1830-1837.

Born 1765 = Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, 1818.

CONTEMPORARY PRINCES.

POPES.—Pius VIII., 1829. Gregory XVI., 1831.

It was perhaps fortunate that George IV. was succeeded by a man of very different character, whose simplicity and geniality speedily made him as popular as his brother had been the reverse. The little care with which he preserved the outward forms of dignity shocked the older Tories; the freedom with which he admitted men of both parties to his table and his Court seemed to promise a reign conducted on constitutional principles and without party bias on the part of the Crown. The popularity of the King was at the time of great importance, because the excitement of the days of July in France spread rapidly over Europe, especially in Belgium and Poland, and met with great sympathy in England. Had an unpopular monarch been upon the throne the Crown might easily have been involved in the quarrel with the people.

In Belgium the revolutionary spirit assumed the form of a national desire on the part of the French-speaking Belgians to sever themselves from the Dutch kingdom to which they had been attached by the Treaties of Vienna. There was good ground for their discontent. The King of the Netherlands, a clever but injudicious man, had failed to fulfil his engagements, and had ruled entirely in the interests of the Dutch part of his kingdom. The liberty of the press granted by the constitution had been superseded by a royal ordinance, intended to be temporary, but still remaining in force; a judicial system by which the judges were the nominees of the Crown had superseded the enactments of the constitution, by which the judges were elective and irremoveable; the King had twisted the clause recommending to his care the interests of education to mean that education should be entirely in the power of the Crown; the French language had been proscribed in all public acts, and business had to be carried on in Dutch; an undue proportion of the taxes was laid upon Belgium, and Protestants were chiefly employed both in public and educational offices, though absolute equality of religions had been guaranteed. There is no need to explain the grievances of the Poles. Destroyed as a nation, divided recklessly among their powerful neighbours, it was only too natural that they should at once accept any hope of freedom.

In England the Revolution in France met with universal sympathy and admiration. Among those classes which of late years had been in a constant state of discontent, it was accepted as an example to be at once followed. But the orderly and self-restrained manner in which the change in France had been effected had a far different and more important effect than this. It seemed to show the possibility of great and thorough changes being carried out without the excesses which had hitherto accompanied revolutions, and had frightened the well-to-do middle classes from any co-operation with the more eager and innovating working-men. It seemed possible that the great question, which had been almost crushed by the French wars and by the lengthened tenure of office by the Tories, might be revived and brought to a successful conclusion without opening the flood-gates of social anarchy. Parliamentary reform was at once taken up by the Whigs and by the great middle class of England, who determined to try whether they could not win it in some less objectionable form than it had assumed in the hands of radical demagogues.

In the midst of this renewed excitement both on the Continent and in England, the ministry of Wellington, cut off from its old friends and disowned by those whose policy it had been enforced to adopt, stood as representative of the bygone system. The minister, though he had already so frequently yielded to the pressure of circumstances, was regarded as the friend of Polignac, the fallen French minister. His foreign policy read by this light seemed to be directed entirely to uphold the principles which had actuated the Tory Government at the time of the Vienna Treaty. He was known to be at heart an enemy of all change, and his conduct was therefore watched at this crisis with extreme anxiety. It was felt at the time, and has since been confessed, that his ministry during the last session had existed only by the toleration of its enemies. With the death of the King the chief necessity for retaining the Duke in his position had disappeared, and the time seemed to have arrived for sweeping away the Government, which was merely obstructive and bent at the best in keeping things exactly as they were. The dissolution which necessarily followed the accession of the new King afforded the Duke's enemies the opportunity they required. In the midst of much excitement, for the reformers had already begun to cover the land with associations, the elections took place, with a result disastrous to Government. There was a loss of at least fifty Government seats. While the Liberals made extreme and successful efforts in places where the elections were open, the Tory proprietors of boroughs, in their hatred to Wellington, whom they regarded as their betrayer, brought in anti-ministerial nominees. The temper of the people was shown by the election of Brougham, voluntarily and without expense, to the representation of Yorkshire, by the loss of their seats by two brothers and a brother-in-law of Peel, undoubtedly the most important member of the Government after the Premier, and by the fact that of the eighty-two representatives of English counties not more twenty were ministerial. Such a change no doubt offered much hope for the peaceful and parliamentary character of the constitutional advance which it seemed now impossible to avoid.

But there were still great dangers threatening the country. In Ireland O'Connell was spending all his energies in preaching the necessity of repeal, and heaping fierce and unmeaning words of hatred upon the ministry. He had re-established the Association under the name of "The Friends of Ireland," and when the Irish Government declared this illegal, it assumed a new form as the Society of Irish Volunteers. The lower classes were in a state of wild excitement, and their belief in their leader was not checked by the inconsistency with which he now extolled the Revolution in Belgium and in France, though hitherto, in his love of Catholicism, the Catholic and Jesuit-loving Bourbons had been the main subjects of his praise; nor did even the want of courage with which he refused to give satisfaction for the insults he had heaped on Lord Hardinge injure him with his followers. In October it was found necessary in Tipperary to take means for suppressing an outbreak by the use of the soldiery. In England events bearing a strong resemblance to the opening of a revolution began to be visible. The breaking of machines both in and from rick-burning. manufacturing and agricultural districts, and worse than that, in the South of England rick-burning, became constant. No efforts and no rewards could arrive at a true knowledge of the perpetrators of this crime. The farmers were kept in a constant state of nervous anxiety. A certain number of people were apprehended and hanged on the charge, but any man was still liable to find his ricks, in spite of all his care, suddenly and mysteriously bursting into flames. In London, too, the old demagogues began to make their appearance. Hunt and Cobbett were again haranguing crowds and filling their minds with hopes of social equality. Meanwhile the ministry took no step to declare its intention, and made no advances towards strengthening itself by union with any other party. It seemed indeed possible for a moment that the Duke would again yield, readmit the Canningites to his party, and produce some very moderate reform. If such a plan existed, it disappeared after the Death of Huskisson. death of Huskisson. On the 15th of September a number of guests, among whom were the Minister, were asked to attend the opening of the first great railway in England, running between Manchester and Liverpool. The train, in which the guests were, stopped for water at Parkside. Several gentlemen left their seats, and a mutual friend brought Huskisson to the carriage where Wellington sat to attempt a reconciliation. The door was open as the old friends greeted each other warmly. Suddenly a train came up upon the other line, there was a cry of "Get to your seats;" flurried and unable, apparently, to pass the open door, Huskisson fell across the line, and was so severely injured that he died the same evening. The rest of Canning's followers, although their great leader had been an enemy to reform, at once made it plain that they had joined the Opposition.

It was thus, with unusual anxiety as to the conduct to be expected from the ministry, that the opening of Parliament on the 2nd of November was awaited. The worst enemies of the Duke could scarcely have hoped for a more ill-judged production than the King's speech. There was no sign that the very critical state of the country was even acknowledged. The change of dynasty in France was mentioned and accepted, the unpopular policy of the Government with regard to Miguel praised, the civil war in Belgium spoken of in terms of severe reprobation, and a determination expressed to uphold the present political system; the disturbed temper of the people in England and Ireland was mentioned with indignation, and the firm purpose of Government declared to repress it by every means in their power. Of recognition of the necessity of listening to what had now become the expressed wish of the nation there was not a word. If anything could be wanted to strengthen the impression caused by the speech, and to make it clear that the ministry was more conservative than ever, it was afforded by Wellington's words in the debate on the address in answer to Lord Grey's recommendation that some plan of reform should be undertaken. He declared his belief in the perfection of the legislative system. It possessed the full and entire confidence of the country; he was not therefore prepared to bring forward any measure of reform, and might declare at once that "as long as he held any station in the government of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist such measures when proposed by others." It was a challenge to the reformers which was speedily answered. On the same night Brougham announced his intention of bringing forward a motion for reform on the 16th, and on that night the fate of the ministry must have been decided. In the interval before the critical day the excitement of the people was so great that the King's visit to the Resignation of the ministry. City had to be postponed, because Wellington was afraid to accompany him unless under a strong armed escort. But before that day arrived the ministry found an opportunity for resigning. Among the topics of the speech was the reform of the Civil List. On the 15th Sir Henry Parnell brought in a motion for a Select Committee; the ministry opposed it on the ground that no further economy was possible, and being beaten by a majority of twenty-nine, after taking one day to consider, announced on the 16th that their resignation had been accepted, and thus saved themselves from defeat on the more momentous question of reform. During the formation of the new ministry Brougham's motion was postponed, and it was almost immediately known that he had passed into the Upper House as Lord Chancellor, and that the first business of the new Government would be the production of a Reform Bill.

At such a crisis it was impossible that any statesman except Lord Grey should be intrusted with the formation of a Cabinet. Now nearly seventy years of age, he had been the prominent leader in every attempt at parliamentary reform for the last forty years. He found no difficulty in selecting his ministers. As far as talents and debating power went the Liberal party was very strong; it was not yet discovered that the long absence of the party from office, and its consequent ignorance of the routine and traditions of official work had rendered most of its members rather weak administrators. The Chancellorship of the Exchequer was given to Lord Althorp, a most amiable and excellent man, a steady partisan of reform and retrenchment, but of an easy and not very vigorous character. Lord Lansdowne was President of the Council; Lambton, now become Lord Durham, Grey's son-in-law, was Lord Privy Seal; the Secretaryships were supplied from the ranks of the Canningites; Palmerston, Melbourne, and Goderich were respectively Foreign, Home, and Colonial Secretaries. Charles Grant was President of the Board of Control. Holland, Auckland, and Graham were also in the Cabinet. In office, but not of the Cabinet, were Lord John Russell as Paymaster-General, and Mr. Stanley, subsequently Lord Derby, as Secretary for Ireland.

