"I shall combat this bill to the end, because I believe it fatal to our favored form of mixed government, fatal to the authority of the House of Lords, fatal to that spirit of rest and prudence which has gained for England the confidence of the world, fatal to those habits and to those practices of government which, in protecting efficaciously the property and the liberty of the individual, have given to the executive power of this state, a vigor unknown in any other time and in any other country. If the bill proposed by the ministry is passed, it will introduce amongst us the worst, and the vilest sort of despotism, the despotism of demagogues, the despotism of the press; that despotism which has driven neighboring countries, but recently happy and flourishing, to the very borders of the abyss."
The good sense of the English nation, its wise respect for its traditions, and that political instinct which has always warned it on the eve of extreme peril, protected England again in this instance from those grievous and terrible consequences, predicted in 1831 by Sir Robert Peel, as the inevitable result of the Reform bill. He had, nevertheless, put his finger upon the wound, and justly indicated its effect: the equilibrium of the powers was altered, and henceforth the will of the House of Commons weighed in the balance to regulate the affairs and dispose of the destinies of England, both at home and abroad.
At the second reading of the bill, it passed by a single vote. An amendment by General Gascoigne against the reduction of the total number of the House of Commons passed by a majority of eight. The cabinet felt its measure threatened, and resolved to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the electors. The chancellor undertook to obtain the consent of the king.He went with Lord Grey to the palace. William IV. resisted. "How can I," said he, "after such a fashion, repay the kindness of Parliament; in granting me a most liberal civil list, and giving to the queen a splendid annuity in case she survives me?" And as Lord Brougham explained the political reasons for an immediate dissolution, the King objected: "The great officers of State are not summoned."—"Pardon me, sire," and the Chancellor bowed humbly: "we have taken the great liberty of informing them that your Majesty would have need of their services."—"But the crown, and the royal robes, and the other insignia of ceremony are not prepared."—"I beg your Majesty to pardon my audacity—all is ready."—"But, my Lords, it is impossible; my guards—the troops have not received their orders; they cannot be ready to-day."—"Pardon me, sir; I know how great my presumption has been, but we have counted upon the goodness of your Majesty, upon your desire to save the kingdom and to assure the happiness of your people. I have given the orders—the troops are under arms."—The King, flushed with anger, demanded, "How dare you go so far, my Lord; you know well it is an act of treason—high treason!"—"Yes sir, I know it," replied the chancellor, humbly, though firmly looking the monarch in the face. "I am ready to submit personally to all the punishments that it may please your Majesty to inflict upon me, but I conjure your Majesty anew to hear us and to follow our counsel."
Some hours later, after a violent agitation in the two Houses, that preceded his coming, William IV. read to the assembled Parliament the address which Lord Brougham had previously prepared. The murmurs of surprise and disaffection rendered the voice of the king scarcely audible; they listened only to the first words: "My Lords and Gentlemen, I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this Parliament, with a view to its immediate dissolution."
Thus prepared and ordered, the elections led, as might have been expected, to scenes of sad disorder. The Reformers, intoxicated with triumph and expectation, indulged in excesses that their more prudent friends were not able to repress. The city of London was illuminated on the night following the dissolution of Parliament. At Edinburgh, the windows not illuminated were broken. The Tory candidates were injured, at many places, and sometimes were in great danger. The populace of Jedburgh insulted the dying Sir Walter Scott. "Troja fuit," wrote he, the same day, in his journal. The popular illusions and ignorances alarmed the more enlightened supporters of the measure.
"In the months of March and April," writes the celebrated Miss Harriet Martineau, passionately engaged all her life in the radical cause, "the great middle class, upon the intelligence of which they counted to pass the bill, expected to see the time come, when it would be necessary to refuse to pay their taxes, and to march upon London to sustain the king, the ministry and the mass of the nation, against a little group of selfish and obstinate demagogues."
The political associations took an account of the number of their disposable adherents; the president of the "Union of Birmingham" declared that he would be able to furnish two armies each of which was as good as the victors of Waterloo. Upon the coast of Sussex ten thousand men declared themselves ready to march at the first signal. Northumberland was ready, Yorkshire was aroused; it might be said that the nation believed itself called upon to march upon London. The opponents of reform trembled at the thought that the cities would be at the mercy of the multitude. "This measure," they said, "will owe its success only to intimidation."
