Sligo.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 7 outrages.Mayo.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 1 outrage.Roscommon.—Rockites rather busy; apprehensive of their extending their operations; 2 murders; 11 outrages.Clare.—Quiet; apprehensive of Ribbon spirit extending; 9 outrages.Leitrim.—Much disturbed; the sway of the Rockites formidable; magistrates supposed to be deficient in energy; 36 outrages.Galway.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 6 outrages.Antrim.—Disturbed; robberies of fire-arms; not insurrectionary; 3 murders; 7 outrages.Armagh.—Quiet; 1 outrage.Cavan.—Strong political feeling ready to develop itself; 9 outrages.Donegal.—Not tranquil; 2 murders; 4 outrages.Down.—Quiet; 2 outrages.Fermanagh.—Tranquil; 6 outrages.Londonderry.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.Monaghan.—Disturbed; party violence runs high; 1 murder; 6 outrages.Ulstermay be considered tolerably tranquil, with the exception of some baronies in the counties of Donegal and Monaghan.Tipperary.—Whiteboy system prevails very generally; no organized insurrectionary system founded upon political feeling; 4 murders; 75 outrages.Cork.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.Waterford.—Quiet; 3 outrages.Kerry.—Quiet; 3 outrages.Roscrea.—Dissatisfied spirit excited by inflammatory speeches.Limerick.—Satisfactory state; 9 outrages.Wicklow.—Western division disturbed; considered necessary to increase the constabulary force by ordering three men to Dunlavin, and three more to another disturbed point; Talbotstown the most disturbed; 3 outrages.Kildare.—Nothing to notice.
Sligo.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 7 outrages.
Mayo.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 1 outrage.
Roscommon.—Rockites rather busy; apprehensive of their extending their operations; 2 murders; 11 outrages.
Clare.—Quiet; apprehensive of Ribbon spirit extending; 9 outrages.
Leitrim.—Much disturbed; the sway of the Rockites formidable; magistrates supposed to be deficient in energy; 36 outrages.
Galway.—Perfectly quiet; 1 murder; 6 outrages.
Antrim.—Disturbed; robberies of fire-arms; not insurrectionary; 3 murders; 7 outrages.
Armagh.—Quiet; 1 outrage.
Cavan.—Strong political feeling ready to develop itself; 9 outrages.
Donegal.—Not tranquil; 2 murders; 4 outrages.
Down.—Quiet; 2 outrages.
Fermanagh.—Tranquil; 6 outrages.
Londonderry.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.
Monaghan.—Disturbed; party violence runs high; 1 murder; 6 outrages.
Ulstermay be considered tolerably tranquil, with the exception of some baronies in the counties of Donegal and Monaghan.
Tipperary.—Whiteboy system prevails very generally; no organized insurrectionary system founded upon political feeling; 4 murders; 75 outrages.
Cork.—Generally quiet; 1 murder; 4 outrages.
Waterford.—Quiet; 3 outrages.
Kerry.—Quiet; 3 outrages.
Roscrea.—Dissatisfied spirit excited by inflammatory speeches.
Limerick.—Satisfactory state; 9 outrages.
Wicklow.—Western division disturbed; considered necessary to increase the constabulary force by ordering three men to Dunlavin, and three more to another disturbed point; Talbotstown the most disturbed; 3 outrages.
Kildare.—Nothing to notice.
Source.—Annual Register for 1829, p. 94.
Duke of Wellington's Speech.
[The attitude of the Ministry was set forth in a brief speech by the Duke of Wellington at the close of the debate. While there is little in the utterance beyond a personal explanation of the secrecy maintained, it is inserted as being the final word on the great question which had for so many years troubled the heart of England.]
The debate was closed by a brief reply from the Duke of Wellington. The apprehended danger to the Irish Church from the admission of a few Catholics into Parliament, he treated as futile, considering that the throne would be filled by a Protestant. Moreover, a fundamental article of the Union between the two countries was the union of the two Churches; and it was impossible that any mischief could happen to the Irish branch of this united Church, without destroying the union of the two countries. "A different topic," said his grace, "to which I wish to advert is a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against myself, by the noble earl on the cross-bench, of a want of consistency in our conduct. My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and, my lords, I must say, that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country. We knew very well, that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of 'No Popery,' we should be much more popular even than those who had excited against us that verycry. But we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the country a burthen which must end in bearing them down, and further that we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen. Then I am accused, and by a noble and learned friend of mine, of having acted with great secrecy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell him, that he has done that to me in the course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to him—in other words, he has, in the language of a right hon. friend of his and mine, thrown a large paving-stone, instead of throwing a small pebble. I say, that if he accuses me of acting with secrecy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows as well as I do how the Cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure, until the person most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? Before he accused me of secrecy, and of improper secrecy too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in the country, and had leave to open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also on which a noble earl accused me of misconduct; and that is, that I did not at once dissolve the Parliament. Now I must say that I think noble lords are mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think that they would derive from a dissolution of Parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a dissolution of Parliament at any time. But when I know, as I did know, and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland—when I recollected the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in Ireland in the course of last summer—when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the House of Commons, to say nothing of the risks which must have been incurred at each election—of collisions that might have lead to something little short of a civil war—I say, that, knowing all these things, I should have been wantingin duty to my sovereign and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve his Parliament."
