Close corporations had as good a right to hold their merits of these celebrated efforts of these, the two most charters under the great seal as any of their lordships distinguished orators of that day, we cannot, I think, fail had to their titles and their peerages. He said that he to feel that, although in lord Lyndhurst's speech there was was a freeman of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; he had received nothing superfluous-that all was severely, and, if I may bis education in the corporation school of that town on use the expression, serenely great-yet that, in the higher, cheap terms, as the son of a freeman; he had a right to I ought to say the highest, excellence of impassioned it; and he had hoped that, when his ashes were laid in the reasoning, his rival was eminently superior. The cold grave, he might have given some memorandum that the sagacity of lord Lyndhurst shines steadily throughout the boys there, situated as he was, might rise to be chancellors whole of his discourse; but we feel no enthusiasm—we are of England, if, having the advantage of that education, not touched by any appeal to a generous sentiment-we they were honest, faithful, and industrious. But this bill never appear to ourselves exalted by being called upon to was to do away with corporations. He concluded by share in and sympathise with any large and liberal policy. saying that he feared in his soul the bill would go the The speech of the lord chancellor produces effects of a length of introducing in its train, if passed, universal very different description. Discursive, sometimes even suffrage, annual parliaments, and vote by ballot. It would trivial, it contains splendid and exciting appeals, wise and unhinge the whole frame of society. It was altogether generous sentiments, cogent, effective argument; and we incompatible with the existence of the house of lords. He are anxious to believe him right, because, while he attempts thus concluded: "I, my lords, have nearly run my race to satisfy the understanding, he enlists in his favour the in this world, and must soon go to my Maker and my dread emotion of his hearers, by exhibiting an earnest solicitude account. What I have said in this instance, in all sincerity, for the well-being of his country and his kind." I have expressed out of my love to your lordships; and in that sincerity I will solemnly assert my heartfelt belief that with this bill in operation the monarchy cannot exist, and that it is totally incompatible with the existence of the British constitution." Lord Campbell states that as a member of the house of commons he was present on the steps of the throne during this memorable debate, and heard lord Eldon's impressive speech, which was listened to with the most profound attention on all sides. "Nothing could be more affecting than the allusion by the octogenarian ex-chancellor to the days when he was a poor boy at the free grammar school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and no one considered whether he proved very logically that the reform bill would cut off from others the chance of following in the same illustrious He was much exhausted before he sat down, and a noble earl from a distant part of the house very indecorously requested him to raise his voice; but this interruption excited a strong expression of sympathy and respect in his favour, as well from those who thought that he was haunted by delusive terrors, as those who believed that his vaticinations were inspired by the mystical lore which gives to the wizard in the sunset of life a glimpse of coming calamities."* career. The closing night of the debate brought out the two most illustrious law lords in the house, who had long been rivals and competitors in the arenas of professional and political life-lord Brougham and lord Lyndhurst. Each was holding back in order to have the opportunity of replying to the other; but lord Lyndhurst managed to have the last word, the more excitable chancellor having lost patience, and flung himself into the debate. Mr. Roebuck contrasts their styles happily :-" The style of lord Brougham, though vigorons and sometimes happy, was too often diffuse, loose, and cumbrous, and always wanting in that exquisite accuracy, simplicity, and constantly equal and sustained force of his more sedate and self-collected antagonist. Looking back, however, and calmly weighing the "Life of Eldon," p. 548, The last night's debate continued till between six and seven o'clock on the morning of Saturday, the 8th of October. It was a night of intense anxiety, both in the house and out of doors. The space about the throne was thronged with foreigners and members of the other house. There was a number of ladies, peeresses, and their daughters, sitting there the whole night, manifesting their excitement in every way consistent with decorum. Palace Yard, and the space all round the house, was thronged with people waiting to hear the result of the division. The night was wet, however, and the debate was so protracted that the crowd had dispersed before morning. This was a matter of consolation to the opposition peers, who dreaded a mobbing. It was now broad daylight, and no sound was heard outside except the rolling of the carriages of the peers, who passed up Parliament Street as quietly as if they had come from disposing of a road bill. The fate of the bill was that day decided. For it, 158; against it— 199-leaving a majority of 41. "The night was made interesting," wrote lord Eldon, "by the anxieties of all present. Perhaps, fortunately, the mob on the outside would not wait so long." The result produced intense excitement, and led to rioting and outrage in the metropolis, and in some of the provincial towns. In London, the duke of Wellington, the duke of Cumberland, and the marquis of Londonderry, were assaulted in the street, and rescued with