1831.] COWARDLY ALARMISTS. 291 no doubt awful to think of the change which we are now about to encounter.' But in him the sight of evil, and the endeavour to remove it, were hardly ever disjoined; and whilst everything which he felt partook of the despondency with which that sermon opens, everything which he did partakes of that cheerful activity with which the same sermon closes in urging the example of the Apostle's wise and manly conduct amidst the dangers of storm and shipwreck.'"* Very different from a counsellor of "wise and manly conduct" was a writer in a periodical work of the highest authority, published in November, 1831. To produce a terror amongst the community for a political object has been considered the especial function of a corrupt minister. To exaggerate real causes of alarm, in the endeavour to terrify the heads of families into a retreat from the political battle-field, was now the object of a factious journalist. He asked, what has been done to meet this fatal contagion? Anticipating the sudden paralysation of commerce through every limb of our body politic,-with prodigious masses of artisans sunk at once into the depths of pauperism,-he asks whether the ministers have considered the necessity of guarding against the rapacity of monopolists as respects food and fuel; whether they had begun to think of public stores of bread? Have they considered what ought to be done for the supply of our markets, the regulations as to travellers, inns, and public conveyances of all kinds? "Have they even dreamed of the enormous burden of care that may within a week devolve upon them as a cabinet ?" Unquestionably the ministers had not so dreamed. They knew perfectly well, as the author of this article most probably knew, that any interference with the laws of demand and supply would render a temporary disturbance of the ordinary intercourse between man and man, between town and country, ten thousand times more dangerous. The advice to private persons is as remarkable for the most extravagant selfishness, as the advice to the government is conspicuous for ignorance of the commonest laws of political economy. Such families as mean to quit the town in which they reside ought to hold themselves prepared for immediate flight; the civil power should be prepared to take charge of the houses and property left behind; the opulent must expect to pay dearly for such protection, "but they have a right to expect it." When the desire to quit the town becomes general, the more that go the better; but none must go unless they have the means of conveyance. There should be lazarettoes out of town to which families might if they pleased remove; care being taken that families of the same class be placed together. Encampments might be allowed under proper regulations. All these recommendations are for the runaways. Those who have the courage to remain in great cities, such as London, are not to be less scrupulous in manifesting the same selfish cowardice. To the utmost practicable extent disfurnish the house. Get rid of all superfluous domestics, and take care that it shall be impossible for those that are retained to communicate with any one out of doors. All letters and supplies of food must be received from the police messengers. They must be drawn up to a window of the first floor by means of a rope having a yard of chain and an iron pail attached to it. Mixed up with some semi-medical precautions, the article sets forth how in some cities this pest destroys here a "Life of Dr. Arnold," vol. i. p. 272. 232 CENTRAL BOARD OF HEALTH FORMED. [1831. sixth, there a fourth, and in a third town a half of the population. The plague of Marseilles, the plague of Messina, are examples of false confidence. To excite fear is a true mode of being safe. At Messina, where no precaution was adopted, "all at once the pest was found raging, and the populace rose in the frenzy of wrath and despair, and glutted themselves with murder." Marseilles was named without a word of "Marseilles' good bishop." There were many in England, lay and clerical, who remembered noble examples in their own country, of the duty of the rich to the poor in such a season of calamity, and they followed them in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. Perhaps the cholera awakened some of this feeling which had been too long slumbering. The Ministers were solemnly warned by this writer of the responsibility they incurred, if they neglected those preparations which they alone could make. "The more rigorous the laws, and the more strictly they are enforced, the more certainly will the government be pronounced a merciful one." The government did not neglect preparations, and did not shrink from wise precautions; but these were of a very different character than such as would have plunged the whole country into a confusion far more dreadful than any visitation of the most pestilent disease. A Central Board of Health was formed, which, in a circular letter dated from the Council Office, recommended as to precautionary measures, that every large community should be divided into sections to form distinct Boards of Health, each to consist, if possible, of a resident clergyman, of a number of substantial householders, and of one medical man at least. Such boards were to appoint inspectors, each of whom was daily to visit a hundred houses, and upon their reports to endeavour to remedy such deficiencies as might be found to exist in the primary elements of public health, namely, food, clothing, bedding, ventilation, space, cleanliness, habits of temperance, prevention of panic. With regard to intercourse with suspected or infected persons or places, they strongly deprecated all measures of coercion for avoiding communication, which measures, when tried upon the Continent, had invariably been found productive of evil. Temporary cholera hospitals, detached, insulated, and