REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.
The reform bill having been carried in the commons, on the next day Lord John Russell, attended by many of its supporters, delivered the bill to the lord-chancellor in the house of lords. The bill was read a first time, and, on the motion of Earl Grey, was directed to be read a second time on the 3rd of October. In the meantime the reformers vigorously employed all the means in their power to intimidate the peers into submission. Political unions again sent forth their addresses and petitions, and meetings were convened to warn them of “the tremendous consequences of rejecting the bill,” and to inform them how “deeply and fearfully the security of commercial, as well as of all other property, was involved” in passing it without delay. In a meeting held in the common-hall of London, Colonel Torrens remarked:—“Let the peers refuse this bill if they dare; and if they do, dearly will they rue their obstinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl’s story. She presented her oracles to the court of Tarquin, and they were rejected. She burned a portion, and again offered them, but they were again rejected. After diminishing their number still further, she once more returned, and the remaining volumes were gladly purchased at the price which she had originally demanded for the entire. We, however, mean to reverse the moral, for should the present bill be defeated, we shall bring their lordships another bill, demanding a little more; and then, should they still dare to resist the might, and insult the majesty of the people of England united as one man, we will come forward with a bill of reform in which their lordships will find themselves inserted in schedule A.” Such language as this was used from one end of the country to the other, and the press and orators alike endeavoured to intimidate the peers into submission. They were to have no direct influence in the deliberations of the commons, and now they were to have no deliberate voice in their own house. Such was the state of public feeling when, on the 3rd of October, Earl Grey moved the second reading of the bill. After some prefatory remarks, he said, that being called to form a new administration, he stated to his majesty that the only condition on which he would accept office was that he should be allowed to bring forward the question of parliamentary reform as a measure of government. That condition was sanctioned by the monarch, assented to by the commons, and hailed with joy by the people. Earl Grey next went into the details of the bill, an account of which is given in the previous pages. He added: “You are asked to give up that which is odious, unjust, and unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this house may be shaken. The influence which your lordships possess in the representation of sixty-five old boroughs may be taken from you by this bill, but the peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of their influence in the representation—on the contrary, that influence is increased.” Earl Grey proceeded to contend that the measure had received the approbation of the country. He was, he said, one of the last men in that house who would grant anything to intimidation, and he would say, “Resist popular violence, and do not give way to popular commotion,” but here there was neither violence nor commotion. The opinion of the people was fairly and unequivocally expressed, and no government could turn a deaf ear to it, and least of all could a government founded on free principles take such a step. The time was passed for taking half-measures; their lordships must either adopt this bill, or they would have in its stead something infinitely stronger and more extensive. The measure was brought forward at the recommendation of the crown; it had been carried by an overwhelming majority of the other house, and it was supported by the prayers of millions, who respectfully knocked at their lordships’ door, and asked, for that which they considered to be the restoration of their just rights. Were their lordships prepared to reject a bill so supported, and that, too, on its second reading? He would venture for a moment, he continued, to address himself to the right reverend prelates who sat near him. While he assured that body that no man was more sincerely attached than he was to the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the church—no man held in higher veneration the purity of its doctrine and discipline—no man was more ready to admit the zeal, and learning, and piety of those who presided over it,—let him at the same time ask, that if this bill be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, and if its fate should thus within a few votes be decided by the votes of the heads of the church, what would then be their situation with the country? Those right reverend prelates had shown that they were not indifferent or inattentive to the signs of the times; they had introduced measures for effecting some salutary reforms in matters relating to the temporalities of the church, let them be implored to follow up the same course. The eyes of the country were upon them; he called upon them to “set their house in order,” and prepare to meet the coming storm—to consider seriously what would be the opinion of the country should a measure on which the nation had fixed its hopes be defeated by their votes. They were the ministers of peace; he hoped that the result of their votes would be such as might tend to the tranquillity, peace, and happiness of the country. Earl Grey concluded his speech by saying that he was prepared to stand or fall by this measure; the question of his continuance in office for one hour would depend on the prospect of being able to carry through that which he considered important to the tranquillity, safety, and happiness of the country. Lord Wharncliffe addressed the house against the measure, defending nomination, not because it was made by peers or other influential individuals, but because its effect in the house of commons was that it acted as a check on those places which were popularly represented. He further argued, that if a house of commons were once elected on the principles of this bill, it would cramp the crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and create a body in that house so irresistible as to make their lordships’ decisions on all public questions a dead letter. The house of commons would become too much the image of the people. The dangers, indeed, which at this moment surrounded their lordships proved the accuracy of his argument. They had now a popular house of commons—a delegate house of commons; that house had passed this measure, and their lordships were told that nothing was left for them but to record and register the decree of the house of commons. He moved, therefore, that “this bill be rejected.” Lords Mulgrave and Mansfield followed..... the former in support of, and the latter against the bill. After which Lord Wharncliffe, lest his motion should be interpreted as an insult to the house of commons, begged leave to withdraw his motion, and to propose in its stead