second munity now the aristocracy stood alone, in presence of a popular force, almost revolutionary. If they continued the contest too long for the safety of the state, they at least met its dangers with the high courage which befits a noble race. Unawed by numbers, clamor, and threats, the Lords rejected the second Reform Bill. The ex- Riots on citement of the time now led to disorders disgrace- rejection of ful to the popular cause. Mobs paraded the Reform Bill. streets of London, hooting, pelting and even assaulting distinguished peers, and breaking their windows.1 There were riots at Derby: when, some rioters being seized, the mob stormed the jail and set the prisoners free. At Nottingham, the Castle was burned by the populace, as an act of vengeance against the Duke of Newcastle. In both these places, the riots were not repressed without the aid of a military force.2 For two nights and days, Bris- Oct. 29th, tol was the prey of a turbulent and drunken rabble. They broke into the prisons, and having let loose the prisoners, deliberately set on fire the buildings. They rifled and burned down the Mansion House, the Bishop's Palace, the Custom House, the Excise Office, and many private houses. The irresolution and incapacity of magistrates and military commanders left a populous and wealthy city at the mercy of thieves and incendiaries: nor was order at length restored without military force and loss of life, which a more timely and vigorous interposition might have averted. These painful events were deplored by reformers, as a disgrace and hindrance to their cause; and watched by their opponents, as probable inducements to reaction. 1831. 3 Hitherto the political unions had been locally organized, and independent of one another, while forwarding Political an object common to all. They were daily grow-vited to send ing more dangerous; and the scheme of an armed delegates. unions in 1 Ann. Reg., 1831, p. 280; Life of Lord Eldon, iii. 153; Courts and Cabinets of Will. IV. and Queen Vict., i. 364. 2 Ann. Reg., 1831, p. 280. 3 Ann. Reg., 1831, p. 291. Twelve persons were killed, and ninety-four wounded and injured. national guard was soon projected. But however threatening their demonstrations, they had been conducted within the bounds of law. In November, 1831, however, they assumed a different character. A National Union was formed in London, to which the several provincial unions throughout the country were invited to send delegates. From that time, the limits of lawful agitation were exceeded; and the entire organization became illegal.1 Alarming held. At the same time, meetings assembled in connection with the unions were assuming a character more violent meetings and unlawful. The Metropolitan Union, an association independent of the London Political Union, and advocating extreme measures of democratic reform, gave notice, in a seditious advertisement, of a meeting for the 7th of November, at White Conduit House. The magistrates of Hatton Garden issued a notice declaring the proposed meeting seditious and illegal; and enjoining loyal and well-disposed persons not to attend it. Whereupon a deputation of working men waited upon Lord Melbourne, at the Home Office, and were convinced by his lordship of the illegality of their proceedings. The meeting was at once abandoned.2 Danger to the public peace was averted by confidence in the government. Some exception was taken to an act of official courtesy towards men compromised by sedition; but who can doubt the wisdom of preventing, rather than punishing, a breach of the law. political unions Lawful agitation could not be stayed; but when associaProclamation tions, otherwise dangerous, had begun to transagainst gress the law, Ministers were constrained to interfere; and accordingly, on the 22d of November, 1831, a proclamation was issued for the repression of political unions. It pointed out that such associations, "composed of separate bodies, with various divisions and subdivisions, under leaders with a gradation of ranks and 1 39 Geo. III. c. 79; 57 Geo. III. c. 19; supra, pp. 173, 184. authority, and distinguished by certain badges, and subject to the general control and direction of a superior council," were "unconstitutional and illegal," and commanded all loyal subjects to refrain from joining them. The "National Political Union " denied that this proclamation applied to itself, or to the majority of existing unions. But the Birmingham Union modified an extensive organization of unions, in the Midland Counties, which had been projected; and the system of delegation, correspondence and affiliation was generally checked. and discouraged.1 countenanced On the meeting of Parliament on the 6th of December, political unions were further discountenanced Unions disin the speech from the throne, in which His Maj- in Parliaesty declared that such combinations were incom- ment. patible with regular government, and signified his determination to repress all illegal proceedings.2 than ever. But an organization directed to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform could not be discontinued until Unions more that object was accomplished. The unions con- threatening tinued