The Reformers, as well as their opponents, were anxious; after the opening of the new Parliament on the 21st of June, 1831, the king called the attention of the Houses to the disorders which had taken place, as well as to the distress which existed in Ireland, and begged of the legislature energetic remedies for these evils.
On the 21st of September the reform bill passed the House of Commons, by one hundred and nine majority. It was immediately carried by Lord Grey to the House of Lords.
The debate lasted twenty-five days, and was powerful and grave; sustained by men who knew their influence in the state was menaced. They were, nevertheless, more occupied with the safety of the country than with their personal authority. "I know the courage of your Lordships," said Lord Grey, "and your proud susceptibility to anything that looks like a menace; and I repudiate all thought of intimidation, but I conjure you, if you attach any value to your rights and privileges, if you hope to transmit them intact to your posterity, to lend an ear to the wishes of the people. Do not assume an attitude which would show you deaf to the voice of nine-tenths of the nation, which appeals to your wisdom in an accent too clear not to be heard, too decisive not to be comprehended. I do not say, as was said on a previous occasion by a noble Duke (Wellington), that the rejection of this measure would lead to civil war: I have confidence that such would not be the effect; but I foresee consequences which cause me to tremble for the security of this House, and for this nation. It is in the name of the tranquillity and prosperity of your country that I conjure your Lordships to reflect well, before rejecting this measure."
For a moment events seemed to justify the dolorous predictions of the Duke of Wellington. During the discussion upon Catholic emancipation and after the rejection of the reform bill in the House of Lords (by forty-five majority), civil war seemed imminent. At Derby, at Nottingham, and above all at Bristol, violent disturbances took place, but were immediately repressed, without great effort on the part of the government. Riots and tumults were constantly fomented by political associations; these however were definitely suppressed by that reaction which always follows great disorders, as well as by the severe chastisement of the leaders, three of whom suffered capital punishment during the month of December, 1831.
A new reform bill was now presented to the House of Commons, by Lord John Russell. Some reasonable modifications had been introduced. One important change was to leave intact the total number of members of the House.
This bill, like the first, passed the House by a large majority, notwithstanding the efforts of Sir Robert Peel. Lord John Russell indicated the importance of the measure, with the same anxious solicitude which had recently characterized the efforts of Lord Grey in the House of Lords. He claimed that the government had weighty and serious reasons for proposing this measure. It had been convinced, for some time past, that a law was necessary to obviate abuses that it desires to correct, and to escape convulsions that it wishes to avoid. If Parliament refused to sanction this measure, it would lead to an inevitable collision between that party which opposes all parliamentary reform, and that other party which is only satisfied with universal suffrage. "In consequence, torrents of blood would flow," said he, "and I am perfectly convinced that the English Constitution would perish in the conflict."
Secret negotiations were carried on in the House of Lords. The ministry demanded the creation of new peers, destined to modify the majority; the king hesitated for a long time, convinced of the necessity of reform, but seriously opposed to the means suggested. When he finally consented to make use of his prerogative, the cabinet had resolved to attempt one more venture. The second reading was voted by a majority of nine. Some hostile peers were absent; most of the bishops voted for the bill. But an amendment by Lord Lyndhurst made trouble for the Reformers. He proposed, and the House of Lords voted by a majority of thirty-five, that the new privileges accorded to the towns and counties should be put in force before the abrogation of the old rights of the boroughs. Upon this decision, which gravely modified the law, and upon the refusal of the king to create immediately sixty new peers, the whole ministry resigned.
It is in vain that timid prudence and sagacity attempt to stem the irresistible tide of popular passions; those who have excited them invariably fail to restrain them. The king called upon the Duke of Wellington—always ready to brave danger. "I would not dare to show myself in the street," said he, "if I refused to aid my sovereign in the difficult position in which he is now placed." All the efforts of the illustrious hero failed, nevertheless, before the impossibility of forming a cabinet. Sir Robert Peel refused a place in it. William IV. demanded that his new councillors should themselves present a bill, more in conformity with the desires and opinions of a great number of conservatives, than that of Lord John Russell.