that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After some discussion this alteration was allowed, and the debate was resumed by Lord Winchilsea, who opposed the bill. Lord Melbourne supported the measure, and the Duke of Wellington opposed it. After some introductory remarks, the duke referred to language which Earl Grey had uttered concerning the house of commons in 1817. His words were—“Constituted as it now is, I in my conscience believe that the house of commons is, of all institutions, in all countries of the world, the best calculated for the general protection of the subject.” In 1830 he (the Duke of Wellington) had pronounced an opinion in parliament on the subject of reform, of which the noble earl disapproved. What he said was, that he approved of the constitution of parliament; and if he were to invent a constitution for parliament over again, he would endeavour to frame one like it, in which property should preponderate. The noble earl had said that it was this sentence which had created the spirit of reform now pervading the country. It was not so; the spirit of reform had originated with the French revolution. Ever since the American war, the minds of the people had been occasionally disturbed by the spirit of reform; and when any insurrection grew up in Europe, a desire for reform was sure to be exhibited. Concerning the measure before the house, the noble duke asked whether it was founded on the principles of the constitution? He thought not; he thought the bill violated both the principles and practice of the constitution. It went to establish a new system of representation in every county, borough, and town in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the two universities. The town representation would be placed in the hands of close, self-elected committees, like that which had appointed itself in the metropolis at the close of the last session, and which dissolved itself only in consequence of the notice which its proceedings had attracted in parliament. The undue enlargement of the powers of the town constituency would entirely destroy the balance of the agricultural representation of the counties. The towns already exercised an extraordinary influence in the election of county representatives, and the evil would be aggravated tenfold by the clause of the bill which gave votes to leaseholders and copyholders. The noble duke entered into the details of the measure at great length, and concluded by eulogising the constitution as it now existed. Under it, he said, we enjoyed the largest commerce, and the most flourishing colonies in the world. There was not any country in the universe in which so much happiness, so much prosperity, and so much comfort, were diffused amongst all the various classes of society; none in which so many and such large properties, both public and private, were to be found as in England. There was not a position in Europe in any degree important for military purposes, or advantageous for trade, which was not under our control, or within our reach. All these great and numerous advantages we possess, he added, under the existing system; but it will be impossible to retain them if we once establish a wild democracy, a complete democratic assembly under the name of a house of commons. On the two following evenings the principal speakers for the bill were Lords Lansdowne, Goderich, and Plunkett; and against it, Lords Dudley and Ward, Haddington, and Carnarvon. The fifth and last night of the debate was begun by Lord Wynford, who was followed by Lord Eldon, who condemned the measure as subversive of the right of property as well as of the monarchy, and of every principle acknowledged by the constitution. Lord Eldon concluded his speech by warning their lordships of the danger of conceding the terms required; and by declaring that if the measure passed, there would be an end to the monarchy. The lord-chancellor, after taking a review of the courses taken by the opponents of the bill, denied that the bill was founded upon population, and not property. Lord Lyndhurst resisted the bill because it appeared to him inconsistent with the prerogative of the crown, and with the authority of their lordships; but, above all, because it was detrimental to the rights and liberties of the people. The bill was opposed by Lord Tenterden and the Archbishop of Canterbury, both of whom expressed their belief that it would have a mischievous tendency. The Duke of Sussex supported it; but the Duke of Gloucester, although desirous of temperate reform, opposed it, as he conceived it to be a scheme for a new constitution. Lord Grey, in reply, complained that the opposition to the measure seemed to be carried on, less with a view to defeat the bill, than to drive its advocates from office. He repeated that he was pledged to this measure, or to one of equal extent; and said, that if a more moderate scheme would satisfy the people, he would not be the person to introduce such a measure. As to what course he should follow if defeated, he could not say; but he should be culpable if he were to resign his office and abandon his king, so long as he could be of use to him; for he was bound to him by gratitude as great as ever subject owed a sovereign. The house at length divided; and the bill, which had occupied so much of the attention of parliament during this session, and for which the people had long been earnestly striving, was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and fifty-eight.
WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832
This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October. When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;—“That while this house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted the best interests of the country.” The motion was supported by Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that, as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law. Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be required to secure a triumphant majority. “The people,” it was said, “have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons; why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the other house?” The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and unfounded. If agreed to, it was said, it would only be a repetition of former votes. Lord Althorp said that the motion was made without any suggestion on the part of ministers. For himself, unless he felt a reasonable hope that a measure equally efficient would be brought forward and carried, he would not remain in office a single hour. The opponents of reform had gained a great triumph, and might rejoice in their success; but he did not think that any great triumph would be eventually gained; he was confident that the measure was only postponed. If the people of England remained firm and determined, but peaceable, he hoped and believed that there would be ultimate and speedy success. There was only one chance of failure; namely, if their disappointment led them into acts of violence, or to unconstitutional measures of resistance. The motion was earned by a majority of three hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and ninety-eight.