Source.—The Life of the Duke of Wellington, by J. R. Gleig.
Letter from Col. Fairman to the Editor of the "Morning Herald," April 6, 1830.
"Dear Sir,
"From those who may be supposed to have opportunities of knowing 'the secrets of the castle,' the King is stated to be by no manner in so alarming a state as many folks would have it imagined. His Majesty is likewise said to dictate the bulletins of his own state of health. Some whisperings have also gone abroad, that in the event of a demise of the crown, a regency would probably be established, for reasons which occasioned the removal of the next in the succession from the office of high-admiral. That a maritime government might not prove consonant to the views of a military chieftain of the most unbounded ambition, may admit of easy belief; and as the second heir-presumptive is not alone a female, but a minor, in addition to the argument which might be applied to the present, that in the ordinary course of nature it was not to be expected that his reign could be of long duration, in these disjointed times it is by no means unlikely a vicarious form of government may be attempted. The effort would be a bold one, but after the measures we have seen, what new violations should surprise us? Besides, the popular plea of economy and expedience might be urged as the pretext, while aggrandisement and usurpation might be the latent sole motive. It would only be necessary to make out a plausible case, which, from the facts on record, there could be no difficulty in doing, to the satisfaction of a pliable and obsequious set of ministers, as also to the success of such an experiment.
"Most truly yours,"W. B. F."
Note.—Colonel Fairman was an Orangeman. After the Emancipation Bill became law, the Orangemen gave vent to their wrath upon the Duke of Wellington.
Source.—William Cobbett'sRural Rides, ed. by Mr. Pitt Cobbett, 1885.
"Leicester, 26th April, 1830.
"At the famous city of Lincoln, I had crowded audiences, principally consisting of farmers, on the 21st and 22nd; exceedingly well-behaved audiences, and great impression produced. One of the evenings, in pointing out to them the wisdom of explaining to their labourers the cause of their distress, in order to ward off the effects of the resentment which labourers now feel everywhere against the farmers, I related to them what my labourers at Barn-Elm had been doing since I left home; and I repeated to them the complaints that my labourers made, stating to them, from memory, the following parts of that spirited petition:
"That your petitioners have recently observed that many great sums of money, part of which we pay, have been voted to be given to persons who render no services to the country; some of which sums we will mention here; that the sum of £94,000 has been voted to disbandedforeignofficers, theirwidowsandchildren; that your petitioners know that ever since the peace this charge has been annually made; that it has been on the average, £110,000 a year, and that, of course, this band of foreigners have actually taken away out of England, since the peace, one million and seven thousand pounds; partly taken from the fruit of our labour; and if our dinners were actually taken from our table and carried over to Hanover, the process could not be more visible to our eyes than it now is; and we are astonished that those who fear that we, who make the land bring forth crops, and who make the clothing and the houses, shall swallow up the rental, appear to think nothing at all of the swallowings of theseHanoverian men, women, and children, who may continue thus to swallow for half a century to come.
"That your petitioners know that more than one half of their wages is taken from them by the taxes; that these taxes go chiefly into the hands of idlers; that your petitioners are the bees, and that the tax receivers are the drones; but that your petitioners hope to see the day when the checking of the increase of the drones, and not of the bees, will be the object of an English parliament.
"That, in consequence of taxes, your petitioners pay sixpence for a pot of worse beer than they could make for one penny; that they pay ten shillings for a pair of shoes that they could have for five shillings; that they pay sevenpence for a pound of soap or candles that they could have for threepence; that they pay sevenpence for a pound of sugar that they could have for threepence; that they pay six shillings for a pound of tea which they could have for two shillings; that they pay double for their bread and meat, of what they would have to pay if there were no idlers to be kept out of the taxes; that, therefore, it is the taxes that make their wages insufficient for their support, and that compel them to apply for aid to the poor-rates; that, knowing these things they feel indignant at hearing themselves described aspaupers, while so many thousands of idlers, for whose support they pay taxes, are callednoble LordsandLadies,honourable Gentlemen,Masters, andMisses; that they feel indignant at hearing themselves described as a nuisance to be got rid of, while the idlers who live upon their earnings are upheld, caressed, and cherished, as if they were the sole support of the country."