The duty which this ministry undertook was by no means a light one; for though it was plain that reform in some shape or other could no longer be delayed, its introduction was beset with difficulties, of which the greatest was by no means the opposition to be apprehended Difficulties attending reform. from the open opponents of the measure. Any advance towards a fair representation was certain to meet with the strongest opposition from men who regarded any change as revolutionary, and saw a diminution of their own interests in the slightest attacks upon the system of nominee boroughs. But such bigoted and selfish opposition might certainly sooner or later be overcome. A far greater danger was to be found in the exaggerated hopes which had been fostered for many years among the suffering artisans, who had been taught by their leaders and demagogues to ascribe all their miseries to the want of fair representation. No measure which a ministry, aristocratic in its character as the present ministry was, could introduce, no measure which could satisfy the intelligent middle classes, to whom social change was almost as abhorrent as to the Tories, could fail to cause disappointment to the hopes of the lower classes; and when they found how little practical relief they would gain by the measure, there was only too much danger lest the revolution of which the opponents of the measure were so fond of talking might really come into existence. Signs of popular discontent were, as has been already mentioned, clearly to be seen. Rick-burning still continued its course in the South, and trades unions in their most aggravated form, and accompanied by murder, had made their appearance in the manufacturing districts. Extreme measures, such as the issuing of a special commission in the disturbed districts, were urged upon the Government; but Lord Grey replied that he considered the regular powers of the Government, if properly used, were sufficient for all purposes. In fact, the ministry understood that the contest was not an ordinary parliamentary one; it was scarcely to be expected that of its own free will the House of Commons should accept a Bill which must exclude many of its members from their seats; it was as the spokesmen of a great national wish that the ministers regarded themselves, and they intended to rely upon the nation for their support. Not only did they therefore refrain from any exceptional measures for the suppression of disturbance, they also allowed to pass unquestioned the legality of the numerous political unions which, following the example of the Union of Birmingham, of which Mr. Attwood was the president, had sprung into existence all over England, and which aimed at bringing into some sort of harmony the demands of the wealthy and poorer classes. The ministry had in fact determined to use all expressions of the national temper, even when verging upon breaches of the Constitution, to forward what they conceived to be the great healing measure which the evils of the times demanded. The struggle thus assumed a far more dignified form than that of an ordinary political question. In its first stage it was the people, as usual with aristocratic leaders, who demanded and insisted upon their will being heard by the Lower House. When that House had been reconstituted, and become favourable to the popular claims, it was the people speaking by the voice of their constitutionally chosen representatives, supported by an irresistible and probably unconstitutional action from without, which engaged in a life and death struggle with the aristocracy, clinging tenaciously to their ancient privileges.

On the 3rd of February, when the Parliament reassembled, the intention of the ministry to produce a measure of parliamentary reform in both Houses was made known. The day for its introduction was fixed for the 1st of March. The interval was passed in Parliament in the ordinary business of the session, and in the introduction of a budget which, betraying as it clearly did a tendency towards the policy of Huskisson in favour of the manufacturing industries, was received with an opposition which showed the temper of the House, and which would probably under ordinary circumstances have caused the fall of the ministry. But it was understood that it was upon reform and upon no other question that the fate of the Government depended. Without the walls of Parliament agitation was vigorously at work. Petition after petition for and against the approaching measure was prepared, and the whole country was upon the tiptoe of expectation when on the appointed day Lord John Reception of the Reform Bill. March 1, 1831. Russell made his statement as to the character of the Bill. Although it has since been found necessary more than once to enlarge it, at the time the completeness of the Bill surprised even the friends of Government, while it seemed to its opponents little better than an ill-timed jest. As in all Bills for reform of the representation, there were two points to be regarded: in the first place, to secure that the representatives of the people should be really representatives and not nominees; in the second place, to secure by the arrangement of the franchise that they should as far as practicable represent all classes of the nation. On the first of these points the Bill was complete, with very few exceptions rotten boroughs were entirely swept away; it is on the second point that subsequent legislation has been found necessary. The Bill as originally presented destroyed at once sixty rotten boroughs, but with regard to the franchise and the distribution of seats, as will be seen subsequently, it showed considerable favour to the counties, that is to the landed interest and to the middle classes, excluding entirely the artisan class, which, when its members are prosperous and possess property, is one of the most valuable elements in the constitution of the nation. As Lord John Russell read the list of disfranchised boroughs, he was greeted with shouts of laughter and ironical cries of "Hear" from the members who represented them. The debate on the first reading continued for seven nights; the chief objection raised was that the balance of the Constitution would be changed and the power of the House of Lords diminished. It was, however, passed without division, the struggle being deferred to the second reading. Although its deficiencies were obvious enough to the advanced reformers, the importance of securing the one great step in advance which it promised in the annihilation of rotten boroughs caused its general acceptance, and "The Bill and nothing but the Bill" became the watchword of the Liberal party in England. There was considerable disturbance, as was to be expected, throughout the country, and in anticipation of a strong opposition many of the political unions came to the formal determination that, if necessary, they would refrain from paying taxes, and would even march to London; they issued lists showing the numbers on which they could count, and it began to be plain that, if constitutional means failed, the Bill would be carried by unconstitutional pressure.

The second reading at length came on, and in the fullest House ever known, 608 members being present, the ministry secured a majority of one. Precedent would have demanded their resignation, but regarding themselves as charged with a great national duty they kept their places, and all England illuminated at the news. The next process was to pass the Bill through Committee, and there the weakness of the Government at once disclosed itself. They were defeated by a majority of eight on a clause for reducing the whole number of members, and three days afterwards the House refused to go into a question of supply. The ministry, determined to bring matters to a crisis, regarded this, not without some exaggeration, as a refusal of supplies, and declared that they could do nothing but resign; but the King, as yet true to them, refused their resignation, at the same time expressing a very strong wish not to dissolve the House. As the Parliament was now in its first session, this wish of the King was by no means unnatural, yet only by a dissolution could the ministers and the Reform Bill be saved. They themselves subsequently declared their belief that this was the real crisis of the question. The Opposition also felt the importance of the moment, and through their leader, Lord Wharnecliffe, moved an address to the King, remonstrating against the intended dissolution. What the arguments of Dissolution of the Parliament. April 22. the ministry had been unable to effect was done at once by this ill-judged piece of violence, which the King considered an attack upon his prerogative. He immediately declared his determination to dissolve the House. The scene of excitement in the Lords has rarely been equalled when he suddenly made his appearance and demanded the presence of the Commons. An equally tumultuous scene had been going forward in the Lower House, the Speaker had himself been unable to obtain a hearing. At the summons of the Usher of the Black Rod, the Commons appeared at the bar of the Upper House, and were at once told by the King, in an unusually cheerful and firm tone, that he had come there for the purpose of proroguing them, with a view to immediate dissolution, in order to ascertain the sense of his people on the question of representation.

The dissolution thus taking place in the midst of the violent and strongly-organized agitation of the nation, virtually secured the passing of the Bill, although a long and dangerous period of contest had yet to be passed. That the mob should break out here and there in riots was inevitable; but it was the firm and determined attitude, not of the rioters, but of the great body of intelligent non-electors, which really influenced the elections. In all directions reformers were successful. Six county members only were opposed to the Bill, and when in July the second reading came on, the ministers found themselves in a majority of 136. Manifestly outnumbered, the opponents to the measure had recourse to an irritating form of warfare. Every single detail was fought over in Committee. There was a hope that, as the summer went on, the patience of members would be tired out, that the session must either be terminated or an accidental victory be snatched from the Government. So weary was the nation of the lengthened delay, that the political unions held a meeting to settle how much longer they would wait, but the question was too important to allow of any laxity on the part The Bill passes in the Commons. Sept. 23. of its supporters, and on the 7th of September the report of the Committee was brought up. On the 21st, after another debate of three nights, the Bill passed the Commons by a majority of 109. Its fate now rested with the Peers, and The Bill rejected in the Lords. Oct. 8. they were not long in showing how they meant to deal with it. On the first reading it was thrown out by a majority of forty-one. The opponents of the measure fondly hoped that its fate and that of the administration were now sealed, but the Lords had not yet secured a victory. Indignant at the rejection of their Bill, the Commons at once passed a vote of confidence in the ministry, and all fear of their resignation was thus removed.

But the indignation of the Commons was nothing to that of the people at large, who saw the measure from which they hoped so much snatched from them by the votes of a few wealthy and important men, who in no sense represented them, and whose opposition bore in the popular eye all the appearance of a selfish struggle for an exclusive and injurious privilege. Again the disorderly mobs of London and other large towns broke out into riots, but the number of rioters was usually few, and many of them were known as belonging to the regular criminal and ruffianly class. Of these riots the most important was that which occurred in Bristol on the 29th of October. The occasion was the public entry of Sir Charles Wetherell, a bitter opponent of reform, into the city, of which he was recorder. It afforded another instance of the mismanagement of the local magistracy. A mob, which seems never to have reached a thousand in number, took possession of the town for two days, broke into the mansion-house, and got drunk in the cellars, and then, undisturbed, and after giving full notice of their intention, set fire to Queen's Square, and burnt two sides of it to the ground. The military had been in the town all day; at length they proceeded to act, and re-established order with little difficulty, though with some loss of life. Their commander was Colonel Brereton. The mayor and magistrates had weakly given him but a general authority to act on his discretion, willing no doubt to shift the responsibility to his shoulders. A man of kind heart, he had shrunk from acting without more distinct authority; he had tried his best to calm the crowd by friendly means, which only increased their confidence and encouraged them with hopes of impunity. He was tried by court martial, and, unable to face the prospect of a slur on his professional character, committed suicide. But far more important than these Organized action of the political unions. riots was the constantly increasing vigour shown by the organized unions. Hitherto left untouched by the Government, they now proceeded to measures which clearly brought them under the action of the law. The London Radicals held a great meeting on the 31st of October in Lincoln's Inn Fields, presided over by Sir Francis Burdett, when a National Union was established, intended to draw together the various unions of the country, and to form a central directory of delegates. Before the meeting separated, it was plain that some of its members were ready to go much further than the unions had yet gone, and the Metropolitan Union summoned a meeting for the 7th of November, and issued a programme demanding the abolition of all hereditary privileges and distinctions of rank. On this occasion the Government acted quickly and wisely. Lord Melbourne received a deputation of the Union, and persuaded them to postpone their meeting, and shortly afterwards, on the 22nd of November, a proclamation was issued for the suppression of such political clubs.