[Image]Wellington In The Mob.
"I have obstinately opposed the bill on principle," said Peel, "and I do not know how I could rise and recommend, as minister, the adoption of a similar measure. No authority, the example of no man, nor any union of men, would tempt me to accept power under such circumstances and with such conditions."
An address of the House of Commons called the attention of the king to the critical state of affairs. William IV., wounded and irritated, yielded with bitter regret. He recalled the Whig cabinet and authorized it, in writing, to create the number of peers necessary to assure the triumph of the reform bill. It was unnecessary to have recourse to this extreme measure. The Duke of Wellington, as well as the king, comprehended that the time had come for the House of Lords to yield to the external pressure. William IV. wrote to his friends to absent themselves. Upon the renewal of the discussion, the duke arose, and followed by one hundred peers, left the House and did not return until after the passage of the reform bill. "If the lords of the opposition had remained firm," subsequently said Lord Grey, as well as Lord Brougham, "we would probably have been beaten, and the bill would have failed, for we would not have exacted the fullfilment of the kings promise." When William IV. and his intimate advisers bowed their heads before the violence of public opinion, they judged more accurately the irresistible force of the current let loose by the Reformers; the time for resistance, as well as the time for moderation, was past.
The new elections soon demonstrated this, as everywhere throughout the country, the populace manifested great violence toward the adversaries of the triumphant Reform. In London, on the 18th of June, 1832, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, while riding through the streets, the Duke of Wellington was assailed by an indignant mob that literally covered him with dirt and insults.He pursued tranquilly his route, walking his horse. A furious rioter seized the bridle and attempted to drag him from his saddle; he was obliged to take refuge in the house of a friend, protected by a number of young lawyers of Lincoln's Inn, who came to his assistance. The next day the king, while in attendance at the races at Ascot, was grievously wounded by a stone. His self-possession and courage equalled the composure of the duke—as imperturbable among the rioters, as indifferent to the applause of the populace. All the windows of Apsley House were broken in a moment of public frenzy. Wellington forbade the replacing of those of the second story. At the return of popular favor, as the people followed the duke with acclamations, he advanced without turning his head, without giving a sign, to the very door of his house; there dismounting from his horse, he pointed with his hand toward the broken windows, shrugged his shoulders and entered the house without uttering a single word.
The condition of the finances was serious; the monetary crises had long weighed upon commerce, and political agitation had alarmed and diminished the same. In order to meet the deficit in the public revenue, the ministry proposed important retrenchments in the war and navy departments—measures always favorably received by the people, who see in them a guarantee of peace, without realizing that they may become fatal to peace, as well as to the national power. Ireland was aroused more violently than ever; the Catholics, re-established in their political and civil rights, demanded, by the voice of their agitators, the abolition of the tithes with which they were burdened for the benefit of the Church of England.
The first care of the Irish leaders, was to counsel the peasants to refuse to pay these tithes. Scenes of disorder recommenced; everywhere crimes against individuals increased tenfold. Scarcely had the Reform Parliament reassembled, when it was called upon to consider a bill of repression, energetically practical, which would moderate for a time at least these outrages. At the same time, and in order to appease the Catholic Irish party, who were everywhere allied to the radicals, Lord Althorpe presented a bill for the reduction of the Protestant ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland: feeble precursor of the work that we have seen accomplished in our day, and already at that time so vigorously attacked by the conservatives, that the ministry was obliged to mitigate its tenor before obtaining a majority in the House of Lords.
Parliament, at this time, was also obliged to sanction an issue of bills of exchequer in favor of the clergy in Ireland, impoverished by the loss of the tithes. The tithes were imposed upon the protestant landholders, who, however, added them to their rents.
The excitement and irritation in Ireland appeared for a moment subdued; but already, from all parts of the kingdom, arose a cry of anger and of disappointment: reform ought to have a remedy for all evils; parliamentary reform ought to relieve all misery.
"Of what use is the new parliament," asked Ashwood, on the 21st of March, 1833, "if actual distress is not relieved? What will the people say of a reform parliament which has already sat so many weeks without having undertaken a single measure in favor of those who are suffering? A general, an extreme, an extraordinary distress weighs upon the whole country. Large numbers of the agricultural laborers are worn out by excessive toil; many others have nothing to do and die of hunger; labor is poorly remunerated; manufacturers realize scarcely any profit; many work at a loss; commerce declines in the same proportion, and a hundred thousand men wander about the streets of London, seeking work but finding none."