Having repeated to them these passages, I proceeded: "My workmen were induced thus to petition, in consequence of the information, which I, their master, had communicated to them; and, gentlemen, why should not your labourers petition in the same strain? Why should you suffer them to remain in a state of ignorance, relative to the cause of their misery? The eyes sweep over in this country more riches in one momentthan are contained in the whole county in which I was born, and in which the petitioners live. Between Holbeach and Boston, even at a public house, neither bread nor meat was to be found; and while the landlord was telling me that the people were become so poor that the butchers killed no meat in the neighbourhood, I counted more than two thousand fat sheep lying about in the pastures in that richest spot in the whole world. Starvation in the midst of plenty; the land covered with food, and the working people without victuals: everything taken away by the tax-eaters of various descriptions: and yet you take no measures for redress; and your miserable labourers seem to be doomed to expire with hunger, without an effort to obtain relief. What! cannot you point out to them the real cause of their sufferings; cannot you take a piece of paper and write out a petition for them; cannot your labourers petition as well as mine, are God's blessings bestowed on you without any spirit to preserve them; is the fatness of the land, is the earth teeming with food for the body and raiment for the back, to be an apology for the waste of that courage for which your fathers were so famous; is the abundance which God has put into your hands to be the excuse for your resigning yourselves to starvation? My God! is there no spirit left in England except in the miserable sandhills of Surrey?"
Source.—The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 100, p. 552.
Railway Carriages—June 14.
The directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway made their first public exhibition upon the line, and the experiment proved most successful. The Arrow steam engine drew a carriage with twelve inside passengers, another with thirty outside, and seven carriages loaded with thirty-four tons of rough stone. The journey from Liverpool to Manchester (rather more than thirty miles) was performed in two hours23½ minutes, including stoppages for water, which occupied 13½ minutes. They left Manchester again for Liverpool about half-past four o'clock, at the rate of about 25 miles the hour, drawing two very large carriages with upwards of fifty passengers, and performed the whole distance in one hour 46½ minutes, including 12 minutes watering and to set down a passenger.
The introduction of Railways is likely to be as beneficial in improving the accommodation afforded to travellers, as in increasing the expedition with which they will be conveyed. Some of the carriages which have been made at the manufactory of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company, for the public conveyance of passengers on the Railway, give quite a new idea of the ease and luxury with which persons may in future travel. Most of the carriages to be used as public coaches consist, like the French diligences, of two or three bodies joined together. Some are intended to accommodate four persons in each body, and others six. Between the sittings is a rest for the arms, and each passenger has a cushion to himself; the backs are padded and covered with fine cloth, like a private carriage.
There are at present exhibiting in Edinburgh three large models, accompanied with drawings of railways and their carriages, invented by Mr. Dick, who has a patent. These railways are of a different nature from those hitherto in use, inasmuch as they are not laid along the surface of the ground, but elevated to such a height as when necessary to pass over the tops of houses and trees. The principal supports are of stone, and, being placed at considerable distances, have cast iron pillars between them. The carriages are to be dragged along with a velocity hitherto unparalleled, by means of a rope drawn by a steam-engine, or other prime mover—a series being placed at intervals along the railway. From the construction of the railway and carriages the friction is very small.
Source.—The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 100, p. 264.
September 15.
The interesting ceremony of opening the Manchester and Liverpool Railway took place this day. It was rendered more splendid and imposing by the presence of the Duke of Wellington and many distinguished individuals, whom the Directors had invited. The concourse of spectators at each end of the line was immense. The procession left Liverpool twenty minutes before eleven o'clock drawn by eight locomotive engines, the first of which was the Northumbrian, with the Directors and numerous distinguished visitors, including the Duke of Wellington. The other engines were the Phœnix, North Star, Rocket, Dart, Comet, Arrow, and Meteor. The carriage in which the Duke of Wellington and his friends travelled, was truly magnificent. The floor was 32 feet long by 8 wide, and was supported by eight large iron wheels. A grand canopy, 24 feet long, was placed aloft upon gilded pillars, contrived so as to be lowered in passing through the tunnel. The Northumbrian drew three carriages, the first containing the band, the second the Duke of Wellington and the distinguished visitors, and the third the Directors. The Phœnix, and the North Star drew five carriages each; the Rocket drew three; and the Dart, Comet, Arrow, and Meteor, each four. The total number of persons conveyed was 772. On issuing from the smaller tunnel at Liverpool, the first engine, that is, the Northumbrian, took the south, or right-hand line of railway, while the other seven engines proceeded along the north line. The procession did not proceed at a particularly rapid pace—not more than 15 or 16 miles an hour. In the course of the journey, the Northumbrian accelerated or retarded its speed occasionally, to give the Duke of Wellington an opportunity of inspecting the most remarkable parts of the work. On the arrival of the procession at Parkside (a little on this side of Newton) the carriages stopped to take in a supply ofwater. Before starting from Liverpool, the company were particularly requested not to leave the carriages, and the same caution was repeated in the printed directions describing the order of procession. Notwithstanding this regulation, however, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Wm. Holmes, M.P., and other gentlemen, alighted from the carriage of the Duke of Wellington, when the Northumbrian stopped at Parkside. At the moment they descended into the road, three of the engines on the other line—the Phœnix, the North Star, and the Rocket, were rapidly approaching. Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Holmes were standing in the road between the two lines of railway, which are about four feet distant from each other. Unluckily, Mr. Huskisson imagining that there was not room for a person to stand between the lines while the other engines were passing, made an attempt to get again into the carriage of the Duke before the Dart came up. He laid hold of the door of the carriage, and pulled it open with so much force that he lost his balance, and fell backwards across the rails of the other line, the moment before the passing of the Dart. The conductor of that engine immediately stopped it, but before that could be effected, both wheels of the engine passed over the leg of the unfortunate gentleman, which was placed over the rail, his head and body being under the engine. The right leg was frightfully shattered, the muscles being torn to pieces. The Earl of Wilton, Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Parkes, solicitor, of Birmingham, raised Mr. Huskisson from the ground. The only words he uttered were: "I have met my death—God forgive me!" A tourniquet was immediately applied by the Earl of Wilton; and Dr. Brandreth was quickly in attendance. He was then removed to a car, and carried to Eccles, a village within four miles of Manchester; and after his arrival there, was removed to the house of the Rev. Mr. Blackburn, the rector of that place, where the Right Hon. Gentleman expired between nine and ten o'clock the same evening.