difficulty from the fury of the mob. Lord Londonderry, who had signalised himself during the debate by the violence of his opposition, was struck senseless from his horse by a shower of stones at the gate of the palace, amidst cries of "Murder him! Cut his throat!" Persons respectably dressed, and wearing ribbons round their arms, took the lead on these occasions, giving orders, and, rushing forward from the crowd. The houses of the duke of Newcastle, lord Bristol, and all other anti-reforming peers, had been visited by the mob, and left without glass in their windows. All the shops in town. were shut. "The accounts from Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and other places," wrote lord Eldon, "are very uncomfortable. I heard last night that the king was A.D. 1831.j VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT. 197 frightened by the appearance of the people outside of St. pression, which has become historical, and which, conJames's." Although the division took no one by surprise, as the rejection of the bill by the lords was expected, yet the shock to society was very violent. The funds suddenly fell, and there was that feeling of vague anxiety in the public mind which often portends some great calamity. At Derby, they broke open the gaol, and demolished the property of the anti-reformers of the place. At Nottingham there was serious rioting, which ended in the utter destruction by fire of the ancient castle, once the property of the duke of Newcastle, who had given violent offence, by his rash declaration with regard to his voters at Newark, "that he had a right to do what he pleased with his own." The popular fury, however, soon subsided, and the public mind regained tranquillity, in the full assurance that the carrying of the bill was only a question of time, and that the popular cause must ultimately triumph. What most materially contributed to the restoration of public confidence was the fact that the king, alarmed at the prospect of a revolution, implored the ministers to retain their places, and to shape their bill so as to disarm their opponents; and on the following Monday, in the house of commons, lord Ebrington moved a vote of confidence in the government, to the effect that, while the house lamented the present state of a measure in favour of which the opinion of the country had been so unequivocally expressed, and which had been matured after the most anxious and laborious discussions, they felt imperatively called upon to re-assert their firm adherence to its principles and leading provisions, and their unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of the ministers, who, in introducing it and conducting it so well, had consulted the best interests of the country. This motion was carried by the large majority of 131; the numbers being 329 to 198. Thus supported by the commons, the ministers retained their places; and the king, on the 20th of October, prorogued the parliament in person, in a speech which the lords might take as the king's answer to their note, telling them in effect that by their obstinate bigotry they were setting themselves in antagonism to the two other estates of the realm, and that in their conduct and position lay the real danger to the constitution. His majesty said: "To the consideration of the important question of the reform of the house of commons, the attention of parliament must necessarily again be called at the opening of the ensuing session; and you may be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in combination with those of the other orders of the state, are essential to the support of our free constitution." sidering that the faction to which he alluded was the majority of the order to which he himself belonged, must be admitted to be one of extraordinary boldness. He said: "I beg to acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the undeserved honour done me by 150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment, and I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of faction should prevail against the voice of the nation."* Encouraged by language like this from ministers of the crown, the voice of the nation became louder and more menacing every day. Meetings, attended by vast multitudes of angry and determined men, were held in Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and most of the large towns, especially where the democratic element was predominant. The worst and most destructive of all the riots was at Bristol. Its recorder was Sir Charles Wetherell, noted for his vehemence in opposing reform. Considering the excitement and desperation that had been recently exhibited throughout the kingdom, it was scarcely prudent for Sir Charles Wetherell to appear in Bristol at all on that occasion. At all events, he should have entered the city privately, and discharged the duties of his office as quietly as possible. Instead of that, he made a public and pompous entry into the city on the 29th of October, accompanied by the magistrates and a cavalcade of the tory gentry. This offensive pageant was naturally followed by a mob of disorderly characters, hissing and groaning. They soon began to throw stones and brickbats, especially when the respectable citizens at the commercial roolis received their polemical recorder with three cheers. They assailed the mansion-house with a shower of missiles. The mayor having called upon them in vain to retire, the riot act was read, but the military were not called out to enforce it. Instead of dispersing, the mob overpowered the constables and drove them back, forced open the doors of the mansion-house, smashed the furniture, and armed themselves with the iron rails, which they tore up in front of the building. Sir Charles Wetherell and the magistrates providentially escaped by a back door, and the recorder made an undignified retreat from