thoroughly exposed to free and open air, were recommended to be established. Fortunately the good sense of the English people prevented a natural and wholesome alarm being degraded into a panic. Religious trust and active benevolence were much better supports than the practical atheism which would have turned domestic servants out of doors, and have fled from the duties of social life to seek some imaginary hiding-place where the destroyer could not come. On the 6th of November the people knelt in their churches to utter a form of prayer, whose words would not be forgotten in their private orisons: "Lord! have pity on thy people, both here and abroad; withdraw thy heavy hand from those who are suffering under thy judgments, and turn away from us that grievous calamity, against which our only security is in thy compassion." The visitation of this calamity, although very fatal in some districts, was by no means extensive, compared with the aggregate number of the population. It had died out after the ensuing summer. There had not been during its continuance any marked inter "Quarterly Review," No. xci. November, 1831, article viii. 1832.] PARLIAMENT--NEW REFORM BILL PASSED. 293 ruption in the ordinary intercourse of life, and in the communications between place and place. The cholera left a real blessing behind it.) The care of the public health from that time became a duty which no ministry could neglect, and which, after many experiments in the organization of a fit machinery, placed us in a condition not only to mitigate the effects of any pest in recurring years, but to elevate the whole body of the people in habits of cleanliness and comfort, and to prolong the duration of life in village and in city, in the pleasant fields and in the close factories. In the midst of the cholera visitation, Parliament assembled on the 6th of December. In the King's Speech, first of all was recommended a careful consideration of the measures to be proposed for the Reform of Parliament; a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question becoming daily of more pressing importance to the security of the State and to the contentment and welfare of his majesty's people. On the 12th of December, lord John Russell introduced the new Bill for Parliamentary Reform. It was in many respects really a new measure. The results of the Census of April had been obtained. The Census of 1821 had been found a fallacious guide as to what boroughs ought or ought not to be disfranchised. Taking the Census of 1831 as the basis of the population test, the boundaries of towns, which had been carefully surveyed, were included in the boroughs of which they had previously formed no part. A mixed test of the importance of boroughs was to be determined by the number of persons, the number of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes paid. The disfranchised boroughs were still to be fifty-six, though the list of those to be placed in what was called Schedule A. was materially varied from that formerly proposed. Schedule B, of boroughs to return only one member, was now reduced from forty-one to thirty, whilst others which had formerly been in this schedule were to be taken out, and to return two members. These variations from the former scheme were rendered necessary chiefly by the determination of the government not to diminish the number of the House of Commons, continuing the number as it then stood of six hundred and fifty-eight. Some of the most ardent Reformers thought that the Bill was impaired by these alterations. Sir Robert Peel taunted the ministers with having adopted amendments offered from his side of the House, but nevertheless expressed his determination of giving to the principle of this Bill a steady and firm opposition. On the second reading in the House of Commons there was a debate of two nights, terminating on the morning of Sunday the 18th, when the ministerial majority was a hundred and sixty-two. Parliament was now adjourned to the 17th of January. To follow the progress of the Reform Bill through the House of Commons during the next two months would be impossible for us to attempt, even if the details of the conflict-in which the cleverness, pertinacity, and unfairness of the opposition were strikingly in contrast with the good-humoured steadiness of lord Althorp, and the impassability of lord John Russell-were less wearisome than they now would be when the interest of such a session of skirmishes is wholly lost in the result of the great battle. The Scotch and Irish bills were brought in on the 19th of January. On the 20th, the House went into Committee on the English Bill, which Committee was not ended till the 10th of March, the Report being considered on the 14th. 294 THE BILL IN THE LORDS READ A SECOND TIME. [1832. 19th, the third reading of the Bill was moved. There was again a final debate, in which the combatants on each side were marshalled in as great numbers as on any previous occasion. In a House of five hundred and ninety-four members the Bill was passed by a majority of a hundred and sixteen. On Monday the 26th of March, the Reform Bill was carried up to the House of Lords, and was read a first time on that day. There was a general opinion that the Bill would not pass unscathed through the Upper House without a large creation of Peers. On the 7th of January Sydney Smith wrote to the countess Grey, that everybody expected a creation as a matter of course; "I am for forty, to make things safe in Committee."