1832. Gallica. Farther on, you might just catch a glimpse ET. 29. of Lord Althorp turning round with that same imperturbable expression of honesty and kindness on his face, which no one can mark without loving the man as well as honouring him. Then Murray's chivalrous head, with its sad, proud look. Peel I could not discover. But just below me (one of the Tellers) was the keen, cunning-like face of Croker-the bald head and working mouth and dark, fine, eyes-handsome enough in their way, but I would not trust them. However Croker is an indisputably unappreciated man; his powers are brilliant. I do not know whether the features of Macaulay, one of the most rising men in the country, are familiar to many-there is something very peculiar about them. At a distance the full forehead, the firm lips, the large, cloven chin, the massive, bald brow that overhangs an eye small but full of deep, quiet light. I scarcely ever saw a head so expressive of intellectual grandeur. At that moment I saw his face looking up among a press of much taller men, and close to him was old Burdett. It was curious to see in such juxtaposition ambition commencing its career and ambition retiring from it-one who might see in this vast and difficult measure the commencement of a new era, and another who could only see in it the extinction of the old. Everyone knows Burdett's person. Who would have thought that he saw in that tall, patrician 1 The Vindicia Gallica, of Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832), was a defence of the French Revolution against the attacks of Burke, which, on its publication in 1791, produced a great sensation. But after the execution of the French king, Mackintosh repented of his advocacy, and confessed that later events in France had taught him, by "a melancholy experience," that his enthusiasm had been misplaced. 2 Sir Francis Burdett (1770-1844), the famous politician, since 1807 M.P. for Westminster. He was identified with all the extreme proposals of the Radical party, and had been imprisoned more than once for the expression of his revolutionary opinions. In later life, and especially after the Reform Bill, his views underwent great modification, and for the seven last years of his career he was the Tory member for North Wilts. REJECTED BY THE LORDS figure, with the gentle bearing, the mild eye, the serene 1832. bare brow, the restless pupil of Horne Tooke, the Æт. 29. mob's darling—the Gracchus of the hustings. I could not for a long time see the introducer of the Bill, Lord John Russell. At last he appeared. Just fancy a small, spare man, with delicate, well-cut features, a handsome curved lip, a good forehead, thin, darkish hair-that is Lord John Russell. What a light events may give to that name. But Wetherall, where's Wetherall? the broad, bluff, humorous, muscular-minded, lame-thinking ExSolicitor-General, the most resolute of Anti-reformers, the most long-winded, yet how often the most effective, of orators, now all fury, now all levity, now the brave, now the buffoon, always odd, always great, always Wetherall. There he is. His person sustains his character. You see the humourist, you also see the genius; a deep-lined, sagacious countenance, plenty of courage in the forehead, plenty of honesty in the face, plenty of shirt between the waistcoat and breeches. I stopped a short time in the lobby, and Peel passed through. One of his supporters came and shook hands with him. Certainly Peel did not look happy, nor pleased, nor triumphant. We went forth into the open air; it was broad daybreak, a grey, chill mist floated round the old Abbey. "Thank Heaven," said we all, we have done with the Bill at last!" And I believe our Posterity will not be ungrateful either! The news of this night's debate was received by the populace of London with acclamations which lasted long after daybreak; and as it spread throughout the country it set the bells ringing and the flags flying from town to town. 1832. But the fate of the Bill now depended on the Ær. 29. action of the Upper House, and the universal question in the country was, "What will the Lords do with the Bill?” On October 7, 1831, the Bill was rejected by a large majority in the House of Lords. The Ministry, supported by a strong vote of confidence in the Commons, decided to retain office, and the King on their advice prorogued Parliament. The popular feeling in favour of the Bill was evinced by riotous agitation throughout the country. Parliament reassembled on December 6, and the third Reform Bill was introduced by Lord John Russell on December 12. On Friday, March 23, 1832, the Bill passed for the third time in the House of Commons. On Monday the 26th it was carried up to the Lords by Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp. In the early morning hours of April 14 the second Reading was carried in the Lords by a majority of nine. When the House went into Committee Lord Lyndhurst led the opposition, and carried by a majority of thirty-five a motion giving the enfranchising clauses precedence over the disenfranchising clauses. Lord Grey, on behalf of the Government, regarded the motion as fatal to the Bill, because it took the control of the measure out of the hands of its promoters and transferred it to those of its opponents. When the motion was carried the Government immediately adjourned the debate, and appealed to the King for an exercise of the royal prerogative to create a PASSED sufficient number of Peers to secure the passage 1832. of the Bill. William IV. refused his consent to Ær. 29. the creation of Peers, and the Government resigned. The King consulted with the Duke of Wellington, with Lord Lyndhurst, and with Sir Robert Peel; but in view of the violent agitation in the country, and the impossibility of securing an anti-Reform majority in the House of Commons, none of these gentlemen could undertake to form a Government. The King had no alternative but to recall Lord Grey and agree to the terms demanded of him. The Government resumed office, and a piece of paper was given to Lord Brougham, containing the statement that "the King grants permission to Earl Grey and to his Chancellor Lord Brougham, to create such a number of Peers as will be sufficient to insure the passing of the Reform Bill." The opposition was now at an end. The Duke of Wellington and his followers retired from the House. On June 4, the Bill, with a few unimportant amendments, was read a third time in the House of Lords, and received the Royal assent on June 7, 1832. CHAPTER V MEMBER FOR LINCOLN 1832-1833 Few who at ease their members' speeches read Grant that the earlier steeps and sloughs are past, And Fame's broad highway stretches smooth at last; Grant the success, and now behold the pains; Eleven to three-Committee upon Drains! From three to five-self-commune and a chop; From five to dawn, a bill to pass or stop Which stopt or passed, leaves England much the same. St. Stephens. 1832. THE Constituency of St. Ives was one of those ET. 29. which were swept away by the Reform Bill, and Bulwer represented Lincoln in the reformed Parliament. He had selected this constituency, out of three for which he was invited to stand, because the Liberal electors of Lincoln were, like himself, opposed to the repeal of the Corn Laws. His warmest supporter at Lincoln, for which borough he continued to sit until his temporary retirement from political life in 1841, was Mr. Tennyson d'Eyncourt (uncle to Lord Tennyson the poet), who in the new Parliament repre |