, every endeavour that can be made by Government to preserve peace, consistent with the honour and character of the country. Upon these principles I have undertaken an office to which I have neither the affectation nor presumption to state that I am equal. I have arrived at a period of life when retirement is more to be desired than active employment; and I can assure your lordships that I should not have emerged from it had I not found—may I be permitted to say thus much without incurring the charge of vanity or arrogance?—had I not found myself, owing to accidental circumstances, certainly not to any merit of my own, placed in a situation in which, if I had declined the task, I had every reason to believe that any attempt to form a new Government on principles which I could support would have been unsuccessful. Urged by these considerations, being at the same time aware of my own inability, but acting in accordance with my sense of public duty, I have undertaken the Government of the country at the present momentous crisis."

MOB BURNING A FARM IN KENT. (See p. 325.)
[See larger version]

Lord Grey declared that when he entered office in November, 1830, he found the counties round London in open insurrection, and that no measures had been taken by the late Government to put down these disturbances. This was true so far as incendiary fires were concerned. A system of outrage commenced in Kent before the harvest was fully gathered in. The disturbers of the peace did not generally assume the form of mobs, nor did they seek any political object. Threatening letters were circulated very freely, demanding higher wages and denouncing machinery, and the attacks of the rioters were directed entirely against private property. In the day armed bands went forth, wrecking mills and destroying machinery, especially threshing-machines. At night, corn-stacks, hayricks, barns, and farm buildings were seen blazing in different parts of the county. Even live stock were cruelly burned[326] to death. In addition to this wholesale destruction the rioters plundered the houses of the farmers as they went along. These disorders extended into Hants, Wilts, Bucks, Sussex, and Surrey, and they continued during the months of October, November, and December. In fact, life and property in those counties were, to a great extent, at the mercy of lawless men. Lord Melbourne lost no time in announcing his determination to punish sternly those disturbers of the peace, and to restore at every cost the dominion of law and order. He would give his most anxious attention to measures for the relief of distress, but it was his determined resolution, wherever outrages were perpetrated or excesses committed, to suppress them with vigour. In pursuance of this determination, two special commissions were issued to try the offenders. They finished their painful duties early in January. On the 9th of that month judgment of death was recorded against twenty-three persons for the destruction of machinery in Buckinghamshire. In Dorset, at Norwich, at Ipswich, at Petworth, at Gloucester, at Oxford, at Winchester, and at Salisbury, large numbers were convicted of various outrages; altogether, upwards of 800 offenders were tried, and a large proportion of them capitally convicted. Only four, however, were executed; the rest were all sentenced to various terms of transportation or imprisonment. The prosecutions were conducted with firmness, but with moderation, and they were decidedly successful in restoring public tranquillity.

The middle classes at that time, bent on the acquisition of Parliamentary Reform, were anxious that the movement should be conducted strictly within the bounds of legality, and without producing any social disorders. There was, however, a class of agitators who inflamed popular discontent by throwing the blame of the existing distress on machinery, on capitalists, and on the Government. This course of conduct served to encourage mobs of thieves and ruffians both in town and country, who brought disgrace upon the cause of Reform, and gave a pretext for charging the masses of the people with a lawless spirit and revolutionary tendencies. Carlile and Cobbett were the chief incendiaries. Both were brought to trial; Carlile was fined ￡2,000 and sentenced to two years\' imprisonment, but Cobbett was acquitted as the jury were unable to agree.

In Ireland there was severe distress prevailing over an extensive district along the western coast—no unusual visitation, for the peasantry depended altogether on the potato, a precarious crop, which sometimes failed wholly, and was hardly ever sufficient to last till the new crop came in. The old potatoes generally disappeared or became unfit for human food in June, and from that time till September the destitution was very great, sometimes amounting to actual famine. There was a partial failure of the crop in 1830, which, coupled with the rack-rents extorted by middlemen, gave to agitators topics which they used with effect in disquieting the minds of the peasantry.

The Irish Viceroy appointed by Lord Grey was the Marquis of Anglesey. The interval between his two viceroyalties extended over a period of nearly two years, during which the Duke of Northumberland was at the head of the Irish Government. The manner in which relief was granted to Roman Catholics, expressly as a concession to violence wrung from the fears of the legislature, confirmed the wildest notions of the people with respect to their own power. The offensive exclusion of O\'Connell by the terms of the Emancipation Act deprived the concession of much of its grace and power of conciliation; and now negotiations for making him Master of the Rolls broke down. In consequence of the securities with which the Emancipation Act was associated, the latter part of the year 1829 and the whole of 1830 were miserably distinguished in Ireland by party conflicts and outrages. To the government of the country thus torn and convulsed Lord Anglesey was again called in December of the latter year, and, considering his antecedents, no appointment was likely to prove so popular. "Nevertheless," says Lord Cloncurry, "neither support nor forbearance were accorded to Lord Anglesey. From the moment when it was known that he was reappointed, he was treated by the demagogues as an enemy. And the extraordinary progress of Liberalism made during his lieutenancy must in candour be set down to the account of his courage and perseverance in fighting the cause of the people against both themselves and their enemies." On the eve of his departure for Ireland he wrote to Lord Cloncurry, saying, "O\'Connell is my avant-courier. He starts to-day with more mischief in hand than I have yet seen him charg............