* It was impossible that lord Grey should not have felt the most extreme reluctance to resort to so bold and hazardous a measure. Somewhat later, Sydney Smith wrote, If you wish to be happy three months hence, create Peers. If you wish to avoid an old age of sorrow and reproach, create Peers." Upon this letter of Sydney Smith, which was addressed to lady Grey, the following note is written by herself: "Many of lord Grey's friends, as represented by Mr. S. Smith, concurred in the opinions expressed in this letter, and the whole of the liberal press, the Times' in particular, urged the necessity of creating Peers, with alarming violence, and did not scruple to assert that even the life of an old and timid man should be sacrificed for the good of the country! And had the Bill been again thrown out, there is every probability that lord Grey would have run considerable risk. Fully aware of this fact, it was therefore an act of no inconsiderable courage to resist the entreaties of his friends and the opinion of the public; but the event justified the wisdom of his decision." The "alarming violence" of the liberal press at this subsequent period was only the reflection of the more alarming violence which then prevailed throughout the country. In the concluding portion of his speech on moving the second reading, lord Grey said, "My lords, I admit that we have of late heard none of that outcry on the part of the people which first marked the progress of this Bill. In its place, a fearful silence at present prevails,—a silence which may, perhaps, lead some persons foolishly to imagine that the people are no longer looking at this question with the same feelings of interest. But I caution your lordships to beware how you form that opinion." The previous strong manifestation of popular opinion; the formation of Political Unions throughout the country; the open talk of making force prevail if reason could not prevail, had produced some alarm in the Court. Communications, it is affirmed, had passed between the king's private secretary and lord Wharncliffe, in which the royal wish had been expressed that the opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords should be less decided. Lord Grey was aware of some partial change of opinion. He said on this first debate on the second reading, "I must confess that I look with something like hope to that which appears to be a sort of approach to a favourable decision on the part of this House." Lord Wharncliffe and lord Harrowby had announced to him that they intended to vote for the second reading, but with a full intention of striking from the Bill * "Memoir," vol. ii. p. 334. "Life and Opinions of Charles, Earl Grey, by his son, the Hon. C. Grey," p. 16. Hansard, vol. xii. col. 25. 1832.] THE LORDS' COMMITTEE IN A MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS. 295 those parts which they deemed the most obnoxious.* The debate was carried on for four nights, lord Ellenborough having moved as an amendment that the Bill be read that day six months. At seven o'clock in the morning of the 14th of April, the Bill was read a second time by a majority of nine-a hundred and eighty-four contents; a hundred and seventy-five non-contents. There were votes for the Bill from some who had been absent from the division in 1831; some who had voted against it now abstained from voting; seventeen who had voted against the previous Bill now voted for this Bill. Jeffrey, who was present through the debate, described it as not very brilliant, but in its latter stage excessively interesting. Lyndhurst's, he said, was by far the cleverest and most dangerous speech against the government; lord Grey's reply, considering his age and the time, really astonishing,—he having spoken near an hour and a half after five o'clock, from the kindling dawn into full sunlight. Of the aspect of the House through that night the Lord-Advocate has left a striking picture.†The benches of the Peers very full; their demeanour, on the whole, still and solemn; nearly three hundred members of the Commons clustered in the space around the throne, or standing in a row of three deep below the bar; the candles renewed before the blue beams of the day came across their red light, and blazing on after the sun came in at the high windows, producing a strange effect on the red draperies and dusky tapestries on the walls. Parliament was adjourned for the Easter recess till the 7th of May. Although there might be some rejoicing at the majority for the second reading of the Bill, the popular conviction was, that it was not safe from mutilations which would have materially changed its character. For three weeks there was incessant agitation, far more formidable than riot and window-breaking. Petitions from almost every populous place exhorted "King William, the father of his country," not to hesitate if a necessity should arise for creating Peers. The petition from Birmingham to the Lords implored them to pass the Reform Bill into a law unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions. On the day appointed for the Parliament to meet, the Political Unions of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford were assembled in Birmingham, at New Hall Hill. It was considered to be the largest meeting ever held in Great Britain. There was a solemnity in the enthusiasm of this vast body of people which may awake the memory of the fervid zeal of the old Puritans. One of the speakers, Mr. Salt, called upon the vast multitude to repeat, with head uncovered, and in the face of Heaven, the words which he should repeat-and every man bared his head, and slowly uttered word by word this comprehensive resolve-" With unbroken faith through every peril and privation we here devote ourselves and our children to our country's cause." On that afternoon the House of Lords went into Committee on the Reform Bill. The first great principle of the measure was the disfranchising of the boroughs. Lord Lyndhurst moved, that the first and second clauses of the Bill be postponed. These were the disfranchising clauses; and the motion was carried against ministers by a majority of thirty-five. Lord Grey, on that Monday night, moved that the Chairman of the Committee should report progress, and ask Roebuck's "Whig Ministry," vol. ii. p. 261. |