At this time, and in this agitated and difficult situation, it is to the credit of the Whig cabinet that it did not allow itself to be carried away by the uneasiness and discontent of its partisans, nor by the ardor that animated its own members; it was also to the credit of the Tories, a small number of whom were returned to the new House, that they maintained a firm attitude, resolved and candid, never descending to a fatal alliance with the radicals.
Sir Robert Peel, at the opening of the session, said, with honest pride: "As long as I shall see the government disposed to defend, against all rash innovation, the rights of property, the authority of law, the order of things established and regular, I shall believe it my duty, without taking account of the sentiments of party, to range myself on its side. I avow frankly that my fears regarding this House are not that it will be too ready to believe that all is evil which is established and old; I do not doubt the good intentions of the majority, but I fear that the greater part of its members have come here with the impression that the institutions under which they live are full of abuses that should be reformed, and that they have too great confidence in our means of providing a remedy. Three months will not have passed, I am convinced, before they will find themselves disappointed in their expectations; it is absolutely impossible that they should be satisfied. I have learned with satisfaction that the ministers of his Majesty, although disposed to reform all real abuses, are at the same time resolved to stand by the Constitution as it now is, and to reject all experiments that might cause anxiety in the public mind; I am decided to sustain them in that resolution."
It was not only questions actual and pressing that the Reform Parliament had to deal with, such as the financial measures, the re-chartering of the Bank of England, and the modification of the system of government in both the East and West Indies, but also greater questions of humanity and policy; the abolition of slavery, and the repeal of the Union with Ireland, equally importunate and urgent, and ardently sustained or opposed by their respective partisans.
The resistance of the colonies to the projected measures in favor of the blacks, had become violent; a natural alarm had taken possession of the slaveholders, disgusted by the disposition to revolt that they saw day by day developing itself among the negroes, and threatened by a ruin that they feared would be complete. Already the local legislatures had refused to accede to the orders of the Council, relative to the treatment of the slaves; but Parliamentary reform had given a new impetus to the generous zeal of the abolitionists. The government took the question boldly in hand, justly weighing in the balance the interests of the colonists, and the legitimate impatience of the faithful partisans of the blacks. It was an effort requiring courage and equity, at a time of such great financial embarrassment, to present to a Parliament ardently favorable to the abolition of slavery, a measure tending to the purchase of the blacks, and requiring an indemnity to the planters of twenty million pounds sterling.
The commerce of the West Indies had suffered severely; the value of property had diminished, and the colonists accepted this new and considerable reduction of their fortunes, not without profound sadness, but without violence and without revolt. The abolitionists protested against the liberality of the government; national equity, however, recognized the good will and sagacity which had inspired the report presented by Mr. Stanley; the bill was finally passed by a large majority. Slavery was thus abolished practically, as well as in principle; and England obtained the honor of having first, without political obligation, without revolutionary shock, in the name of the most elevated sentiments of Christian philanthropy, given liberty to eight hundred thousand slaves, thereby affording a noble example of justice and virtue to all Christian nations.