in full activity; their numbers were increased by a more general adhesion of the middle classes; and if ostensibly conforming to the law, in their rules and regulations, their proceedings were characterized, more than ever, by menace and intimidation. When the third Reform Bill was awaiting the Committee in the Lords, immense meetings were assembled at Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other populous places, which by their numbers, combination, and resolute purpose, as well as by the speeches made and petitions agreed to, proclaimed a determination to overawe the Peers, who were still opposed to the bill. The withholding of taxes was again threatened, and even the extinction of the peerage itself, if the bill should be rejected. On the 7th of May, 1832, all the unions of the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford assembled at Newhall 1 Ann. Reg., 1831, p. 297; Twiss' Life of Lord Eldon, iii. 163. Hill, Birmingham, to the number of nearly 150,000. A petition to the Commons was there agreed to, praying them to withhold the supplies, in order to insure the safety of the Reform Bill; and declaring that the people would think it necessary to have arms for their defence. Other petitions from Manchester and elsewhere, praying that the supplies. might be withheld, were brought to London by excited deputations.1 Dangerous excitement during the The adverse vote of the Lords in Committee, and the resignation of the reform ministry, was succeeded by demonstrations of still greater violence. RevoReform crisis. lutionary sentiments, and appeals to force and coercion, succeeded to reasoning and political agitation. The immediate creation of peers was demanded. "More lords, or none: to this had it come, said the clamorous leaders of the unions. A general refusal of taxes was counselled. The Commons, having declared themselves not to be representatives of the people, had no right to vote taxes. Then why should the people pay them? The National Political Union called upon the Commons to withhold supplies from the Treasury, and intrust them to commissioners named by themselves. The metropolis was covered with placards inviting the people to union, and a general resistance to the payment of taxes. A run upon the Bank for gold was counselled, "to stop the Duke." The extinction of the privileged orders, and even of the monarchy itself,-general confusion and anarchy, were threatened. Prodigious crowds of people. marched to open-air meetings, with banners and revolutionary mottoes, to listen to the frantic addresses of demagogues, by whom these sentiments were delivered.2 The refusal to pay taxes was even encouraged by men of station and influence, - by Lord Milton, Mr. Duncombe, and Mr. William 1 Ann. Reg., 1832, p. 172; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xii. 876, 1032, 1274; Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 295; Prentice's Recollections of Manchester, 408-415. 2 Ann. Reg., 1832, p. 169, et seq.; Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 288-297. Brougham.1 The press also, responding to the prevailing excitement, preached resistance and force.2 tions upon The limits of constitutional agitation and pressure had long been exceeded; and the country seemed to Considerabe on the very verge of revolution, when the polit- the popular ical tempest was calmed by the final surrender of triumph. the Lords to the popular will. An imminent danger was averted; but the triumph of an agitation conducted with so much violence, and marked by so many of the characteristics of revolution, portended serious perils to the even course of constitutional government. The Lords alone had now been coerced; but might not the executive, and the entire legislature, at some future period, be forced to submit to the like coercion? Such apprehensions were not without justification from the immediate aspect of the times; but further experience has proved that the success of this popular measure was due, not only to the dangerous pressure of democracy, but to other causes not less material to successful agitation, - the inherent justice of the measure itself, the union of the middle and working classes under the guidance of their natural leaders, and the support of a strong parliamentary party, embracing the majority of one house and a considerable minority in the other. Agitation for the repeal of the Union, At the very time when this popular excitement was raging in England, an agitation of a different kind, and followed by results widely dissimilar, had been commenced in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell, emboldened 1830-31. by his successful advocacy of the Catholic-claims, resumed the exciting and profitable arts of the demagogue; and urged the repeal of the legislative union of England and Ireland. But his new cause was one to which no agitation promised success. Not a statesman could be found to counsel the dismemberment of the empire. All political parties alike repudiated 1 Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 291, 297; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xiii. 430, June 5th, 1832. 2 Courts and Cabinets of Will. IV. and Vict. i. 303-331. |