This proclamation is believed to have been put forward at the instigation of the King, who had been much frightened by the riots at Bristol, and was constantly worked upon by the ladies of the Court, who were strong anti-reformers. His support could be no longer relied on by the ministry, and at this time his help was more especially necessary, as it began to dawn upon men's minds that nothing short of a large creation of Peers could overwhelm the obstinate majority of the Upper House, and secure the passage of the Bill. As the last Bill had been rejected, before the fight in the Upper House could be recommenced the whole work had to be gone through again in the House of Commons. It was not The Bill passes on the second reading in the Lords. April 14, 1832. long delayed there. Brought in by Lord John Russell on the 12th of December, it finally passed the Commons by a majority of 116 on the 23rd of March. On the 14th of April the second reading of the Bill in the Lords took place, and it became apparent that a certain number of the Peers had taken fright at the threatened increase to their numbers, and had begun to recognize the danger of their obstructive policy; the ministry succeeded in obtaining a majority of nine.

The 7th of May, after the Easter holidays, was the day fixed for the Committee on the Bill. The holidays were well used by the reformers outside Parliament. Monster meetings were everywhere held, and the Political Union of Birmingham, which held the first rank among the popular organizations, appointed a great meeting of all the unions of the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford for the same day as the opening of Parliament. The recess was not less eagerly employed by the anti-reformers; his Tory friends, his courtiers, his wife, and his sisters, worked upon the King's mind; he was persuaded to refuse the creation of Peers, and to try once more what coercion could do in suppressing the national ferment; the Duke of Wellington was applied to, and orders to keep the troops in readiness were sent to various parts of England, especially to Birmingham. Thus, when the day arrived, while 150,000 men assembled at Newhall Hill in Birmingham were swearing with bare heads and raised hands, "With unbroken faith, through every peril and privation, we here devote ourselves and our children to our country's cause," Lord Lyndhurst, The Bill rejected in the Lords. May 7. who had been most active in organizing the present opposition, had contrived to secure a majority of thirty-five in the House of Lords for a motion postponing the disfranchising clauses of the Bill.

The antagonistic forces seemed to have come to a final issue, from which there was no escape except by the creation of Peers, a measure as repugnant to the aristocratic feeling of Lord Grey as to the King. The Prime Minister, however, explaining the situation, demanded of the King the one necessary step. He was refused, and resigned. His resignation was accepted, and the Duke of Wellington was sent for to attempt to form a Conservative ministry. At the same time things had gone too far for complete repression, and the Duke was instructed to form a ministry which would introduce some extensive measure of reform. The news of the fall of the ministry was received in fierce anger by the whole people. The papers came out in mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever should advise a dissolution was a public enemy. Petitions praying that no supplies should be granted till the Bill was passed were signed in a few hours by many thousands of people, and sent to London, where they were joyfully received by the House of Commons. The great Birmingham Union made preparations to march to London 200,000 strong, and encamp on Hampstead Heath. Two insurmountable difficulties met the Duke of Wellington, and prevented the inevitable ruin which must have followed his success. It became clear to him that the military could not be trusted, that repression by force was out of the question, and he could find no Conservatives sufficiently courageous The old ministry returns to office. May 15. to join him in the ministry. The King was obliged again to have recourse to his former ministers. It was plain to the Lords that further opposition was useless, and would lead only to a public proof of the powerlessness of their resistance by the creation of new Peers. They therefore wisely The Bill passes in the Lords. June 4. attended to a circular letter from the King himself, begging them to withdraw their opposition. Wellington left the House, and was followed by about a hundred other Peers; the Bishops in a body withdrew their opposition, and the Bill was finally carried by a considerable majority.

The measure as passed was not and could not be final, but it was a wide, comprehensive and judicious beginning. The chief evil of the representation had been the existence of nomination and rotten boroughs; of these 56, having less than 2000 inhabitants, were disfranchised, and 111 seats left vacant. Thirty boroughs, with less than 4000 inhabitants, were each deprived of one member; Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. There were thus 143 seats to dispose of. Of these 65 went to the counties, an arrangement which showed the still unbroken power of the landed aristocracy, twenty-two large towns received the right of returning two members, and 21 the right of returning one. The remaining 13 were left for Ireland and Scotland. The second evil was the very irregular and restricted franchise. In some towns the freemen alone elected; in others the suffrage was almost universal; the whole number of electors on the roll was very small. A uniform £10 household franchise was now established in boroughs, but, as a concession to the rights of vested interests, freemen of corporate towns who resided within the borough, and who had been created before 1831, were allowed to retain their votes. In the counties copyholders and leaseholders were added to the constituencies, and by a clause introduced by the Marquis of Chandos, and carried in opposition to the Government, tenants at will paying a rent of £50 were also enfranchised. In this point again the landed interest showed its power, as such tenants were only too liable to be influenced by their landlords. At the same time, to decrease the disorders and expenses of elections, the duration of the poll was shortened. The period of fifteen days during which in county elections votes could be taken was restricted to two in England and to five in Ireland. Along with the English Bill, Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were also produced and passed. In Scotland the representation had been far more imperfect than in England; it was now wholly remodelled. The county franchise was given to all owners of property, and long leaseholders of the value of £10 a year, and even to tenants for shorter periods paying a rent of £50; in the burghs the same £10 franchise was established as in England. The number of burgh representatives was changed from fifteen to twenty-three. The number of county members remained the same as before, but with some slight difference in distribution. To Ireland four additional boroughs were allowed, the counties there remained the same. But considerable discontent was caused by the adoption of the £10 freehold franchise in the counties, which very much restricted the number of the electors, from whom it will be remembered that till quite lately a 40s. qualification only was required.

Thus was completed, after a delay of nearly an hundred and fifty years, the second act of the English Revolution. Incomplete and aristocratic in its character, the movement of 1688 yet established the superiority of Parliament as a whole, and its predominance over the royal power. From that time onwards the Government had been in the hands of the aristocracy, from whichever of the political parties the members of the administration had been drawn. The attempt of George III. to re-establish the power of the Crown had been attended with some success as long as it was supported by the good wishes of the people. Events had allied him with a party bent on the repression of all popular movements and of all constitutional growth. Submissive during the war, the people on the return of peace had been aroused to a sense of the injury under which they suffered by their exclusion from all share in the Government. Events in France had brought their discontent to a climax, and they had now at length gained possession of that part of the Legislature which had long pretended falsely to represent them.

But although the change effected by the Reform Bill at first sight appears to have been political, it was in fact social. It was the introduction of a wholly new class of society into the duties of Government. The aristocratic classes, which had hitherto had the monopoly of power, were forced to admit to an equality with themselves the middle class, which the progress of society, and the wonderful advance of material improvement during the last half century, had raised to a position so important that its claims could no longer be withstood. Its victory had been secured by a twofold alliance. On the one hand it had taken advantage of the real wants of the classes below it, and of the social ideas which had been called into existence by the French Revolution; it had not scrupled to employ the modern arts of agitation, or to bring what cannot be regarded in any other light than as an unconstitutional pressure to bear upon Parliament. On the other hand it had worked constitutionally by an alliance with one of the governing classes, namely, the Whigs. Long exclusion from office had as usual made this party alive to the existence of abuses, the defensive and obstructive attitude of the Tories had reawakened its desire for constitutional growth, and the philosophy and writings of the time, especially those of Bentham and of the authors of the Edinburgh Review, had taken considerable hold of its leading members. The Whig Government therefore, with complete honesty, and in the midst of considerable danger and difficulty, accepted the alliance which the middle classes offered it, and honourably fulfilled its share of the compact. Now that the great Bill was passed, it remained to be seen how far the Whigs were willing to forego their old aristocratic prejudices, and how far their strength would allow them to oppose the pressure of the extreme Radicals, whose alliance they had been forced to accept along with that of the middle class.

It was with the utmost anxiety that the character of the first reformed Parliament was watched. There was a general feeling of terror throughout England. Timid investors began to seek securities for their money in America or Denmark. There was a constant apprehension of a coming revolution which might resemble that in France; a feeling which was not appeased by occasional acts of violence throughout the country, and a fierce and dangerous assault by the London mob upon the Duke of Wellington himself. It is possible that in any other country such a revolution might have resulted; but the practical character of the English mind, which prevents it from being carried away by a passionate desire for ideal benefits, the wide diffusion and extremely strong love of property, the firm and dignified attitude of the nobility, the loyalty with which the really active part of the Tory party accepted the change and determined to make the best of it, secured tranquillity for the country during its passage through the dangerous crisis. It may also be reckoned as no small advantage to the cause of order, that the English Radicals found themselves thrown into the company of O'Connell and the Irish agitators; the clamour for repeal, the lawless violence which showed itself in the sister island, and the unscrupulous character of the demagogue who represented it, gave a strength and unity to the moderate Whig party which it would otherwise have wanted. At the same time the twofold connections and interests of the Government could not but, sooner or later, prove a cause of weakness. Their aristocratic tendencies, which remained unabated, prevented them from throwing themselves heartily into the wishes of their more popular supporters, and laid them open to the constant suspicion of an inclination towards Toryism. Their dependence on the popular party compelled them to take in hand many difficult questions for the solution of which the nation was clamouring. They had therefore to be constantly steering a middle course, and assuming an appearance of weakness which rapidly undermined their popularity, while the two tendencies which they represented, affecting the individual members of the Cabinet in different degrees, speedily led to a division among themselves. It is for these reasons that the work of the first reformed Parliament, great as it was, has an appearance of weakness as compared with the burst of popular reform which might have been expected after so great a change.

When Parliament assembled it appeared that the Whigs had on the whole a very large majority; but, besides an active and important body of Tories headed by Sir Robert Peel, there were a considerable number of Radicals, of whom Hume may be regarded as the leader, and the Irish members, for the most part the mere nominees and puppets of O'Connell, from whom opposition might be expected. There were changes both in the appearance and character of the House; the average age of the members was visibly increased, and it was evident that there would be more individual opinion, less distinctly party voting, and a greater necessity for convincing argument to ensure a majority. It was plain, too, that with much less of oratory there would be a far greater quantity of talking; and as the Government, in the King's speech, promised to introduce a number of very important Bills, it was found necessary greatly to lengthen the hours of business. At the same time, as there were no less than three hundred new members in the House, it was thought advisable to reappoint the old Speaker, Manners-Sutton, although he was a Tory in politics, a step which at once excited the displeasure of the more advanced Liberals.