The struggle for the abolition of slavery had been long and difficult; persistently sustained in the face of frequent disappointments and serious obstacles, it was finally brought to a successful termination, to the great joy of its promoters. The sincere and prudent friends of Ireland, were met by a problem more grave still; a problem which seemed insoluble; that of the repose and prosperity of that unhappy country, rent asunder anew by insane agitators. The first motion for the "Repeal of the Union" was presented to Parliament on the 22nd of April, 1834, by the celebrated Daniel O'Connell. It was seriously opposed by Mr. Spring Rice, and when put to vote, was defeated by a majority of five hundred and twenty-three against thirty-eight in the House of Commons, and unanimously by the Lords. But immediately the ecclesiastical question was raised. Mr. Ward proposed another reduction in the legal establishment of the Anglican Church in Ireland. The Cabinet was divided upon the question; the most conservative members of the ministry, "the leaven" of Mr. Canning, Mr. Stanley, Sir John Graham, and the Duke of Richmond, gave in their resignations. The Bishops of Ireland addressed an appeal to the king: they were ready, they said, to co-operate for the redress of all serious abuses, but they begged that the government would not imprudently disturb the discipline and the services of the Church.The response of William was thoroughly Protestant and English; it betrayed the widening of the breach that already existed between the monarch and his Cabinet. The ministry had lost much ground in public confidence; a difference which arose between Lords Grey and Althorp, upon the subject of the renewal of the Irish coercion bill, soon deprived the Cabinet of its chief. Lord Grey tendered his resignation, and announced it himself in the House of Lords with an emotion that twice overpowered him. Finally, for the third time, he began: "My lords, I feel quite ashamed of the sort of weakness I show on this occasion, a weakness which arises from my deep sense of the personal kindness which, during my having been in his service, I have received from my sovereign. However, my lords, I have a duty to perform, which, painful as it may be, I must discharge: I no longer address you as a minister of the crown, but as an individual member of Parliament. In retiring during the course of the administration of which I was chief, I feel confident of having acted in the spirit of the time, without having ever preceded or retarded its march."
The efforts of the ministry thus mutilated and lessened, to govern powerfully were vain. The bill regarding the Irish Church, proposed by Lord Melbourne, was rejected by the House of Lords. The violence of the attacks of the press redoubled; disorder in Ireland increased: the king declared frankly to Lord Melbourne that he had no confidence in his cabinet, and that he intended to recall the Duke of Wellington (November, 1834).
It was under the weight of its own efforts, and of the movement that it had itself inaugurated, that the great Whig ministry, so wisely and ably directed by Lord Grey, succumbed. It had opened the way to wild hopes and infinite illusions, without the power to satisfy the one, or moderate the other; it was swept away by a rising wave which it vainly endeavored to resist. It is to its honor and lasting glory, that it used prudently and courageously the immense power, still new and confused, that parliamentary reform had placed in its hand, without exceeding the limits which it had itself imposed. Its measures were moderate and wise, its resistance to the desires and insensate passions of the masses were honest and firm. Lord Grey remained popular, even after the fall of his ministry. The internal affairs of the nation had been so important, and the interests involved so pressing, that the foreign policy of the cabinet had received but little attention in either house, and was almost lost sight of by the general public. It had nevertheless touched upon weighty matters, essential to the repose of Europe; the relations of England with the French government after the revolution of 1830, the formation of the kingdom of Belgium, and the Spanish question. These last two European complications had put to the test the good feeling which existed between the French and English governments: they had definitively served to confirm and strengthen the alliance of the two nations. The recognition of Louis Philippe by England had been cordial and prompt; very different from the ill-humor and repugnance manifested by Prussia and Russia. It had its origin in a spontaneous and sincere national sentiment, the adhesion of the country to the liberal and conservative policy which had succeeded the revolutionary movement in France. The new union and the good understanding which naturally resulted from this attitude of England, contributed powerfully to the happy issue of the Belgium question.The smouldering dissatisfaction which had existed throughout several centuries, between the Flemish Low Countries and Holland, had finally burst forth; the union was abruptly broken. Immediately following the separation, the new state demanded of the King Louis Philippe, one of his sons for the throne of Belgium. He refused. "The Low Countries have always been a stumbling block to the peace of Europe," said he to Guizot. "None of the great powers can see them in the hands of another, without great inquietude and jealousy. Let them become by general consent an independent and neutral state, and that state will become the keystone of the arch of European order." These wise and prudent views were approved by both the English and French cabinets. The King Louis Philippe had sent Talleyrand to London, and Lord Granville was the English ambassador at Paris. Both were well qualified for the work they had undertaken; the efficacious union of France and England for the maintenance of the peace of Europe.
The first result of their efforts was the accession of the Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg to the throne of Belgium. But lately the adored husband of the Princess Charlotte of England, and still popular in his adopted country, the new sovereign bound himself to France by espousing the Princess Louise, eldest daughter of Louis Philippe.