the city. The military were at length called out, and after some time the disturbance seemed to be quelled, and the dragoons, who had been much fatigued, retired for the night. Bristol, it is said, has always been distinguished for a bad mob. There are foul elements in most large seaports, which it is dangerous to stir up. In Bristol, ón this occasion, the mob became the very incarnation of the genius of destruction, which ran riot in such a way as to indicate the rule of literal madness. The rioters got the impression that the military would not act, and multitudes of the worst characters assembled next day, bent on mischief and plunder. The bargemen from the adjoining canals-des Under the trying circumstances in which they were placed, lord Grey and his colleagues displayed a firmness and courage which entitled them to the everlasting grati-peradoes with the wild, fierce aspect of banditti-coaltude of the country. The pluck of lord John Russell in particular had quite an inspiriting effect on the nation. Replying to a vote of thanks to him and lord Althorp, which had been passed by the Birmingham Political Union, the noble paymaster of the forces used an antithetical ex heavers, porters, contingents from all the dangerous classes, the reprobates of society, thronged forth from cellar and garret, from the lurking places of professional thieves, and "Annual Register," 1831, p. 283. THE BRISTOL REFORM RIOTS-SCENE IN QUEEN'S SQUARE ON THE NIGHT OF THE 30TH OCTOBER, 1831. From a Print published by Mr. Lane, Clifton. the haunts of the vile of every description, like birds of prey flocking to the battle-field on the morning after the fight, with a ravenous appetite, to feast upon the dead. Such classes are always too glad to have some opportunity for outrage, some excuse for breaking down the fences of property, and preying upon their neighbours. Accordingly, they first proceeded to the mansion-house, broke open its cellars, and regaled themselves with their contents. The military were again brought out to quell the now intoxicated rioters; but there was no magistrate there to give orders, and the troops were marched back to the barracks. The mob then proceeded in detached parties, each having a work of destruction assigned to it. One party went to the bridewell, broke open the doors, 199 were filled with a maniacal multitude, yelling in triumph and reeling with intoxication; many of them lying senseless on the pavement, and not a few consumed in the fires which they had raised. In addition to the public buildings, forty-two dwelling-houses and warehouses were burned. The loss of property was estimated at half a million sterling. This work of destruction commenced on Sunday, and was carried on during the night. The sky was reddened with the conflagration, while the military, who had been sent into the country to avoid irritating the people and the paralysed authorities, looked on helplessly from a distance at the progress of destruction. On Monday morning, however, they recovered from their consternation, and resolved to make an effort to save the city. The liberated the prisoners, and then set the building on fire. | magistrates ordered the military to act, and under the Another went to the new gaol, and performed a similar operation there. The Gloucester county prison was next broken open and consigned to the flames. The principal toll-houses about the city shared the same fate. The bishop's palace was pillaged and burned to the ground. Becoming more maddened as they proceeded, their passions raging more furiously at the sight of the conflagration as it spread, the mob resolved that no public building should be left standing. The mansion-house, the custom-house, the excise office, and other public buildings were wrapt in flames, which were seen bursting forth with awful rapidity on every side. The blackened and smoking walls of buildings already burned were falling frequently with terrific crashing, while Queen's Square and the adjoining streets command of captain Wetherell, of the 14th, the dragoons charged the rioters in earnest. A panic now seized the mob, who fled in terror before the flashing swords of the troops and the trampling hoofs of their horses, some of them so terror-stricken that they rushed for safety into burning houses. The number of persons killed and wounded during this terrible business was ascertained to be 110, and it is supposed that many more lost their lives in the burning houses that were never heard of. The ringleaders were tried in December, when many persons were convicted, of whom three underwent the punishment of death. The lord chief justice Tenterden, who presided at the trial, expounded the law with regard to riots, which he declared to be this: "Every citizen has a right to interfere to prevent the destruction of life or property without waiting for orders from a magistrate. Soldiers do not cease to be citizens, and they, too, have the right to defend themselves, and, without waiting for orders from the civil authorities, they are, in extreme cases, bound to use their arms in defence of the lives and property of the inhabitants." Some important lessons were taught by these deplorable events to persons in authority, civil and military, as well as to the public at large. First, the danger of inflaming the minds of the ignorant masses by appeals to physical force, and by the denunciation of individuals, pointing them out as objects of popular vengeance; secondly, the danger of leaving the masses in such a state of ignorance, that they can be driven to lawless courses by such appeals; thirdly, that it is a grievously false humanity in magistrates to allow rioting to go ahead, and not to trample out promptly and sternly the first sparks of lawlessness and incendiarism. Early in the following year the mayor and the commanding officer, colonel Brereton, were brought