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.
Wellington In The Mob.