The two powers testified their satisfaction and good-will by delivering his country from the presence of the Holland forces. After an agreement signed at London on the 22nd of October, 1832, not without a certain distrust on the part of Lord Palmerston, charged with the administration of foreign affairs in the cabinet of Lord Grey, the Belgian fortresses still occupied by the Holland troops were evacuated. A French army under Marshal Gérard, accompanied by the young Duke of Orleans, laid siege to Anvers. This place, already the scene of so many bloody conflicts, and so many diplomatic negotiations, during centuries past, was obliged to capitulate, on the 23rd of December, 1832.The kingdom of Belgium was now definitively constituted, and destined to prosper rapidly under its wise and prudent sovereign, who constantly endeavored to maintain around him that equilibrium so essential to the preservation of peace in Europe, and so indispensable to the development as well as the security of his little state.
Spain had been for a long time the object of profound anxiety to the astute statesmen of Europe. King Ferdinand VII. had just died (September, 1833), leaving the succession to the throne contested, notwithstanding the definitive act, sanctioned by the Cortes, which had assured the crown to his eldest daughter Isabella. Hesitating for a long time between family affection and those absolute tendencies which had exiled into France all the intelligent liberals of Spain, the monarch who had just breathed his last, had scattered the seeds of the Carlist insurrection, which broke out immediately after his death. A numerous and obstinate party sustained the right of the infant Don Carlos to the throne, in the name of the Salic law established in Spain by the pragmatic sanction of Philip V., and recognized for some time by Ferdinand VII. himself. The English and French cabinets did not hesitate; by common consent they recognized the titles of the young Queen Isabella II., as conformable to the ancient Spanish law accepted by the nation. Civil war broke out in Spain. It had already begun in Portugal, where the usurper Don Miguel, contended in the name of the same principles for the exclusion of the young Queen Donna Maria. Already the new governments of the two kingdoms were compelled to ask assistance of the great constitutional and liberal powers.
On the 15th of April, 1834, the triple alliance was concluded at London between England, Spain and Portugal. A month later, and upon the objection of the French government to the presumptions, exclusively English, of Lord Palmerston, France in her turn joined the alliance already known and powerful in Europe, although no armed intervention had seconded the popular movement. Civil war did not cease in Spain; it lasted for a long time, breaking out anew at irregular intervals, yet always ardent and obstinate. Meanwhile Don Carlos had embarked for England, and Don Miguel had finally quitted Portugal, and retired into Italy. Everywhere French and English diplomacy had been moderately but firmly exerted in the service of the public welfare, and had everywhere brought forth good fruit.
Wearied by the yoke that the Whigs had imposed upon him, and by the violence he had done to his own views and inclinations, the king called upon the Duke of Wellington. For the first time that noble hero refused to serve his sovereign. "No sir," said he, "in the new order of things the difficulties lie in the House of Commons; and as that House now has the preponderance, its chief ought to direct the government. Address yourself to Sir Robert Peel; I will serve under him in any position that it shall please your majesty to place me." Sir Robert Peel was in Italy—so also was Fox, when called upon to succeed Pitt. While awaiting his return, the Duke of Wellington, in concert with Lord Lyndhurst, appointed chancellor, conducted alone the affairs of the government, and taking charge of three ministerial departments, without other solicitude than the prompt expedition of the work, he cared but little for the objections which were raised against this irregular administration. Sir Robert Peel accepted the burden which was imposed upon him and upon his friends, without either co-operation or support from without. Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham refused to enter the cabinet. The Tories found themselves alone in the face of a House of Commons profoundly hostile. Parliament was immediately dissolved.
Sir Robert Peel, in expounding his principles in a long address to his constituents at Tamworth, said: "I will repeat the declaration which I made when I entered the House of Commons as a member of the Reformed Parliament;—I consider the reform bill as a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question—a settlement which no friend to the peace and welfare of his country would attempt to disturb, either by direct or indirect means. If by the adoption of the spirit of the reform bill, it becomes necessary to live in a perpetual vortex of agitation, that public men can only sustain themselves in public opinion by yielding to popular demands of each day, by promising to redress immediately all abuses that may be pointed out, by abandoning that great support of the government, more efficacious than law or reason itself—the respect for ancient rights and authorities consecrated by time; if that is the spirit of the reform bill, I will not support it. If the spirit of the bill implies merely a careful review of institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, undertaken in a friendly temper; combining, with the firm maintenance of established rights, the correction of proved abuses and the redress of real grievances;—in that case I can for myself and my colleagues undertake to act with such a spirit and with such intentions."