After the above melancholy accident a question arose as to what ought to be done with regard to the further progress of the business of the day. The Duke of Wellington refused toproceed further. Some of the proprietors and directors insisted that they had a public duty to perform in carrying the day's proceedings to an end, and that the success of the project, on which they had expended so much capital, might depend on their being regularly finished. They contended, moreover, that the processionmust go onto Manchester, if they wished to avoid a breach of the public tranquillity. The Duke's scruples ultimately gave way, and the order was issued to move on to Manchester. On its return the Duke of Wellington quitted the rail-road about three miles before the cortege reached Liverpool, and posted off to the Marquis of Salisbury's seat at Childwell. The splendid corporation dinner which had been prepared at Liverpool was suspended; and nothing was heard spoken of but the above melancholy event. Mr. Huskisson was interred on the 24th at the public cemetery at Liverpool. The funeral was a public one.
Source.—The Life of the Duke of Wellington, by J. R. Gleig.
Letter from the Duke of Wellington to J. R. Gleig, Esq.
"London, 11th April, 1831.
"I have received your letters of the 8th and 9th. It is curious enough that I, who have been the greatest reformer on earth, should be held up as an enemy to all reform. This assertion is neither more or less than one of the lying cries of the day.
"If by reform is meant parliamentary reform, or a change in the mode or system of representation, what I have said is, that I have never heard of a plan that was safe and practicable that would give satisfaction, and that while I was in office I should oppose myself to reform in parliament. This was in answer to Lord Grey on the first day of the session. I am still of the same opinion. I think that parliament has done its duty: that constituted as parliament is, having in it as a member everyman noted in the country for his fortune, his talents, his science, his industry, or his influence; the first men of all professions, in all branches of trade and manufacture, connected with our colonies and settlements abroad, and representing, as it does, all the states of the United Kingdom, the government of the country is still a task almost more than human. To conduct the government would be impossible, if by reform the House of Commons should be brought to a greater degree under popular influence. Yet let those who wish for reform reflect for a moment where we should all stand if we were to lose for a day the protection of government.
"That is the ground upon which I stand with respect to the question of reform in general. I have more experience in the government of this country than any man now alive, as well as in foreign countries. I have no borough influence to lose, and I hate the whole concern too much to think of endeavouring to gain any. Ask the gentlemen of the Cinque Ports whether I have ever troubled any of them.
"On the other hand, I know that I should be the idol of the country if I could pretend to alter my opinion and alter my course. And I know that I exclude myself from political power by persevering in the course which I have taken. But nothing shall induce me to utter a word, either in public or in private, that I don't believe to be true. If it is God's will that this great country should be destroyed, and that mankind should be deprived of this last asylum of peace and happiness, be it so; but, as long as I can raise my voice, I will do so against the infatuated madness of the day.
"In respect to details, it has always appeared to me that the first step upon this subject was the most important. We talk of unrepresented great towns! These are towns which have all the benefit of being governed by the system of the British Constitution without the evil of elections. Look at Scotland. Does Scotland suffer because it has not the benefit of riotous elections? I think that reform in Scotland would be, and I am certain would be thought, a grievance by many in that country. I can answer for there being many respectable menin Manchester, and I believe there are some in Birmingham and Leeds, who are adverse to change.
"But how is this change to be made? Either by adding to the number of representatives in parliament from England, or by disfranchising what are called the rotten boroughs! The first cannot be done without a departure from the basis and a breach of the Acts of Union. And, mind, a serious departure and breach of these acts, inasmuch as the limits of the extension could not be less than from fifteen to twenty towns. The last would be, in my opinion, a violation of the first and most important principle of the constitution, for no valid reason, and upon no ground whatever excepting a popular cry, and an apprehension of the consequences of resisting it. But this is not all. I confess that I see in thirty members for rotten boroughs thirty men, I don't care of what party, who would preserve the state of property as it is; who would maintain by their votes the Church of England, its possessions, its churches and universities, all our great institutions and corporations, the union with Scotland and Ireland, the connection of the country with its foreign colonies and possessions, the national honour abroad and its good faith with the king's subjects at home. I see men at the back of the government to enable it to protect individuals and their property against the injustice of the times, which would sacrifice all rights and all property to a description of plunder called general convenience and utility. I think it is the presence of this description of men in parliament with the country gentlemen, and the great merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, which constitute the great difference between the House of Commons and those assemblies abroad called 'Chambers of Deputies.' It is by means of the representatives of the close corporations that the great proprietors of the country participate in political power. I don't think that we could spare thirty or forty of these representatives, or change them with advantage for thirty or forty members elected for the great towns by any new system. I am certain that the country would be injured by depriving men of great property of political power, besides the injury done to it byexposing the House of Commons to a greater degree of popular influence.