to trial for neglect of duty. The mayor was acquitted, as not having been adequately supported by the military; but colonel Brereton's humanity led to the most painful consequences. His trial began on the 9th of January following, and lasted four days, during which, as the proofs against him accumulated, he was overwhelmed with agony of mind. On the night of the 12th he did not visit, as was his custom, the chamber of his two motherless daughters. He was heard walking for hours about his room during that night, and in the morning, when the court assembled, it was announced that the prisoner had shot himself through the heart. This tragedy produced a painful sensation through the whole community. The facts brought to light at the trial had the effect of dissociating the Bristol outrages from the cause of reform, with which they had no real connection. Still the leading anti-reformers were extremely obnoxious to the people; and as men's minds became more and more heated, in reiterating demands for national rights, withheld by a faction, extreme opinions grew into greater favour. For example, a national political union was formed in London, and held a great meeting, at which Sir Francis Burdett presided. This body issued a manifesto, in which they demanded annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot. This was a legitiinate demand; but they broached communistic and subversive doctrines when they proclaimed "that all property honestly acquired is sacred and inviolable; that all men are born equally free, and have certain natural and inalienable rights; that all hereditary distinctions of birth are unnatural, and opposed to the equal rights of man, and ought to be abolished; and that they would never be satisfied with any laws that stopped short of these principles." Altogether, the country was in a most dangerous crisis in the autumn of 1831. CHAPTER XXI. Revolutionary Publications-Loyal Demonstrations-Opening of London Bridge-Provision for the Princess Victoria-Coronation of the King and Queen-Now Peers and Baronets-The Tory Peers tampering with the King-The Duke of Wellington labours to Extricate him from Whig Bondage-General Apprehension of a Great ConvulsionEdward Irving-Dr. Arnold-The Cholera-Ignorance of Sanitary Laws-The Plague of Revolution, and its Causes-New Political Combination, headed by the Duke of Wellington-Negotiations for a Compromise on the Reform Bill by Lord Wharncliffe-The Duke of Wellington's Predictions-Re-assembling of Parliament-Third Introduction of the Reform Bill-Lord John Russell's Alarm-Alterations in the Reform Bill-Combination of Numbers and Property-Debate on the Second Reading-The Reform Bill in Committee-Passing of the Bill-Debate on the Second Reading in the Lords-Lord Grey's Speech-Lord Shrewsbury-Lord Durham and the Bishop of ExeterThe Bishop of Gloucester's Defence of the Episcopal Bench-The Bill read a Second Time-Protest of the Duke of Wellington and othersPublic Excitement during the Easter Recess-Proceedings of Political Unions--Aggregate Meetings at Birmingham-Ruse of the Opposition Peers-Lord Lyndhurst-Resignation of the Ministry-Lord Lyndhurst consulted by the King-Sir Robert Peel declines the Premiership-The Duke of Wellington's Attempt to form a Cabinet-Unpopularity of the King and Queen-Refusal to pay Taxes-Withholding the SuppliesThreats of Insurrection-Lord Ebrington's Motion for an Address to the King-Mr. Macaulay on the Position of the Opposition Lords-Sir Robert Inglis-Failure of the Duke of Wellington to form a MinistryThe King's Alternative: a Creation of Peers or Civil War-He submits to Lord Grey's Terms-The Third Reading carried-The King refuses to give his Assent in Person. THE revolutionary spirit imported from France was manifested to an alarming extent in periodical publications during the year 1831. The writers indulged in a freedom of speech so daring that it is not surprising that the government was obliged to have recourse to prosecution in order to suppress the nuisance. A paper called The Poor Man's Guardian instituted a comparison between the French and the English governments, which shows how completely levelling and republican were the ideas of a section of the working classes at that time. Charles X. of France was Mr. Charles Capet, and they spoke of himself and his ministers as Messrs. Capet, Polignac, &c. In like manner the English government consisted of Messrs. "Guelph," Grey, Brougham, Denman, &c. The only difference between Charles Capet and William Guelph, they said, was, that Capet acted like a hero, and Guelph like a dastardly assassin. He and his minions had not courage to bite with their own weapons. "But," said the writers, "they will mangle us with the teeth of a diseased bloodhound; they will stab us with the dagger of a dead assassin. Cowardly tyrants! Are the people of England such sorry slaves that they can only talk and sing of freedom? Will not they, too, resist the laws of these tyrants? Will not they, too, have a glorious revolution?" "Citizen Hetherington was the publisher of The Poor Man's Guardian. He was summoned before a magistrate, and fined for an infringement of the law, when he was defended by The Republican, another journal of the same character, in the following strain:-" He considers the knowledge-taxing mandate of the boroughmongering parliamentarians as much binding on the unrepresented people of England as the contemptible, impotent ordinances of Charles Capet were binding on the people of France. He who approves or enforces them must be a malignant fiend, and ought to be hunted out of civilised society. He who submits to them is a contemptible object and cowardly slave, a disgrace to his country, and an enemy to his fellow-citizens. Acting on this incontrovertible principle, he defies the ordinances of self-elected tyrants; he appeals to his fellow-citizens to support him in |