And some weeks later, after his first check in the new Parliament, upon the election of speaker, he continued: "I make you great offers, which ought not to be inconsiderately rejected. I offer you the prospect of a durable peace, the return of the confidence of powerful states who are disposed to seize this occasion to reduce their armies and remove the danger of hostile collisions.I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical laws, the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, the commutation of tithes in England, the removal of any real abuse in the Church, and the redress of those grievances of which the dissenters have any just ground to complain. I offer also the best chance that these things can be effected, in willing concert with the other authorities of the state—thus restoring harmony, insuring the maintenance, but not excluding the reform, where reform is really requisite, of ancient institutions. You may reject my offers, you may refuse to hear them, but if you do so, the time is approaching when you will perceive that the popular sentiment upon which you have relied has abandoned you."
Party passion was at this time too violent and party animosity too intense, for the newly elected house to lend an ear to this wise and patriotic language. O'Connell had sold the support of the Irish Catholics to the Whigs, and his price was the "Repeal of the Union." "I belong to the Repeal," said he to the electors, "dead or alive, saved or lost, I belong to the Repeal; and I make a solemn engagement with those who are the most opposed to me, to serve them in all things, in a way to render the transition not only without danger, but perfectly easy."
The deputies of the counties were for the most part Conservatives, but the towns and boroughs gave a majority for the Whigs. Sir Robert Peel accepted many checks without recoiling before the danger, presenting day after day to Parliament the measures which he believed to be useful to the public service; determined to defy the opposition as long as it did not touch upon points that he regarded as vital questions. Lord John Russell was not tardy in responding to this defiance.On the 30th of March, 1835, he renewed the attack but lately directed against the Irish Church: "Missionary Church," he said, "instituted with a view of leading the Irish population to the Protestant faith, adapted to future wants that had been foreseen but had never yet manifested themselves." He proposed then to revise the ecclesiastical establishment by applying to public instruction the sums and endowments which were now found necessary for the religious maintenance of the curates and their flocks. With Sir Robert Peel it was now a question of conscience as well as of absolute conviction. Seconded by Lord Stanley, he maintained that the ecclesiastical property proceeded from endowments made to the Church, and properly belonged to it, and that no one had the right to divert the same from its primitive and religious destination. The motion of Lord John Russell was carried, however, by a vote of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and eighty-nine. The majority was in the hands of the Irish Catholics.
Sir Robert Peel and his friends resolved to retire. They had risen in the contest which they had so courageously sustained for four months; their adversaries, as well as the entire country, felt this, and they hastened to seize again the reins of power.
"No indifference for public life, no distaste for the fatigues and weariness that it imposes, no consideration of personal comfort, no grief of private life, would authorize a public man, in my estimation, to desert without imperative reason the post to which his sovereign has called him," said Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Commons, on the 8th of April, 1835. "But at the same time, it is a great misfortune to present to the country the spectacle of a government which does not find in the House of Commons the support necessary to safely conduct the affairs of the country, nor exercise upon the acts of that House an influence which confidence alone can give; to such a spectacle of feebleness there are limits, which one ought not to pass."
During six years of alternate languor and energy, the cabinet of Lord Melbourne governed England; master of the House of Commons, and for a long time powerful in the country, losing however little by little its popularity as well as its resources, and slowly conquered by that adversary which had but recently predicted its fall. "You will have no other alternative than to invoke our aid and replace the government in the hands from which you wish to wrest it to-day," said Sir Robert Peel, in the month of December, 1834, "or have recourse to that pressure from without, to those methods of compulsion and of violence which will render your reforms vain, and will seal the death warrant of the British Constitution."