The questions most generally occupying men's minds, and which it might be supposed would at once become prominent, were the disturbed and wretched condition of the poor, as evidenced by the late riots and constant rick-burning; the position of the Church; slavery; and the national relations to foreign countries, especially Belgium and the Peninsula; but, before all, the condition of Ireland, and the maintenance of the Protestant Church in that country.

It was the Irish question which became at once the most important, and which ultimately caused the fall of the ministry. It was understood that some measures of coercion would be necessary to restore tranquillity in that country, but that they should go hand in hand with measures of reform and relief. As though to render the coming Coercion Bill more palatable, Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February, introduced a Bill for the regulation of the Irish Church. Since the Catholic Emancipation Act the state of Ireland had been becoming constantly worse. Instead of accepting the Act in a conciliatory spirit, O'Connell had used it as a stepping-stone for further demands, and had continued his course of agitation. He had been prosecuted in 1831, had pleaded guilty to holding illegal assemblies, but by the carelessness of the Whig Government he had escaped without punishment. His present demand was repeal, but the outrages which filled Ireland were either agrarian or connected with the tithes; and O'Connell skilfully managed, while by his agitation he continually kept up the discontent, to keep clear himself of any participation in the violence of his countrymen. Of course the repeal of the Union could not be for a moment thought of, but the Government could not deny that the position of the Irish Church and the collection of tithes for its support were real grievances.

In a country of which the population was somewhat over seven millions, there was established a dominant Protestant Church, the members of which numbered 853,000 only. It had a staff of no less than four archbishops and eighteen bishops, many of them with very large incomes, and a body of clergy supported principally by tithes, exacted not only from its own members, but from the six million and a half Catholics. To make matters worse, the tithe was paid by the tenants, and, as the land was infinitely subdivided, in minute sums which rendered its forcible exaction most irksome and ridiculous. In many instances a man's tithe was a farthing, and in some cases not more than seven parts of a farthing. So vexatious and unjust a tax was certain to cause exasperation. In 1831 the collection of tithes became almost impossible; the collectors were murdered, the police who came to their rescue fired upon, cattle driven off that the tithe might not be paid, and the clergy were consequently reduced to such a miserable plight that some of them were actually brought to the verge of starvation. But in spite of the glaring anomaly of the existence of the Church at all, and of the ill-feeling and violence excited by the exaction of the tithes, neither Lord Grey nor Mr. Stanley, his Secretary for Ireland, could bring themselves to think of any wide measure of reform, so great was their dread of touching property or vested interests, or of in any way injuring the Church. In February 1832 committees were appointed to inquire into the system. They reported that the complete extinction of tithes by a commutation or charge upon the land was absolutely necessary. The Irish took this as an authorization of their proceedings; the outrages increased, and a system of terrorism was established, which precluded the possibility of bringing the assassins and rioters to justice. In June the Government had adopted a plan which in fact made matters worse. They authorized the advance of £60,000 to the Irish clergy, who were unable to collect their tithes, and took upon themselves the duty of collecting former arrears, at the same time promising that the tithe commutation should be undertaken. A Bill to this effect was passed, rendering commutation necessary for a term of twenty-one years. Other Bills providing for the redemption of the tithe were unfortunately allowed to stand over to the next session. But Government had now made itself a tithe collector, and was so inefficient in that capacity that it had subsequently to allow that of £104,000 due £12,000 only had been levied, and that with some loss of life.

In the year 1833 a new arrangement was consequently attempted. The whole amount of arrears for the last three years amounted to about a million. This sum the Government proposed should be advanced by an issue of Exchequer bills, to be repaid gradually by a general land tax. As there seemed only too much probability that the land tax would be refused with as great determination as the tithes, most people regarded this sum as a mere gift to the Irish clergy. The Government was, however, able to pass the Bill. The final settlement of the tithe question was postponed for several years; meanwhile the violence which attended the attempts at collecting the tithes were the chief cause of the necessity of the Coercion Bill.

But the tithes, though the immediate cause of the disturbances, were only a part of the whole Church system; it was the Church itself which was the primary cause of the evil, and in the measure Althorp's Irish Church Bill. Feb. 1833. for the relief which was to accompany the Bill for the repression of disturbance, the ministers addressed themselves to lessen the more glaring defects of that institution; but at the same time they were as little disposed to injure the Church as the Tories themselves, and one of the chief objects of the proposed legislation was the improvement of the position of the clergy. It was thought that while the lessening of the hierarchy and the removal of some of the anomalies exhibited by the Church would be pleasing to the Irish, the Church would itself gain strength by the proposed changes. Besides the payment of tithes, a church cess, for the support of the buildings and expenses of the services, was paid indiscriminately by members of all religions, but managed by Protestant vestries. The annates, or first-fruits of livings, had been originally employed for these purposes, but in process of time had almost disappeared; such benefices as were still subject to them were to be now freed, a graduated tax to be laid upon all livings, and with the produce the Church cess was to be extinguished. This was a direct boon to the Catholics. Another common complaint was the disproportion between the number of bishoprics and the Protestant population; it was now proposed to destroy ten of these bishoprics, or rather, as the ministry was careful to explain, not to destroy but to consolidate them with those which remained. The incomes of some of the larger bishoprics were also curtailed; the surplus money thus arising was to be paid into the hands of ecclesiastical commissioners. Thus far there was not much objectionable in the Bill, though the Tories and High Churchmen of England disliked the destruction of so many sees. But there was a further measure, which opened the door to grave opposition. It was proposed to change the terms on which church lands were let so as to improve the position of the tenant without injuring the clergy. The tenant would be willing to pay for this advantage, and the sum thus gained was calculated at between two and three millions. This money would, as the mover of the Bill expressed it, be available for the purposes of the State. This had all the appearance of an act of confiscation, the property of the Church was to be taken and applied to purposes not ecclesiastical. But the Irish Secretary had as strong a view as the Tories of the sanctity of Church property, and the danger of tampering in ever so small a way with the rights of property. It was therefore found necessary by the supporters of the Bill to invent a theory to secure unanimity in the Cabinet; it was argued that the sum derived from the change of tenure did not exist before, but would be created by the present act of the Legislature, that it was therefore not Church property at all, and might be applied to the purposes of the State. The Bill in this shape was introduced by Lord Althorp on the 12th of February. It at once appeared open to objections on two sides. While O'Connell and the Irish scoffed at the relief, which consisted only in removing the church cess, and the English Radicals declared that instead of twelve bishops one was amply sufficient for the needs of the Irish Protestants, the Tories, refusing to recognize the delicate line between Church property and money gained by the Legislature from Church property, raised the cry that it was but a first step in confiscation, and threatened not the security of Church property only, but that of all other property. It appeared necessary to choose between the views of one or the other of these sets of critics, and in spite of his own views, Lord Althorp consented to be governed by the Conservative element in the Cabinet and to withdraw what was called the Appropriation clause. The removal of this clause, which contained the only important principle in the Bill, the right, namely, of Parliament to apply Church property to the wants of the State, rendered it so like a Tory measure, that with the assistance of that party it passed without difficulty in both Houses (July 30).

But three days after the introduction of the Irish Church Bill in the House of Commons, Lord Grey introduced into the House of Lords its complement, the Coercion Bill. Here again the absence of broad liberality in the ministry was apparent. It was conceived in the spirit of the most absolute government, and implied a distinct determination to make no attempt at pacification by liberal concessions. It was the work of Mr. Stanley, the Irish Secretary, a man of great ability and vigour, but without much sympathy for the Irish character, and, as his subsequent career proved, at heart a Tory. There was no difficulty in making out a case for the Bill. A narration of a few of the crimes which had of late filled Ireland with horror made it evident that something must be done. In the province of Leinster alone, in the three months July, August, and September, there had been 1279 crimes, in the following three months the number had risen to 1646. During the year the catalogue of Irish crimes contained 172 homicides, 465 robberies, 568 burglaries, 454 acts of houghing cattle, 2095 illegal notices, 425 illegal meetings, 796 malicious injuries to property, 753 attacks on houses, 280 arsons, and 3156 serious assaults: in all upwards of 9000 crimes connected with the disturbed state of the country. Well might Mr. Macaulay say that he "solemnly declared he would rather live in the midst of many civil wars he had read of than in some parts of Ireland at this moment." It was not the number of crimes alone which rendered them terrible; they were carried on upon a system by which such terror had been excited that it was impossible to get juries to convict even after the clearest proof, or witnesses to give evidence as to what they knew. At the same time, the leaders of the people were teaching them, in public meetings and in assemblies of the so-called Association of Volunteers, to regard themselves as the victims of every form of oppression. To meet such a state of things it was proposed to place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, in accordance with the Proclamation Act of the 8th of George IV., 1828, power to suppress every meeting or association which he regarded as dangerous to the preservation of peace, under whatever name it might call itself, and further to declare any district to be in a disturbed state, which was then to be regarded as a proclaimed district; its inhabitants were to be confined to their houses from an hour after sunset till sunrise, the right of meeting and petitioning was withdrawn from them without leave of the Lord Lieutenant, and they were placed under martial law. The Bill further gave power to enter houses in search of arms, forbade the distribution of seditious papers, and suspended the Habeas Corpus in the proclaimed districts. The Bill passed without difficulty in the House of Lords, where it was in harmony with the general feeling. In the Lower House it was introduced on the 27th of February by Lord Althorp, who, while corroborating the accounts of the outrages in Ireland, could not help showing his dissatisfaction at the extreme severity of the Bill. Not so Mr. Stanley, who, with the fiery vehemence which characterized him, turned upon O'Connell, and overwhelmed him with a flood of bitter invective, carrying the House completely with him, and securing the passage of the Bill, which was also most ably supported by Sir Robert Peel and his friends. Its effect was immediate and most satisfactory. Within a week of its passage the Marquis of Anglesey, who had returned to his office on Grey's accession to the ministry, had suppressed the Association of Irish Volunteers, the town and county of Kilkenny were then proclaimed, but so effective was the mere dread of the measure, that it was never found necessary to hold a single court-martial in the district, and within two months there was a decrease of two-thirds in the general list of crimes. A rapid rise in the funds showed that the moneyed public at least were pleased with the vigorous measure.

