CHAPTER XXXVII.

WILLIAM IV., A. d. 1830—1837.

The Reform Bill-Parliamentary Struggle-Political Unions-Disturbances in the Country-Abolition of Slavery-New Poor Law-State of Ireland-Coercion Bills-Municipal Reform Bill-Dissolution of the Orange Lodges.

1. GEORGE IV. was succeeded by his brother, the Duke of Clarence, under the title of William the Fourth, soon after whose accession, the elder line of the Bourbon dynasty was expelled from France by the revolution of July, and the crown conferred on Louis Philippe, duke of Orleans, the head of the younger branch, with the title not of "King of France,” but "King of the French." This change gave fresh vigour to the agitation for a reform of the representation in Britain; and the feeling throughout the country became so strong, that the Wellington ministry retired, and a whig administration was formed with Earl Grey at its head. The unsettled state of the country, the distress of many of the manufacturing and labouring classes, and the frequent incendiary fires, imperatively called for some social or political remedy.

THE REFORM BILL.-The first great object of the new ministry was to carry a reform of the House of Commons. Efforts had been made many years earlier to alter the constitution of that House, but without success. The reasons for such a measure were principally these, that the country had changed greatly even within the last fifty years, while no corresponding alteration in the constituency had been made for centuries, so as to make a fair representation in parliament according to the principles of our ancestors. Thus large towns had risen up, some of them with upwards of a hundred thousand inhabitants, but as they were not ancient boroughs they had no representatives. In other instances, boroughs which were formerly places of importance still retained their two members, though they were reduced to a few houses or to none. In the borough of Old Sarum, for example, which had been a Roman town and afterwards a cathedral city, there was not a single habitation. It was not to be expected that even where there were a few inhabitants they would give indepen

dent votes. These places were called pocket boroughs, and the seat in parliament was considered the property of the owner of the estate. Besides the transference of the representation from these small places to large towns, it was considered proper that the franchise should be widened so as to embrace the middle classes generally, down to those who enjoy a decent and limited income. To accomplish this it was necessary that the voters in counties should be extended beyond the class of freeholders, to embrace the agricultural tenantry and other persons in a similar position. In towns the voting had often been in the hands of the members of the corporations or some particular privileged bodies, and it was intended to extend it generally to the substantial citizens. To accomplish these views, people enjoying landed property worth to them a clear annual income of £10 a-year, and the tenants of lands paying as much as £50 a-year in rent, were to be admitted as voters in counties, while in towns the franchise was to include proprietors or the tenants of houses worth £10 a-year. The reforms for Scotland and Ireland were generally of the same character. In Scotland the number of city representatives was raised from fifteen to twenty-three, and the change generally was greater, as the old franchise was still more narrow than it had been in England, the representatives of towns having been chosen by the town councils, who were self-elected, that is, went on choosing their successors in office when they retired.

2. Such was the bold measure announced by Lord John Russell on the 1st March 1831. That it should meet with great opposition was not to be wondered at. Many people sincerely believed that it would endanger the constitution, but, what was more formidable, a large number of the members of both houses who were called on to consent to the measure would lose the power they possessed under the old system of appointing themselves or their friends members of the House of Commons, a power which they were often able to use much to their own profit. No conflict was ever witnessed with more intense interest than that which was now going on in parliament. On the second reading of the English bill on 22d March, there were 302 members in favour of and 301 against the measure, so that it passed this stage by a majority of only one. On the 19th of April there was a majority of eight against it on one of the clauses, and on the 23d the parliament was dissolved, and a new House of Com

mons elected under great excitement. It was on the morning of the 22d September 1831, at the end of a debate begun the day before, that the measure was carried in the Commons by 347 to 238. Its chief difficulties, however, were to be encountered in the House of Lords. A division took place there on the second reading, and the bill was lost, 158 voting for it and 199 against it.

Parliament was prorogued to admit of the measure being brought in again. The popular support it had received had hitherto been peaceful and constitutional, but acts of violence now began. The Duke of Wellington, the most popular man in the kingdom at other times, and deservedly respected for his great services, fortified his house in London to stand a siege by the mob. The town houses of some other peers were riotously attacked. Formidable meetings were held in all populous places throughout the empire. The mob was master for three days of the town of Derby, but to the honour of the country, in circumstances which in most other nations would have produced a general war and many massacres, it was in the city of Bristol only that there was any considerable sacrifice of life and property. The bill slightly altered passed through the Commons with rather larger majorities than before. The second reading was carried in the Lords by a majority of nine on the 13th April 1832. Proceedings were now commenced, however, which showed that the bill would be so altered in its details as to become a different measure, and at a critical point in these alterations the ministry resigned. The king sent for the Duke of Wellington, who was considered as in power for about three days. This was the crisis of the change, and there are few who remember those days who are not thankful that they passed over without a bloody revolution. Numerous public meetings were held all over the country, and the most violent threats were uttered by the principal speakers. At Birmingham placards were posted up bearing these significant words: "No taxes paid here until the Reform Bill is passed;" and a petition from the inhabitants of that large town, calling upon the House of Commons to stop the supplies, contained this ominous passage: "Your petitioners find it declared in the Bill of Rights that the people of England may have arms for their defence; and they apprehend that this great right will be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any circumstances that may arise." In the face of so resolute an opposition the new