Lord Grey had never renounced power; "susceptible and proud, with a mind more elevated than discerning, he was unskilful in defending himself from small intrigues that he was incapable of plotting." Worn out by a long life devoted to politics, he was sad in his noble retirement, notwithstanding the affection of his wife and numerous children, and the profound respect always shown him by those who had served under his banners. Lord Althorpe, now become Earl Spencer, as well as Lord Brougham, took no part in the new cabinet. Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston, sagacious in different degrees, undertook to continue the work of reform, but lately victoriously begun, and more difficult to accomplish, with prudent moderation, than its ardent defenders had at first foreseen. Many changes, but recently loudly demanded, were silently abandoned; they compromised upon the Irish Church question, agreeing to the conditions proposed by Sir Robert Peel; only the reform of the municipal corporations was accomplished slowly and with difficulty in Ireland, useful nevertheless and everywhere accepted.The struggle was severe, and bold hands were raised against the foundations of the English Constitution, and against the hereditary rights of the House of Lords. But at the same time that the audacity of the Reformers increased and developed a spirit of resistance, a reaction, sober and moderate, firmly resolved to defend those ancient institutions which have been the grandeur as well as the security of England. It was in support of these principles that Sir Robert Peel, on the 11th of January, 1836, addressed his friends and adherents assembled at Glasgow to elect a rector for the university. A great number of the persons present had but recently been warm supporters of the reform movement. "If you adhere to the principles which you professed in 1830, it is here you ought to come," said Sir Robert Peel. "You consented to a reform, invited by a speech from the throne, expressly on the condition that it should be according to the acknowledged principles of the Constitution. I see the necessity of widening the foundations on which the defence of our Constitution and religious establishment must rest, but I do not wish to conciliate your confidence by hoisting false colors. My object is to support our national establishments which connect Protestantism with the State, in the three realms. I avow to you that I mean to support in its full integrity the House of Lords, as an essential, indispensable condition for maintaining the Constitution under which we live. If you assent to this opinion, the hour is arrived when we must all be prepared to act on the declaration of it. The disturbing force of foreign example has diminished; the dazzling illusions of the glorious days have passed away, and the affections of the people are visibly gravitating again to their old centre, full of a respect for property, a love for national freedom, and an attachment to long established institutions."
"From these walls I trust a spirit will go forth to animate the desponding and encourage the timid. I look to the moral influence of that opinion, which constitutes the chief defence of nations. I look to it for the maintenance of that system of government which protects the rich from spoliation, and the poor from oppression. I look to that spirit which will range itself under no tawdry banner of revolution, but will unfurl and rally round the flag which has braved for a thousand years the battle and the breeze. I do not doubt that it will continue to float triumphantly, and that our Constitution, tried as it has been in the storms of adversity, will come forth purified and fortified in the rooted convictions, feelings and affections of a religious, moral and patriotic people."
It was against his personal inclinations, but in conformity to constitutional principles sincerely accepted and practised, that King William IV. had successively sanctioned the important reforms which were accomplished under his reign. His royal task was soon to terminate; from day to day his health became more feeble, and on the 20th of June, 1837, he expired at Windsor. The supreme power fell into the hands of his young niece, the Princess Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Kent, who, on the same day, was proclaimed Queen, at Kensington. The new sovereign of the three kingdoms, England, Scotland, and Ireland, whose laws extend over so many distant colonies and diverse peoples, was only eighteen years of age.
We have momentarily closed the History of France with the death of the ancient Régime, at the confused and menacing beginning of a terrible revolution, continued through many years, the memory of which still profoundly agitates that country; we will close the History of England at the death of King William IV., at the beginning of a new reign, tenderly greeted by the nation, destined to a long prosperity, rarely interrupted by wars—always gloriously terminated.
Reforms have continued: bold and moderate, wise and prudent, without ever altering the fundamental character of the Constitution, yet profound enough to maintain England in the first rank among liberal and free countries. The first to march to battle for the great political rights of humanity; she has gained them not without errors, not without crimes; she has preserved and protected them after having definitively closed the fatal era of revolutions. A noble spectacle and fortifying example, which fills us with admiration and with a generous envy, without however discouraging us, nor disturbing us in our fond hope for our well beloved country; she has long sought repose in order, and security in liberty; she has often caught sight of these, and she will assuredly find them one day.
While awaiting that supreme hour, the constant aim of our efforts, it is our duty and our honor to seek everywhere in the experience of history, as in the lessons of the present, the power of sustaining without wavering the flag of noble hopes, that flag which has been bequeathed to us by dying hands, with the watchword of the old Roman Emperor: "Laboremus—Laboremus."