Mr. Stanley's share in the Bill, the severity of his views with regard to Ireland, and the personal bitterness between himself and O'Connell, rendered his further tenure of the office of Secretary undesirable. He was moved to the Colonial Office, from which Lord Goderich, now become Earl of Ripon, withdrew to accept the Privy Seal, while Lord Durham, who had hitherto held that office, retired from the ministry (March 12). Mr. Stanley was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse, who however only held the office for two months, and was in turn succeeded by Mr. Littleton (May). The withdrawal of Lord Durham, although attributed and partly due to ill-health, was probably caused principally by the growing divisions in the Cabinet. The Conservative tendencies of the Prime Minister and the severity of the Irish Act were not in accordance with Lord Durham's advanced liberalism. The shortness of Hobhouse's tenure of office may be traced to somewhat similar causes, or at least to the decrease of the popularity of Government. In company with several others he had at the late elections pledged himself to vote for the repeal of the house and window tax. In April the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Althorp, brought in his budget. By careful economy, the abolition of sinecures, and the reduction of the public expenses, he was able to show a surplus of about a million and a half after replacing the deficit of the former year. This surplus he intended to employ in reducing some taxes which he regarded as particularly heavy, such as those on soap, on marine insurances, and some of the assessed taxes. But he impartially refused to listen either to the outcry of the towns for the abolition of the house and window tax, or to the clamours of the agriculturists against the malt tax; he regarded them both as necessary sources of revenue. The carelessness of Government subjected it to a temporary defeat on a subsequent motion for the reduction of the malt tax to one half. Though the defeat caused great irritation to the ministers it was speedily retrieved. A motion against the house and window tax was also brought in, and Lord Althorp, in opposing it, argued that the removal of either tax alone would be an unfair advantage to one or other of the rival interests, and that the removal of both was impossible; he introduced an amendment to the effect that the reduction of the malt tax and the repeal of the house tax would necessitate a general property and income tax, and a change in our financial system. As this amendment was carried, both the taxes were retained; but the ministers could not but feel that they owed their success to the support of their enemies, and the popular indignation was great. Hobhouse, unable to vote against Government, and thus to redeem his pledge, felt it incumbent on him to resign both his place and seat. On appealing again to his constituents at Westminster he was rejected for Colonel de Lacy Evans, a more advanced Liberal. The same thing happened in the cases of Dr. Lushington and Mr. William Brown in the Tower Hamlets and Southwark. A great indignation meeting, attended with some violence, was held near Coldbath Fields, and several great towns passed resolutions to the effect, that the ministers, by violating the constitution of Ireland, refusing to inquire into the public distress, continuing the house and window tax, and by forcing the whole malt tax, already once repealed, upon the nation, had betrayed the confidence of the people.

Thus in all directions the power of the Government was decreasing; they were divided among themselves, and gradually losing the popularity of the country. Yet they were still able to carry out successfully some of the duties they had set themselves to perform; before the close of the session they had renewed the Bank charter, settled the affairs of the East India Company, and completed the emancipation of the slaves.

The last renewal of the Bank charter had been in 1800; since then events of the greatest importance with regard to currency and credit had taken place,—the resumption of cash payments at the close of the war, and the great commercial crisis of 1825 and 1826. It was felt that the system of the Bank required close examination, and in May 1832 a very influential committee had been appointed to examine it preparatory to the renewal of the charter, which came to an end in August 1833. Upon the information gained by this committee the ministerial propositions were based. On the whole it appeared clear that a single bank of issue was better than several competing banks. The Bank was therefore to retain its monopoly. The principle of the Directors, that a third of the value of their obligations should be kept in hand in specie, was considered sound; but that the public might in future have control of the issue of notes, the Bank was required to publish a weekly account of its notes and deposits, and a quarterly average showing its general condition. No other bank of more than six partners, within sixty-five miles of London, was to be allowed to issue paper, while notes of the Bank of England and its branches were made legal tender, except at the bank from which they were issued. It was hoped by this means that country banks, being able to meet their demands with bank notes, would be saved from the necessity of making large and rapid demands upon the Bank of England, and thus dangerously lessening the supply of gold. The whole sum due from the Government to the Bank, and from which that institution derived its great credit, was fourteen millions. This was regarded as too much; it was to be reduced to eleven millions, twenty-five per cent., being at once repaid to the Bank, while to balance its advantages the Bank was to receive £120,000 a year less than hitherto for the management of the National Debt. On these terms the charter was to be renewed for twenty-one years, but with an option allowed to Government for breaking it off on a year's notice after eleven years. The two points which met with the greatest opposition were the terms which the Government had made with the Bank and the compulsory currency given to bank notes. On the first of these points it seemed almost unanimously felt that the Bank had made too good a bargain; on the second it was hastily urged by many that it was a partial resumption of the inconvertible currency. It was shown without much difficulty that this was not the case, as the Bank of England was bound ultimately to meet its liabilities in gold; but even Sir Robert Peel objected to the measure, avowing his fear that it would cause a depreciation of the paper. Experience has proved that this fear was groundless, and although the arrangements with the Bank had subsequently to be somewhat modified, the Bill passed, and was a distinct advantage.

But, if it had been thought well to continue the monopoly of the great banking corporation in England, the whole force of the commercial feeling of the time set directly against the perpetuation of the monopoly of the East India Company. The necessity for corporate trading had disappeared. The restrictions it laid upon free trade had become only so many obstacles in the way of extended commerce. Already, in 1813, this had been so clearly felt that the merchants of the great trading centres, Liverpool, Glasgow, Paisley, and Manchester, had succeeded in procuring the admission of traders to the territories of the Company, and to India generally, but the corporation still retained the trade with China. The accounts of the Company after this renewal of its charter rendered it plain that it could not compete with private merchants. It seemed clear that in China, as in India, the destruction of the monopoly would extend commerce. It was therefore determined to destroy the Company as a commercial body, allowing it to keep its territorial position. After April 1834 its commercial property was to be sold. It was, however, to retain the government of India, and to receive for forty years an annuity from the Indian revenue of £630,000, at the close of which period Parliament might redeem it by the payment of £12,000,000. It was further arranged that all restrictions in the way of the settlement of Europeans in the East should be removed, that natives and Europeans should have equal opportunities of employment and office, and should be under one law. The Bill was vehemently opposed by Lord Ellenborough, but was carried by large majorities, and proved to be the means of opening, in accordance with the principles of free trade, an enormous market for English commerce, so that in ten years the Chinese trade had doubled, and British exports to India and Ceylon had increased from two to six millions.

But the most important measure of the session was the Bill which was passed on the 30th of August for the emancipation of the slaves. The abolitionists had been successful in 1807 in putting an end to the traffic in slaves, but though raised in value and lessened in number, by means of smuggling and of the natural increase of the race the supply of human cattle had been kept up and slavery had continued. The Resolutions of 1823 had aimed at the gradual extinction of slavery, at alleviating its worst horrors, and raising the slaves to a fitting condition to receive freedom; but they had practically been inoperative: not Condition of trade in the West India Islands. only had they been continually thwarted by the planters, but the discovery that they had rights, and that those rights were acknowledged, caused a very natural uneasiness among the slaves, and had added greatly to the difficulties under which the planters laboured. Their position was constantly becoming worse. Injudicious protection had been afforded to sugar, their chief production. Enormous duties had been laid on it, with a preference always to the West Indian and slave-grown article. During the war the monopoly of production had fallen chiefly into their hands. They had been able to make enormous profits. As a consequence, just as in the case of corn in England, the cultivation of the sugar-cane had been carried on in the most reckless fashion. Plantations were temporarily occupied only to be exhausted or sold at a heavy loss, and fresh land taken in. In the midst of this false prosperity, a wasteful expenditure and a total want of economy, the natural consequences of easily-gotten wealth, had become prevalent; the planters as a body had become deeply involved. The cessation of the war had admitted other competitors to the market. The commercial crisis in England had seriously affected the planters' credit, and just as the greatest efforts would have been necessary to restore them at all to their old state of prosperity, their supply of slaves was diminished, it became more difficult to work their exhausted land, and the Resolutions of 1823, and subsequent orders in Council, made the employment of slave labour, which economists had long known to be really an extravagant form of labour, more and more difficult. These evils were naturally attributed to the abolitionists in England and to the Government which had even partially listened to them. As long as the unreformed Parliament existed, the West Indian interest was very strong in the House, and the planters, who believed that with some help from England, and with the management of the slaves left in their own hands, they might yet retrieve their position, were not without hopes. The accession of the Grey ministry was a heavy blow to them, for a large section of the supporters of the Government were almost as anxious for the abolition of slavery as for the passage of the Reform Bill, and it was impossible that a ministry of which Lord Brougham was the Chancellor, who had owed his last election chiefly to the abolitionists' votes, should postpone the settlement of the question long.

The conduct of the planters forced on the crisis. A new series of orders in Council was issued in 1831 for the better and more merciful management of the slaves, for the limitation of the hours of labour, and for the establishment of official slave-overseers. All the colonies except the Crown colonies, where but little difficulty was met with, resented highly this interference with what they considered their rights and property. The language of their assemblies became disrespectful and almost rebellious. In Trinidad it was determined to stop the payment of taxes till the order was repealed, while on the other side the slaves in Jamaica burst into open rebellion, producing a loss estimated at £1,000,000. In April 1831, a great meeting in London declared that Government was liable for these losses, and claims were sent in to the Colonial Secretary for damages caused by the measures pursued by his Majesty's ministers. It was a sort of declaration of war, which was brought to a point when, on the 17th of April, Lord Harewood presented a petition from the West India interest begging for a full inquiry into the laws, usages, and condition of the West Indian colonies, and the possible future improvements, with due regard always to the rights of private property. This was in the very heat of the discussions on the Reform Bill. Bent upon his great measure, Lord Grey could not afford to risk anything at the moment. He therefore not only at once granted the committee, but allowed a sum of £100,000, which had been voted for the relief of the colonies, to be raised to £1,000,000 on account of a late destructive hurricane. On the 24th of May Sir Fowell Buxton, the leader of the abolitionists, brought the matter before the Lower House, while the Chancellor presented a gigantic petition, followed by many others, in favour of emancipation; for the great crisis was now over, Wellington's efforts to form a Government had proved futile, and the hope of the abolitionists were consequently high. But, somewhat strangely, Lord Althorp could not be induced in the Lower House to give up Canning's idea of gradual emancipation, and moved and carried amendments upon Buxton's motion in favour of the continuance of the policy of 1823. It must be remembered that the House of Commons was still unreformed, and that the great Bill was not yet carried.