"You will observe that I have now considered only the smallest of all reforms—a reform which would satisfy nobody. Yet it cannot be adopted without a serious departure from principle (principle in the maintenance of which the smallest as well as the greatest of us is interested), and by running all the risks of those misfortunes which all wish to avoid.
"I tell you that we must not risk our great institutions and large properties, personal as well as real. If we do, there is not a man of this generation, so young, so old, so rich, so poor, so bold, so timid, as that he will not feel the consequences of this rashness. This opinion is founded not on reasoning only, but on experience, and I shall never cease to declare it."
Source.—Molesworthy'sHistory of the Reform Bill, London, 1866, p. 103.
The object of ministers has been to produce a measure with which every reasonable man in the country will be satisfied—we wish to take our stand between the two hostile parties, neither agreeing with the bigotry of those who would reject all Reform, nor with the fanaticism of those who contend that only one plan of Reform would be wholesome or satisfactory,but placing ourselves between both, and between the abuses we intend to amend and the convulsion we hope to avert.
The ancient constitution of our country declares that no man should be taxed for the support of the State, who has not consented, by himself or his representative, to the imposition of these taxes. The well-known statute,de tallagio non concedendo, repeats the same language; and, although some historical doubts have been thrown upon it, its legal meaning has never been disputed. It included "all the freemen of the land," and provided that each county should send to the Commons of the realm, two knights, each city two burgesses, and each borough two members. Thus about a hundred places sent representatives, and some thirty or forty others occasionally enjoyed the privilege, but it was discontinued or revived as they rose or fell in the scale of wealth and importance. Thus, no doubt, at that early period, the House of Commons did represent the people of England; there is no doubt likewise, that the House of Commons, as it now subsists, does not represent the people of England. Therefore, if we look at the question of right, the reformers have right in their favour. Then, if we consider what is reasonable, we shall arrive at a similar result.
A stranger, who was told that this country is unparalleled in wealth and industry, and more civilized, and more enlightened than any country was before it; that it is a country that prides itself on its freedom, and that once in every seven years it elects representatives from its population, to act as the guardians and preservers of that freedom,—would be anxious and curious to see how that representation is formed, and how the people chose those representatives, to whose faith and guardianship they entrust their free and liberal institutions. Such a person would be very much astonished if he were taken to a ruined mound, and told that that mound sent two representatives to Parliament—if he were taken to a stone wall, and told that three niches in it sent two representatives to Parliament—if he were taken to a park, where no houses were to be seen, and told that that park sent two representatives to Parliament; but if he were told all this, and were astonished at hearing it, he would be still more astonished if he were to see large and opulent towns full of enterprise and industry, and intelligence, containing vast magazines of every species of manufactures, and were then told that these towns sent no representatives to Parliament.
Such a person would be still more astonished, if he were taken to Liverpool, where there is a large constituency, and told, here you will have a fine specimen of a popular election.
He would see bribery employed to the greatest extent, and in the most unblushing manner; he would see every voter receiving a number of guineas in a box, as the price of his corruption; and after such a spectacle, he would no doubt be much astonished that a nation whose representatives are thus chosen, could perform the functions of legislation at all, or enjoy respect in any degree. I say, then, that if the question before the House is a question of reason, the present state of representation is against reason.
The confidence of the country in the construction and constitution of the House of Commons is gone. It would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactures of Leeds and Manchester to Gatton and Old Sarum, than re-establish confidence and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents. If, therefore, the question is one of right, right is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of reason, reason is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency are in favour of Reform.
I come now to the explanation of the measure which, representing the ministers of the King, I am about to propose to the House. Those ministers have thought, and in my opinion justly thought, that no half measures would be sufficient; that no trifling or paltering with Reform could give stability to the Crown, strength to Parliament, or satisfaction to the country. The chief grievances of which the people complain are these. First, the nomination of members by individuals; second, the election by close corporations; third, the expense of elections.With regard to the first, it may be exercised in two ways, either over a place containing scarcely any inhabitants, and with a very extensive right of election; or over a place of wide extent and numerous population, but where the franchise is confined to very few persons. Gatton is an example of the first, and Bath of the second. At Gatton, where the right of voting is by scot and lot, all householders have a vote, but there are only five persons to exercise the right. At Bath the inhabitants are numerous, but very few of them have any concern in the election. In the former case, we propose to deprive the borough of the franchise altogether. In doing so, we have taken for our guide the population returns of 1821; and we propose that every borough which in that year had less than 2,000 inhabitants, should altogether lose the right of sending members to Parliament, the effect of which will be to disfranchise sixty-two boroughs. But we do not stop here. As the honourable member for Boroughbridge [Sir C. Wetherell] would say, we goplus ultra; we find that there are forty-seven boroughs of only 4,000 inhabitants, and these we shall deprive of the right of sending more than one member to Parliament. We likewise intend that Weymouth, which at present sends four members to Parliament, should in the future send only two. The total reduction thus effected in the number of the members of this House will be 168. This is the whole extent to which we are prepared to go in the way of disfranchisement.