ministry found that it could not stand, and Lord Grey was recalled to power, with authority to use the royal prerogative for the creation of new peers if the House of Lords again rejected the measure. The English bill passed, and received the royal assent on the 7th June. The measures for Scotland and Ireland were passed on 17th July and 7th August.

3. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.-Ever since the beginning of the century, the abolition of slavery had been the object of philanthropists. The trade in slaves had long ceased, and many salutary measures had been enacted to improve the condition of the negroes in our colonies. In 1833, Wilberforce and Clarkson saw the glorious consummation of many years' labour. Slavery was abolished, and about 800,000 slaves were emancipated, subject only to an apprenticeship to their former masters for a limited number of years, while all children under the age of six years were declared free. By a subsequent law, imperatively called for by the ill effects of the apprenticeship system, the West Indian negroes were entirely freed from servitude. The sum of twenty millions was paid as a compensation to the owners, or in other words, with that money government purchased all the slaves, and then restored them to liberty.

A.D.

NEW POOR LAW.-In the next year a thorough change 1834. was effected in the poor laws. The old regulations, based } on an act passed in the reign of Elizabeth, had been grossly abused. The poor rates, which had been known in some years to amount to seven and eight millions sterling, found their way into the possession of the profligate and idle, and were a bounty on indolence instead of an encouragement to honest industry. The object of the amendment act was to apply the labour test-that is, when people able to work applied for relief, to give it only in the shape of labour, so that it might hold out no temptation to those who were not truly destitute. The new system was very fiercely attacked when it passed, but it has outlived nearly all its enemies. Before this new bill became a law, Earl Grey was compelled by a difference in the cabinet on an Irish coercion bill to retire into private life, having witnessed the success of most of those liberal measures which he had proposed in his younger days. Lord Melbourne was his successor, and continued in office until September 1841, with a brief interruption of four months, during which Sir Robert Peel was prime minister.

The great business of the parliamentary session of 1835 was the passing of the Municipal Act for the better government of all corporate towns in England and Wales. This year was further memorable in the history of the Scottish church by the circumstances attending an application to government for the grant of an annual sum to enable the General Assembly to prosecute their plan for increasing their places of worship throughout the country.

In 1836, several measures of great social importance received the sanction of both houses of parliament: the principal of these were an act for the commutation of tithes in England, the tithes becoming henceforward a rent-charge calculated on the average price of corn; another for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in England; and a third act legalizing marriages not solemnized by the Anglican clergy.

During the reign of William IV. the country, although ostensibly at peace, several times assumed a warlike attitude. In 1832, England blockaded the ports of Holland to compel the Dutch to acknowledge the independence of Belgium. It A. D. also sympathized with the Constitutionalists in Portu1835. gal, and permitted the Spanish government to enlist men to serve in the civil war against the Carlists. In 1837, by the aid of a small British force, the siege of Bilbao was raised, when the garrison was reduced almost to the last extremity.

In the year 1831 a new and terrible pestilence appeared in England. The existence of the cholera was first noticed in India in 1817; after crossing Asia and Europe, it suddenly broke out at Sunderland, whence it spread over the whole empire, sweeping away no less than 52,547 victims in the three kingdoms in the space of about sixteen months.

EXERCISES.

1. Who succeeded George IV.? What occurred in France at this time? What influence had the event on British politics? What were the defects for which the Reform Bill was intended as a remedy? To what classes was it the object of the measure to extend the franchise? Describe the principal provisions of the measure.

2. What were the different causes of opposition to the Reform Bill? What was the majority on the first reading? Describe the further proceedings until it reached the House of Lords. How was it treated there? What were the proceedings taken for bringing it before the Lords again? How did they proceed towards it the second time? What symptoms were there of danger to the peace of the country? Under whom was a ministry attempted to be formed? How was the measure carried?

3. Who were the great advocates of the abolition of slavery? What was the nature of the law which they lived to see enacted? How were the