Beacon Lights of History, Volume 10 | Page 6

betokened resolution and
firmness, while his voice quivered with emotion. Less rhetorical than
his great colleague the Lord Chancellor, his speech riveted attention.
For forty-five years the aged peer had advocated parliamentary reform,
and his voice had been heard in unison with that of Fox before the
French Revolution had broken out. Lord Wharncliffe, one of the most
moderate and candid of his opponents, followed. Lord Melbourne,
courteous and inoffensive, supported the bill, because, as he said, he
dreaded the consequences of a refusal of concession to the demands of
the people, rather than because he loved reform, which he had
previously opposed. The Duke of Wellington of course uttered his
warning protest, and was listened to more from his fame as a warrior
than from his merits as a speaker. Lord Brougham delivered one of the
most masterly of his great efforts in favor of reform, and was answered
by Lord Lyndhurst in a speech scarcely inferior in mental force. The
latter maintained that if the bill became a law the Constitution would be
swept away, and even a republic be established on its ruins. Lord
Tenterden, another great lawyer, took the side of Lord Lyndhurst,
followed in the same strain by Dr. Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury.
On a division, there was a majority of forty-one peers against the bill.
The news spread with rapidity to every corner of the land that the Lords
had defeated the reform for which the nation clamored. Never in
England was there greater excitement. The abolition of the House of
Lords was everywhere discussed, and in many places angrily demanded.
People could do nothing but talk about the bill, and politics threw all
business into the shade. An imprudent speech from an influential
popular leader might have precipitated the revolution which the
anti-reformers so greatly dreaded. The disappointed people for the most
part, however, restrained their wrath, and contented themselves with
closing their shops and muffling their church bells. The bishops
especially became objects of popular detestation. The Duke of
Newcastle and the Marquis of Londonderry, being peculiarly
obnoxious, were personally assailed by a mob of incensed agitators.
The Duke of Cumberland, brother of the king, was dragged from his
horse, while the mob demolished the windows of the palace which the
nation had given to the Duke of Wellington. Throughout the country in

all the large towns there were mobs and angry meetings and serious
disturbances. At Birmingham a rude and indignant meeting of one
hundred and fifty thousand people vented their wrath against those who
opposed their enfranchisement. The most alarming of the riots took
place in Bristol, of which Sir Charles Wetherell was the recorder, and
he barely escaped being murdered by the mob, who burned most of the
principal public buildings. The example of Bristol was followed in
other towns, and the whole country was in a state of alarm.
In the midst of these commotions Parliament was prorogued. But the
passage of the bill became more than ever an obvious necessity in order
to save the country from violence; and on December 12 Lord John
Russell brought forward his third Reform Bill, which, substantially like
the first, passed its second reading January 17, 1832, by the increased
majority of one hundred and sixty-two. When considered in committee
the old game of obstruction and procrastination was played by the
opposition; but in spite of it, the bill finally passed the House on the
23d of March.
The question which everybody now asked was, What will the Lords do?
It was certain that they would throw out the bill, as they did before,
unless extraordinary measures were taken by the government. The
creation of new peers, enough to carry the bill, was determined upon if
necessary, although regretted by Lord Grey. To this radical measure
there was great opposition on the part of the king, although he had thus
far given the bill his support; but the reformers insisted upon it, if
reform could not be accomplished in any other way. To use a vulgar
expression, Lord Brougham fairly "bulldozed" his sovereign, and the
king never forgave him. His assent was at last most reluctantly given;
but the peers, dreading the great accession to their ranks of sixty or
severity Liberal noblemen, concluded to give way, led by the Duke of
Wellington, and the bill passed the House of Lords on the 4th of June.
The Reform Bill of 1832 was the protest of the middle classes against
evils which had been endured for centuries,--a protest to which the
aristocracy was compelled to listen. Amid terrible animosities and
fearful agitations, reaching to the extremities of the kingdom, the bill

was finally passed by the Liberal members, who set aside all other
matters, and acted with great unanimity and resolution.
As noted above,