We do not, however, mean to allow that the remaining boroughs should be in the hands of a small number of persons to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants who have property and interest in the place. It is a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. Though it is a point much disputed, I believe it will be found that in ancient times every inhabitant householder resident in a borough was competent to vote for members of Parliament. As, however, this arrangement excluded villeins and strangers, the franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town;—that the voters were persons of property is obvious,from the fact that they are called upon to pay subsidies and taxes. Two different courses seem to prevail in different places. In some, every person having a house, and being free, was admitted to a general participation in the privileges formerly possessed by burgesses; in others, the burgesses became a select body, and were converted into a kind of corporation, more or less exclusive. These differences, the House will be aware, lead to the most difficult, and at the same time the most useless questions that men can be called upon to decide. I contend that it is proper to get rid of these complicated rights, of these vexatious questions, and to give the real property and real respectability of the different cities and towns, the right of voting for members of Parliament. Finding that a qualification of a house rated at £20 a year, would confine the elective franchise, instead of enlarging it, we propose that the right of voting should be given to the householders paying rates for houses of the yearly value of £10 and upwards, upon certain conditions hereafter to be stated. At the same time it is not intended to deprive the present electors of their privilege of voting, provided they are resident. With regard to non-residence, we are of opinion that it produces much expense, is the cause of a great deal of bribery, and occasions such manifest and manifold evils, that electors who do not live in a place ought not to be permitted to retain their votes. With regard to resident voters, we propose that they should retain their right during life, but that no vote should be allowed hereafter, except to £10 householders.
I shall now proceed to the manner in which we propose to extend the franchise in counties. The bill I wish to introduce will give all copyholders to the value of £10 a year, qualified to serve on juries, under the right hon. gentlemen's [Sir R. Peel] bill, a right to vote for the return of knights of the shire; also, that leaseholders, for not less than twenty-one years, whose annual rent is not less than £50, and whose leases have not been renewed within two years, shall enjoy the same privilege.
Source.—Macaulay's Life and Letters, by the Right Hon. Sir George Otto Trevelyan, 1876.
Lord Macaulay's Description of the Scene.
Such a scene as the division of last Tuesday I never saw, and never expect to see again. If I should live fifty years the impression of it will be as fresh and sharp in my mind as if it had just taken place. It was like seeing Caesar stabbed in the Senate House, or seeing Oliver taking the mace from the table; a sight to be seen only once, and never to be forgotten. The crowd overflowed the House in every part. When the strangers were cleared out, and the doors locked, we had six hundred and eight members present—more by fifty-five than ever were in a division before. The Ayes and the Noes were like two volleys of cannon from opposite sides of a field of battle. When the opposition went out into the lobby, an operation which took up twenty minutes or more, we spread ourselves over the benches on both sides of the House; for there were many of us who had not been able to find a seat during the evening. When the doors were shut we began to speculate on our numbers. Everybody was desponding. "We have lost it. We are only two hundred and eighty at the most. I do not think we are two hundred and fifty. They are three hundred. Alderman Thompson has counted them. He says they are two hundred and ninety-nine." This was the talk on our benches. I wonder that men who have been long in Parliament do not acquire a bettercoup d'œilfor numbers. The House, when only the Ayes were in it, looked to me a very fair House—much fuller than it generally is even on debates of considerable interest. I had no hope, however, of three hundred. As the tellers passed along our lowest row on the left hand side the interest was insupportable—two hundred and ninety-one—two hundred and ninety-two—we were all standing up and stretching forward telling with the tellers.At three hundred there was a short cry of joy—at three hundred and two another—suppressed, however, in a moment; for we did not yet know what the hostile force might be. We knew, however, that we could not be severely beaten. The doors were thrown open, and in they came. Each of them, as he entered, brought some different report of their numbers. It must have been impossible, as you may conceive, in the lobby crowded as they were, to form any exact estimate. First, we heard that they were three hundred and three; then that number rose to three hundred and ten; then went down to three hundred and seven, Alexander Barry told me that he had counted, and that they were three hundred and four. We were all breathless with anxiety, when Charles Wood, who stood near the door, jumped on a bench and cried out, "They are only three hundred and one." We set up a shout that you might have heard to Charing Cross, waving our hats, stamping against the floor, and clapping our hands. The tellers scarcely got through the crowd; for the House was thronged up to the table, and all the floor was fluctuating with heads like the pit of a theatre. But you might have heard a pin drop as Duncannon read the numbers. Then again the shouts broke out, and many of us shed tears. I could scarcely refrain. And the jaw of Peel fell; and the face of Twiss was as the face of a damned soul; and Herries looked like Judas taking his necktie off for the last operation. We shook hands and clapped each other on the back, and went out laughing, crying, and huzzaing into the lobby. And no sooner were the outer doors opened than another shout answered that within the House. All the passages, and the stairs into the waiting-rooms, were thronged by people who had waited till four in the morning to know the issue. We passed through a narrow lane between two thick masses of them; and all the way down they were shouting and waving their hats, till we got into the open air. I called a cabriolet, and the first thing the driver asked was, "Is the Bill carried?" "Yes, by one." "Thank God for it, sir." And away I rode to Gray's Inn—and so ended a scene which will probably never be equalled till the reformed Parliament wants reforming; and that I hope will not be till the days of our grandchildren, till that truly orthodox and apostolical person, Dr. Francis Ellis, is an archbishop of eighty."