With the change in the character of the House all prudential reasons for opposition on the part of the ministry disappeared, and The Emancipation Bill passed. Aug. 30, 1833. the pressure brought to bear upon them had become much stronger. They therefore now undertook the question, and the appointment of Mr. Stanley to the Colonial Office insured the success of the measure. It was not wholly satisfactory to the abolitionists. It still bore traces of the lingering wish for gradual emancipation. All children of slaves born after the passing of the Act, and all children of six years of age and under, were declared free, but the rest of the slaves were to serve a sort of apprenticeship; three-fourths of their time was for a certain number of years to remain at the disposal of the masters, the other fourth was their own, to be paid for at a fixed rate of wages. The complete failure of the Resolutions of 1823 should have taught the Government the impossibility of this scheme. The period of apprenticeship was shortened from twelve to seven years, and subsequently, after a four years' trial, the plan was given up. The second part of the Government scheme was the remuneration of the planters by a loan of £15,000,000; but as Parliament regarded this as much too small a boon, it was subsequently changed for the enormous gift of £20,000,000. The vastness of the sum was held by many as totally disproportionate to the loss of the planters; by others it was thought that, as slavery was in itself contrary to all right, the planters deserved no compensation for the loss of what they should never have possessed. On the whole, however, it was thought better that so great an act of justice should be generously completed, and the great sacrifice was willingly made. Wilberforce, the father of the movement, lived just long enough to bless God that the object of his life had been reached; he heard the success of the second reading of the Bill, and died a few days afterwards, on the 29th of July.

Of the great questions of the day there still remained the all-important one, the condition of the labouring classes, but it was to another Prime Minister and to a modified Cabinet that the honour of the introduction of the new Poor Law was to belong. In spite of their large majorities, no single measure of the Government had been passed without important modifications, no scheme had been introduced that did not bear upon it the marks of compromise, and afford a distinct proof of the inherent weakness of a Cabinet divided against itself. The speech from the throne in the opening of the year 1834 did not give any hope of a firmer and more united Government. The Duke of Wellington was not wrong in complaining that there was no definite promise of a single Government Bill, that the foreign policy of the Cabinet had not produced European peace, that in spite of its majorities the Church policy of the Government had failed, and that it had carefully avoided, even while vaunting the success which had attended it, to state whether it intended the Coercion Bill to be renewed in Ireland or not. Nor was it doubted that he was uttering the opinions of some at least of the Cabinet itself when he warned the Lords against the tendency visible in several of the late proceedings of the Government towards tampering with property and the introduction of the beginnings of the policy of confiscation.

In the Lower House both the strength and weakness of the Government were shortly to be displayed. O'Connell, who had talked so long about the repeal of the Union, and had thus kept up the agitation which was so lucrative to himself, was compelled at length to make good his promises and to introduce a substantive motion for repeal. A lengthened debate followed, but terminated in a most complete victory for the Government; the division showing a majority of 485 in favour of an amendment exactly contradicting O'Connell's motion. The central position occupied by the Government enabled it, when it occasionally joined heartily with one side or the other, still to command the House of Commons, but when questions arose of a more doubtful sort its weakness became visible. Measures for the relief of Ireland had been promised, and Mr. Ward, a private member, determined to bring these promises to a test, by introducing a motion (May 27) with regard to the difficult question of the Irish Church, which the ministers would gladly have left quiet. Mr. Ward's resolution stated that the Protestant Episcopal Establishment of Ireland Ministerial difficulty on Mr. Ward's motion on the Irish Church. much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population, that it was the right of the State and of Parliament to distribute Church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish Church ought to be reduced. This motion put the Government into the greatest perplexity; to uphold the direct negative was to resign its pretensions to be the party of progress; to accept it was to shock some of its most important members. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course, and appoint a commission of inquiry. They hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in Government hands, but they seemed at the same time to pledge themselves to act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. Armed with this compromise, Lord Althorp went to the House to meet Mr. Ward's motion. But the seconder, Mr. Grote, had advanced but a short way in the speech when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and said, that since the beginning of the debate information had been brought to him which induced him to beg for a postponement. His personal influence was so great that the House at once granted his request. The news he had received was the resignation of Mr. Stanley, the Colonial minister, and of Sir James Graham, First Lord Resignation of the most conservative ministers. of the Admiralty, who regarded any interference with Church property with great abhorrence. They were followed by the Duke of Richmond, Postmaster-General, and by Lord Ripon, Privy Seal. The more conservative members of the Cabinet had thus openly retired from it. It might have been expected that Lord Durham, who had previously left it upon opposite grounds, would have now returned to office, and the Government have assumed a more distinctly radical character. He was, however, personally obnoxious to such members of the party of Canning as still remained in office, and his influence was dreaded by Lord Grey, who, though he continued as yet to hold the Premiership in accordance with the generally expressed desire of the Liberal party, sympathized at heart more with the Tories than with the Radicals. He expressed his feelings in his answer to an address which Lord Ebrington got up intreating him to retain his place. "In pursuing," he said, "a course of salutary improvement I feel it indispensable that we shall be allowed to proceed with deliberation and caution; and, above all, that we should not be urged by a constant and active pressure from without to the adoption of any measures the necessity of which has not been fully proved, and which are not strictly regulated by a careful attention to the settled institutions of the country both in Church and State. On no other principle can this or any other administration be conducted with advantage or safety." No difficulty was found in filling the vacant places; Mr. Spring Rice, who had distinguished himself in the debate on the Union, became Secretary for the Colonies, and Lord Auckland succeeded Sir James Graham.

Under Lord Grey's leadership the Government was enabled to continue its course, because it was recognized at the time as the only possible Government; the Conservative feeling in England was far too strong to allow the success of a Radical Government with Durham at its head. On the other hand, on the great questions of the day it was impossible to go back. Sir Robert Peel clearly understood this position of affairs. He saw that a Tory Government would have no hope of permanence if it rested only on the support of the extreme members of the party. If the party was ever to be reconstituted it must loyally accept the changes which had been made, admit within its limits the more conservative-minded of the reformers, and take its stand on the great Conservative instincts of the nation—the love of the State Church, and the dread of any attack upon property. For the formation of a Liberal Conservative Government the time had not yet arrived, and the present Government of compromise was therefore allowed to continue. But the difficulties of the Premier, from the divergence of his opinions from those of his colleagues, soon became overwhelming. It was necessary to determine whether the Coercion Bill should be renewed or not. But it was possible to renew it in a softened form, and to omit the most objectionable parts—the suppression of the right of petition and the establishment of military courts. Such a course seemed advisable to Mr. Littleton, the Chief Secretary, and recommended itself also to the more liberal members of the Government, Lord Brougham and Lord Althorp. The mischievous activity of Lord Brougham led him to suggest to the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Wellesley, who had succeeded Anglesey, the advisability of officially informing the Government that he could do without these stringent clauses. Wellesley had already expressed himself privately to the contrary effect, but was overpersuaded, and followed the advice of Littleton and Brougham in his official despatches. These contradictory opinions from the chief of the Government were naturally very embarrassing to Lord Grey. To make matters worse, Littleton had attempted a personal reconciliation with O'Connell. Lord Althorp had known and approved of this step, but had warned Littleton against making any pledges. The Secretary unluckily allowed himself to be drawn into an admission that neither himself nor the Lord Lieutenant nor Lord Althorp approved of the renewal of the obnoxious clauses. To complete his blunder, he did not inform Lord Althorp what he had done, and trusted to a promise of secresy on the part of O'Connell, the most untrustworthy of men. So strong was Lord Althorp's opinion on the subject, backed as he believed it to be by that of Wellesley and of Littleton, that after being outvoted in the Cabinet, he in fact tendered his resignation, but was overruled by Lord Grey.

On the 1st of July the Premier introduced the Bill in its full form, asserting, as from Wellesley's private letters to him he had a right to assert, that it was considered necessary by the Irish Government. On this, O'Connell, forgetful of his promise, disclosed in the Resignation of Grey's ministry. July 1834. Lower House his conversation with Littleton, which was in fact a direct contradiction of Lord Grey's assertion, at the same time implicating Lord Althorp in the deception played upon him. The Government seemed convicted not only of internal division, but of duplicity. Lord Grey reiterated his assertion in the Upper House with regard to the feelings of the Irish Government as expressed to him, while Lord Althorp admitted that he disliked the clause, and that Mr. Littleton was justified in telling O'Connell that the question was unsettled at the time of their conversation. The divergence of opinion in the Cabinet was thus fully brought out, and Lord Althorp was made to appear as guilty at once of having held out false hopes to O'Connell, and of having waived his own opinions for the sake of retaining office. Nothing could have been more alien to his nature than this charge, especially as, far from having really pledged himself to O'Connell, he had particularly warned Littleton against committing himself. But there seemed no way of escape without rendering still more glaring the weakness of the administration. On this ground, Littleton's offer to resign, which he felt in honour bound to make, was rejected; but, when in their eagerness to embarrass Government the Opposition moved for the production of the private letters of the Cabinet, Lord Althorp, in disgust at his equivocal position and at the attempted introduction into Parliament of matters which he held to be wholly beyond its jurisdiction, determined to resign. Lord Grey, by no means wedded to office, and feeling that Althorp's personal influence was the main security of the Government, at once declared the administration at an end. The King had already shown, when giving an answer to an address from the Bishops, a strong feeling against any attack upon the property of the Church. This known division between the sovereign and his advisers, and the evident weakness of the Cabinet itself, rendered the resignation of the ministry less surprising than it otherwise would have been.