Source.—Molesworthy'sHistory of the Reform Bill, London, 1866, p. 185.
Under these circumstances, ministers acted with promptitude and decision. Their defeat had occurred on the morning of the 22nd of April; on the same day summonses were issued, calling a Cabinet Council at St. James's Palace. So short was the notice, that the ministers were unable to attend, as was customary on such occasions, in their court dresses.
At this council it was unanimously resolved that Parliament should be prorogued the same day, with a view to its speedy dissolution, and the royal speech, which had been prepared for the occasion, was considered and adopted. All necessary arrangements having been made, in order to take away from the King all pretext for delay, Earl Grey and Lord Brougham were deputed to wait on the King, and communicate to him the advice of the Cabinet. From what has been already said, the reader will be prepared to anticipate that this advice was far from palatable. The unusual haste with which it was proposed to carry out that measure, naturally increased the King's known objections to the proposed step, and furnished him with a good excuse for refusing his assent to it. Earl Grey, thepink and pattern of loyalty and chivalrous courtesy, shrunk from the disagreeable errand, and requested his bolder and less courtly colleague to introduce the subject, begging him at the same time to manage the susceptibility of the King as much as possible.
The Chancellor accordingly approached the subject very carefully, prefacing the disagreeable message with which he was charged, with a compliment on the King's desire to promote the welfare of his people. He then proceeded to communicate the advice of the Cabinet, adding, that they were unanimous in offering it.
"What!" exclaimed the King, "would you have me dismiss in this summary manner a Parliament which has granted me so splendid a civil list, and given my Queen so liberal an annuity in case she survives me?"
"No doubt, sire," Lord Brougham replied, "in these respects they have acted wisely and honourably, but your Majesty's advisers are all of opinion, that in the present state of affairs, every hour that this Parliament continues to sit is pregnant with danger to the peace and security of your kingdom, and they humbly beseech your Majesty to go down this very day and prorogue it. If you do not, they cannot be answerable for the consequences."
The King was greatly embarrassed; he evidently entertained the strongest objection to the proposed measure, but he also felt the danger which would result from the resignation of his ministers at the present crisis. He therefore shifted his ground, and asked: "Who is to carry the sword of state and the cap of maintenance?"
"Sire, knowing the urgency of the crisis and the imminent peril in which the country at this moment stands, we have ventured to tell those whose duty it is to perform these and other similar offices, to hold themselves in readiness."
"But the troops, the life guards, I have given no orders for them to be called out, and now it is too late."
This was indeed a serious objection, for to call out the guards was the special prerogative of the monarch himself, and nominister had any right to order their attendance without his express command.
"Sire," replied the Chancellor, with some hesitation, "we must throw ourselves on your indulgence. Deeply feeling the gravity of the crisis, and knowing your love for your people, we have taken a liberty which nothing but the most imperious necessity could warrant; we have ordered out the troops, and we humbly throw ourselves on your Majesty's indulgence."
The King's eye flashed and his cheeks became crimson. He was evidently on the point of dismissing the ministry in an explosion of anger. "Why, my lords," he exclaimed, "this is treason!hightreason, and you, my Lord Chancellor, ought to know that it is."
"Yes, sire, I do know it, and nothing but the strongest conviction that your Majesty's crown and the interests of the nation are at stake, could have induced us to take such a step, or to tender the advice we are now giving."
This submissive reply had the desired effect, the King cooled, his prudence and better genius prevailed, and having once made up his mind to yield with a good grace, he accepted, without any objection, the speech which had been prepared for him, and which the two ministers had brought with them, he gave orders respecting the details of the approaching ceremonial, and having completely recovered his habitual serenity and good humour, he dismissed the two lords with a jocose threat of impeachment.
At half-past two o'clock the King entered his state carriage. It was remarked that the guards on this occasion rode wide of it, as if they attended as a matter of state and ceremony, and not as being needed for the King's protection. Persons wishing to make a more open demonstration of their feelings, were allowed to pass between the soldiers and approach the royal carriage. One of these, a rough sailor-like person, pulled off his hat, and waving it around his head, shouted lustily, "Turn out the rogues, your Majesty." Notwithstanding the suddenness with which the resolution to dissolve had been taken, the news had already spread through the metropolis, an immensecrowd was assembled, and the King was greeted throughout his whole progress with the most enthusiastic shouts. He was exceedingly fond of popularity, and these acclamations helped to reconcile him to the step he had been compelled to take, and to efface the unpleasant impression which the scene which had so recently occurred could not fail to leave behind it.
Meanwhile, another scene of a far more violent kind was taking place in the House of Lords. The Chancellor on leaving the King went down to the House to hear appeals. Having gone through the cause list he retired, in the hope that he should thereby prevent Lord Wharncliffe from bringing forward his motion. But the opposition lords had mustered in great force, and the House was full in all parts. It is usual on the occasion of a prorogation by the sovereign, for the peers to appear in their robes, and most of those present wore theirs, but owing to the precipitation with which the dissolution had been decided on, several peers, especially on the opposition side of the House, were without them. A large number of peeresses in full dress, and of members of the House of Commons were also present. And now a struggle commenced between the two parties into which the House was divided. The object of the opposition was to press Lord Wharncliffe's motion before the King's arrival; the supporters of the ministry wished to prevent it from being passed. The firing of the park guns announced that the King was already on his way down to the House, and told the opposition they had no time to lose. On the motion of Lord Mansfield, the Earl of Shaftesbury presided, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.
The Duke of Richmond, in order to baffle the opposition, moved that the standing order which required their lordships to take their places should be enforced. The opposition saw at once that this motion was made for the sake of delay, and angrily protested against it; whereupon the duke threatened to call for the enforcement of two other standing orders which prohibited the use of intemperate and threatening language in the House. Lord Londonderry, furious with indignation,broke out into a vehement tirade against the conduct of the ministry, and thus effectually played the game of his opponents. So violent was the excitement which prevailed at this time in the House, that the ladies present were terrified, thinking that the peers would actually come to blows. At length Lord Londonderry was persuaded to sit down, and Lord Wharncliffe obtained a hearing. But it was too late to press his motion, and he contented himself with reading it, in order that it might be entered on the journals of the House.
At this conjuncture, the Lord Chancellor returned, and the moment the reading of the address was concluded, he exclaimed in a vehement and emphatic tone:
"My lords, I have never yet heard it doubted that the King possessed the prerogative of dissolving Parliament at pleasure, still less have I ever known a doubt to exist on the subject at a moment when the lower House have thought fit to refuse the supplies." Scarcely had he uttered these words when he was summoned to meet the King, who had just arrived and was in the robing room; he at once quitted the House which resounded on all sides with cries of "hear" and "the King."
The tumult having in some degree subsided, Lord Mansfield addressed the House, regretting the scene which had just occurred, and condemning the dissolution, which he qualified as an act by which the ministers were making the sovereign the instrument of his own destruction.
He was interrupted by another storm of violence and confusion, which was at length appeased by the announcement that the King was at hand. When he entered, the assembly had recovered its usual calm and decorous tranquillity. The members of the House of Commons having been summoned to the bar, the King, in a loud and firm voice, pronounced his speech, which commenced with the following 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.
"I have been induced to resort to this measure for thepurpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear to require, and which, founded on the acknowledged principles of the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the people."
Source.—Lord Macaulay's Speeches, 1854.
Sir, the public feeling concerning reform is of no such recent origin, and springs from no such frivolous causes. Its first faint commencement may be traced far, very far, back in our history. During seventy years that feeling has had a great influence on the public mind. Through the first thirty years of the reign of George the Third, it was gradually increasing. The great leaders of the two parties in the state were favourable to reform. Plans of reform were supported by large and most respectable minorities in the House of Commons. The French Revolution, filling the higher and middle classes with an extreme dread of change, and the war calling away the public attention from internal to external politics, threw the question back; but the people never lost sight of it. Peace came, and they were at leisure to think of domestic improvements. Distress came, and they suspected, as was natural, that their distress was the effect of unfaithful stewardship and unskilful legislation. An opinion favourable to parliamentary reform grew up rapidly, and became strong among the middle classes. But one tie, one strong tie, still bound those classes to the Tory party. I mean the Catholic question. It is impossible to deny that, on that subject, a large proportion, a majority, I fear, of the middle class of Englishmen, conscientiously held opinions opposed to those which I have always entertained, and were disposed to sacrifice every other consideration to what theyregarded as a religious duty. Thus the Catholic question hid, so to speak, the question of parliamentary reform. The feeling in favour of parliamentary reform grew, but it grew in the shade. Every man, I think, must have observed the progress of that feeling in his own social circle. But few reform meetings were held, and few petitions in favour of reform presented. At length the Catholics were emancipated; the solitary link of sympathy which attached the people to the Tories was broken; the cry of "No popery" could no longer be opposed to the cry of "Reform." That which, in the opinion of the two great parties in parliament, and of a vast portion of the community, had been the first question, suddenly disappeared; and the question of parliamentary reform took the first place. Then was put forth all the strength which had been growing in silence and obscurity. Then it appeared that reform had on its side a coalition of interests and opinions unprecedented in our history, all the liberality and intelligence which had supported the Catholic claims, and all the clamour which had opposed them.
Source.—Ebenezer Elliott'sPoems, 1832.