Seeing the impossibility of forming a distinctly Tory ministry, the King was persuaded by Lord Brougham to send for Lord Melbourne, whom he instructed to give effect as far as possible to his previously expressed wishes, and to form a combined ministry, admitting to office some Tories and some of those who had left office on Conservative grounds. The attempt was fruitless. Peel did not yet see his desired opportunity, and foreseeing the gradual reaction which must arise from the unsatisfactory character of the Whig administration, determined to await his time. The King was therefore compelled to consent to the reconstruction under Melbourne of the old ministry. There was very little change in the construction of the Cabinet. Lord Melbourne's own place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon (Ponsonby), Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat in the Cabinet as First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave.

The change, such as it was, did not add to the strength of the ministry. The introduction of the Coercion Bill on the 18th of July, without the stringent clauses, seemed a confession that some of the ministers at all events were acting contrary to conviction, or that they had weakly yielded to Irish clamour. The Bill was however passed with a strong protest in the Lords. An attempt on the 29th of July again to settle the tithe question displayed still further the inefficiency of the ministry; they allowed themselves to be beaten in the Lower House upon an amendment of O'Connell, who, instead of the proposed land tax, suggested the immediate payment of the tithes, diminished forty per cent., by the landlord. In spite of their defeat, which so completely changed their Bill that out of 172 clauses 111 had to be removed, Church policy of Melbourne's ministry. they proceeded with it, but suffered a heavy defeat on the second reading in the Lords. Their Church policy was indeed throughout entirely ineffective. The feeling that the Church was in danger had begun to take hold not only of the Lords, who systematically resisted innovation, but of the people in England. The efforts of the Dissenters, excited to demand religious equality by the success of Irish agitation, were fruitless. Their petitions were indeed of a character to cause some fear. They begged for the separation of Church and State, for the exclusion of Bishops from Parliament, for the admission of Dissenters to all the privileges of the universities. On this last point a Bill was introduced. Largely signed petitions were sent in against it by the universities. All the leaders of the Conservative, or partially Conservative party, combined to oppose it, and though it passed the Lower House it was rejected in the Lords (Aug. 1). In the same way the efforts of Government to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates, and from the restrictions laid upon the right of dissenting ministers to celebrate marriage, being all conceived from a Church point of view, and assuming the form of concessions rather than the granting of rights, were distasteful to the Dissenters themselves, and came to nothing. The plan for the commutation of the English tithes met with the same fate. It was indeed a period of general ecclesiastical excitement; the introduction of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill had closely touched the feelings of English Churchmen; the nature of the Church as distinct from an institution founded by and connected with the State began to be examined. A party in Oxford undertook to enlighten the nation upon the character of the Church in a series of tracts, which gained for the authors the title of Tractarians. In these they urged with great force all the tenets of what is now known as the High Church party—the doctrine of apolostic succession, the sole efficiency of the sacraments, the sacred nature of the priesthood, and the insufficiency of the Bible as apart from the explanations of Church tradition. Their principles rapidly spread. At the same time the Evangelical party lost several of its chief leaders and began to decline. And though three parties could still be traced, public opinion began to divide itself chiefly between the two great views of those who regarded the Church as an institution independent in itself, and beyond the reach of secular interference, and those Liberals who, attached as they might be to the Church as a political institution, regarded it as lying within the sphere of politics.

But if their liberal Church policy was doomed to failure, the ministry was able to do one great work by the reform of the Poor Law. The chief effects of the old Poor Law have been already mentioned. Its lax administration, the power of relief in the houses of the paupers, the system of allowances in aid of wages, and the distribution of relief in proportion to the number of children, had pauperized the agricultural poor, had withdrawn the chief restraints on early and imprudent marriages, had fostered immorality, and increased the amount of the poor rate till it seemed as though England would sink beneath the burden. It had become necessary to adopt some sounder principles, even although they had the appearance of harshness. Nor was the Government without experience by which to guide its action. Already in about a hundred parishes an improved administration had been tried, and in every instance it had succeeded; while, on the other hand, in certain parishes where the old system remained in vigour cultivation had been actually abandoned, and the neighbouring parishes having to support their poor, there was every risk of the plague spreading throughout England. The chief error in the old system was the complete confusion which existed between poverty and pauperism, between the industrious poor man and the self-pauperized idler. It was this point on which a commission issued in 1832 chiefly insisted. The Bill based on their report was in fact little more than a recurrence to the true principles enunciated in the first general Poor Law of the reign of Elizabeth. To separate these two classes it was necessary that outdoor relief should be discontinued and the allowance system put an end to. Those only who were really in want were to receive relief, but upon conditions which should render it certain that the want was real. In the workhouse every able-bodied man must work; it was not fair that the industrious should be called upon to support an increasing race of paupers raised in the workhouse, husbands and wives must therefore be separated; for the sake of training and education, children must be kept from the possible contamination of the adult paupers; and as the maintenance of industry was one of the chief objects of the reform, free circulation of labour and the removal of most of the restrictions of the old law of settlement were indispensable. The system no doubt had a very harsh appearance, but its principles could scarcely be questioned. But these principles were in fact nothing new; all the evils to be rectified had arisen from the bad way in which such principles had been carried out. The machinery then by which relief was to be administered was of almost more importance than the principles on which it was to be granted. For economy, parishes were formed into unions, with one workhouse instead of several. The method of collecting the rates was left unchanged, the distribution was still left to guardians and select vestries; but this local management was placed under a central board, consisting of three commissioners, with assistants, at first twenty-one, diminished subsequently to nine. There was one other point which bore an appearance of extreme harshness, was much objected to at the time, and was subsequently changed; this was an attempt to check immorality by throwing the charge of the maintenance of illegitimate children upon the mother. This appeared completely to shield the guilty father, and to punish only the weak and misguided mother, but in fact, as many wise people saw at the time, it roused a feeling of self-dependence and respect among women, and produced the very best effects; the decrease of illegitimate births was extraordinary. The decrease in England was nearly 10,000, or thirteen per cent. in two years. In one point only did it appear that party interests could interfere with the passage of the Bill. It almost necessarily implied the subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws. Freedom of labour, the abolition of the Act of Settlement, rendered such a change indispensable; but this the ministry, very anxious to avoid the appearance of touching laws which were very dear to the hearts of the agricultural interest, still refused to believe, and denied in the most absolute terms. Nevertheless, between the second reading on the 9th of May and the third reading of the Bill on the 1st of July, a very powerful opposition had been aroused. It was spoken of as a Bill cruel against the poor. From a radical point of view the centralization of the system was decried. The commissioners were spoken of as three-tailed Bashaws. It was however carried by 157 to 50 votes. This was on the 2nd of July, when Lord Grey was still in office. Under the new ministry the management of the Bill in the Upper House passed into the hands of Lord Brougham; he supported it in one of his ablest speeches, and it was carried on the second reading by a very considerable majority, and became law on the 14th of August. Although some subsequent amendments were necessary, it has on the whole proved highly successful. The poor rate, which at the end of the American War, when the population of England was about 8,000,000, amounted to £2,132,487, which during the subsequent forty years of mismanagement had risen till in 1833, when the population was 14,000,000, it had reached £8,606,501, was in the course of three years reduced by upwards of £3,000,000.

But though its character was so free from taint of party, though its action was on the whole so beneficial, the new Poor Law was used, and used with effect, to excite the deep-felt discontent which was prevalent in the lower classes, and which continued to increase and to acquire form and organization during the next four years, till it assumed the definite form of Chartism, and produced the very dangerous outbreak in the year 1839. It was scarcely possible but that such discontent should exist; the hopes of the poor man, raised to an exaggerated height by the excitement of the Reform Bill, had been cruelly disappointed. While no doubt some good and useful measures of reform had been carried, it was impossible to deny that the reform ministry had on the whole proved itself unwilling and unable to handle the great social questions of the time, that disputes in Parliament had fallen back into their old grooves, and had assumed the form of party contests rather than of efforts for the improvement of the great mass of the people. Hitherto trade had been fairly prosperous, but in 1835 symptoms were evident that this prosperity was disappearing; and when want was added to the justly-felt disappointment of the workmen, when agitators were exciting them with dismal stories of the cruelty of the Poor Law, of the tyranny of the manufacturing masters, and when every good and popular measure seemed to be first stripped of half its value by the ministry which introduced it, and then totally rejected by an obstructive House of Lords, it is not to be wondered at that the unrepresented masses believed that they had been used merely as an instrument, and that if increased representation was so good for their betters, it would prove the cure for them also, and began to clamour for a wide extension of the franchise, and more efficient security that the particular wants of their class should receive attention.

Many signs of the growing discontent were visible. The most formidable in the course of the year 1834 was the great extension and changed character of the trades unions. For some time trade societies had existed, and from time to time individual trades had combined to strike for advance of wages or other trade purposes, but in this year a combination of many trades began to make itself seen, which by mutual support should enable those on strike to hold out against their masters, and though the system broke down through the natural inefficiency of an uneducated body for such a combination, the danger became great when it was extended to the agricultural poor. To repress this symptom, so threatening to the landowners and farmers, six labourers were indicted at Dorchester under an obsolete statute against the administering of oaths. Amidst much popular sympathy, they were sentenced to seven years' transportation. The whole body of unionists, in their indignation, summoned a general meeting in Copenhagen Fields on the 21st of April. Besides a general intention to overawe the ministry, there seems to have been among a knot of their leaders a distinct plan of somehow or other securing the Government by violent means. It was intended that the deputation of the trades should lay hands upon Lord Melbourne, who was then minister for home affairs, and proceed to further acts of violence. Warned in time, Melbourne kept himself out of sight, and sent his under secretary to receive the deputation, while silently troops were held in readiness, the public offices defended with artillery, and 5000 householders sworn in as special constables. The under secretary declared that a petition accompanied by 60,000 men could not be received, and seeing the preparations made for their reception, the crowd withdrew in quiet, and the day passed over safely, but the incident shows both the power and temper of the unionists. Even more formidable was the general feeling against the House of Lords which exhibited itself at the close of the next year. By that time the House had shown itself still more obstinate, and facts had been brought to light which rendered it particularly odious to the people.

In the autumn of 1834 the possession of office by the Whigs was regarded as secure, and while O'Connell returned to continue the agitation in Ireland, the ministers withdrew as usual to refresh themselves after the labours of the session. Among others, Lord Brougham travelled in Scotland, everywhere bringing both himself and the ministry into ridicule by his inconsistent and egotistical speeches. On the 15th of September the late Prime Minister attended a banquet held in his honour at Edinburgh, where he met Lord Durham, his son-in-law, Lord Brougham, and several of the other ministers. In returning thanks for the health of the ministry, the Chancellor appeared to rebuke the reformers for their impatience and for endangering all progress by their haste. These words by no means suited the views of Lord Durham, one of the chief authors of the Reform Bill, and a man of very popular tendencies. He replied that he entirely disagreed with his noble and learned friend, and frankly confessed that he was one of those persons who saw with regret every hour that passed over the existence of recognized and unreformed abuses. Brougham took this rebuke in the highest dudgeon, and in a very few days, at Salisbury, he replied severely upon Lord Durham, and uttered a sort of challenge to him to meet him in the House of Lords, and shortly after in the Edinburgh Review charged him with revealing the secrets of the Cabinet. Lord Durham's words at Edinburgh were eagerly accepted as proofs of a more frank acceptance of the principles of reform than they had hitherto met with from Government, and all minds were eagerly set upon the approaching duel in the House. But the King, who, as has been already mentioned, much disliked the Church policy of the Whigs, dreaded what must have given rise to a new Dismissal of the Melbourne ministry. Nov. 1834. assertion of the duty of rapid reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting in the House, and circumstances favoured him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorp, his son, was thus removed to the Upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the King seized his opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry rested chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorp in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the Government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington.

Ever since the passing of the Reform Bill the conduct of Sir Robert Peel had been extremely judicious. In his hands the Tory party had been entirely remodelled; there were indeed remnants of it unchanged, especially in the House of Lords, but gradually most of the party had separated themselves from this remnant, and had taken the name of Conservatives, declaring themselves as willing as the Whigs to foster reforms, although only in a Conservative manner. It was in vain that the old Tories had sought to keep the Duke of Wellington with them; he had wisdom enough to see that the hope of the party lay with Peel, and to keep up the closest connection with him. His first step therefore, when summoned by the King, was to send to Peel, who, believing that the time for a Conservative ministry had not yet arrived, had gone abroad, and was now in Rome. While waiting for his arrival, the Duke took upon himself the discharge of no less than five offices, conduct which, though in fact perfectly wise and reasonable, was foolishly complained of at the time as unconstitutional. Peel, although he was as yet by no means anxious for office, could not but obey the summons, and hurried home with extreme rapidity. He had hoped to obtain the support of Sir James Graham and Mr. Stanley, the late deserters from the Whig ministry, and it was a grave disappointment when they refused to act with him. Thus prevented from forming the moderate Conservative ministry he intended, Peel was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. He himself became Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury. The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial Offices were filled respectively by Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen. Lord Lyndhurst became Lord Chancellor, Hardinge Irish Secretary, and Lord Wharncliffe Privy Seal.

With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons, for the approach of the Conservatives to power had combined Whigs and Radicals in opposition. The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity of declaring his policy in what is known as the Tamworth Manifesto. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question, and promised to carry out its intentions as far as they consisted in a wise and careful improvement of old institutions. As to the other questions then at issue he would support the inquiry into the state of corporations which the late ministry had set on foot, and wished, as his predecessors had done, to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates and from all restrictions on their marriages; but upon the Irish Church, and upon admission of Dissenters to the universities, his mind was unchanged. He continued to object to the appropriation of Church revenues to secular purposes and to granting degrees to Dissenters. As to whether any reform was required in the organization of the English Church, his mind, he said, was not yet made up. The tone of this Manifesto was very different from that of the old Tory party, and shows that the Reform Bill had really done its work, that the country had entered upon a new era, when the lines between parties would be less coarsely drawn, when obstinate obstruction to all reform would be impossible, and the points at issue confined chiefly to the time, manner, and degree, in which reforms should be carried out. But it is impossible in a country where party government has once taken root that unprejudiced discussion of measures should become prevalent. The general principles of the men by whom the measures are suggested are, and must be, invariably taken into consideration, and the one party will not fail to feel mistrust of the other even though the plans suggested are as good, or better, than their own, and the contest between the rival parties for the Government of the country will not cease. Thus, in spite of Peel's moderation, the whole body of the Liberals were determined to oppose the new Government to the utmost, and not to trust the administration in the hands of one who had always represented the Tories, and who New Parliament. Feb. 19, 1835. still received the support even of the extreme members of that party. The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favourable to the existing Government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.

From the very first Peel held office upon suffrance; the only question was how to bring matters to a point, as the minister refused to accept as his dismissal anything but a direct vote of want of confidence. Meanwhile his temper and judgment daily increased the admiration which the public began to feel for him. He took up several of the late ministers' measures, and carried them through where they themselves had failed. A more complete liberty granted to the Dissenters with regard to their marriages won their approbation; and though he could not complete this measure, he was able on going out of office to leave it in the hands of Lord John Russell, by whom it was settled upon the principle that the State was only interested in the civil contract, while churches and sects were at liberty to add what religious ceremonies they liked. He introduced a measure for the voluntary commutation of tithes, which seemed to be successful, re-appointed all the committees of the preceding session for examining abuses, and continued with good effect the ecclesiastical commission for the organization of the arrangements of the Church. The common charge against him was that he was purloining the measures of his adversaries. However, although he had to stand constantly on the defensive, there appeared no sufficient grounds for a vote of want of confidence. At last, on the 30th of March, Lord John Russell brought the matter to a crisis by proposing as a sort of test question that the House should resolve itself into committee to consider the state of the Irish Church, with the intention of applying any surplus revenues which might be found to general education, without distinction of religion. In other words, he reintroduced the old appropriation clause. It is to be borne in mind that the Whigs themselves had abandoned that clause, that they had voted against it in the case of Mr. Ward's measure, and that they afterwards entirely rejected it. But for the time it served the party purpose. Although Peel declared, and declared rightly, that the feeling of England was against it, the votes of the Scotch and Irish members carried the day, and the ministry was beaten on the 3rd of April by a majority of thirty-three. On the 8th Sir Robert Peel announced his resignation.

The Whigs were thus again triumphant. The history of their weakness and their difficulties belong to a period of history which lies beyond the limits of this work. But one measure which they brought to a satisfactory conclusion requires mention as completing in one very important point the work of the Reform Bill. This was the reform of corporations. With this exception it would be impossible to describe the course of their measures without following them so far that they become a part rather of present politics than of past history. But this reform to which they at once pledged themselves was scarcely less important for the purification of local government than the Reform Bill itself had been with regard to the central Legislature.

On the extension of the franchise on the passing of the Reform Bill, attention had been drawn to the fact that in a great number of corporate towns many of the electors who had the right to join in Condition of municipal corporations. choosing members for Parliament had no voice at all in the management of their own local affairs. It was clearly for the interest of the reform party to remove this abuse, and to secure still stronger support from the middle class of citizens among whom their strength already lay. In 1833 a commission of ten members had been issued to inquire into the condition of the corporations of England and Wales. Nominated during the first days of the popular triumph, and with a party object, it was natural that the commissioners should be drawn entirely from the ranks of the reformers. Their report was therefore open to the charge of onesidedness, but it brought a state of things to light which thoroughly justified the Government in introducing a great measure of reform. The constitution, originally popular, of the English boroughs had in lapse of time been completely altered. The rights of citizenship, originally belonging to all fully qualified freemen residing within the borough, had been gradually confined to a small class technically spoken of as the Freemen, many of whom were so decayed as not only to pay no rates, but in some cases to be themselves dependent on the poor rates. The government of the town and administration of the corporate property, and, before the Reform Bill, the election of parliamentary representatives, had in some instances fallen into the hands of an exclusive council, who had the right of filling up the vacancies in its own numbers. A variety of circumstances had contributed to these changes. Birth, marriage, apprenticeship, or membership of some guild, originally tests of residence, had after a time acted so as to exclude large numbers of residents from the ranks of the freemen. Wealth introduced a division of classes, and unchecked encroachment on the part of the wealthy had gone still further to exclude many from their rights. Political reasons had induced the Crown to seek the support of the boroughs in Parliament, and, especially in the time of the Tudors, new charters had been granted which placed the local government entirely in the hands of self-elected councils, much more easily handled for political purposes than widespread constituencies. The same process had been continued by the Stuarts. James II. even went further, and his attempt to nominate corporations of boroughs was not the least of the causes of the Revolution. Though the project failed, the close corporation system was continued both by Whigs and Tories, who found their political advantage in it. This perversion of municipal arrangements for political purposes had been attended with many practical abuses. In the first place, the corporations, which had in their hands the government of large and important towns, by no means represented the property, intelligence, or population of those towns. Thus in Ipswich, of 2000 ratepayers only 287 belonged to the corporation. At Cambridge, out of 20,000 inhabitants, only 118 were freemen, while of the property, which was valued at £25,000, only £2100 was the property of freemen. In Norwich, £25,500 was the value of the rated property, £18,200 of this belonged to those who were not freemen. Again, these self-elected governors constantly misappropriated the corporate funds, which, as the gross income of the corporations was £366,000, was a matter of considerable importance; the corporate offices were filled by favour, the charities employed for the purchase of votes, and large sums spent upon feasting and other useless shows, while the townsmen at large were rated for all local purposes. The distribution of these rates again was in the hands of the same people who exacted them, and no account of how they were employed could be obtained. To cure this general state of corruption was the intention of the new measure.

The measure included 178 boroughs. It began by marking out their boundaries, where possible in accordance with the boundaries of the electoral borough. The object of the Bill was not to centralize, but on the contrary to improve local administration; it was not therefore proposed to withdraw business from the hands of the corporation, with the exception of the administration of charities and church funds, which were respectively placed in the hands of trustees named by the Lord Chancellor and of the ecclesiastical commissioners. It was the nature of the corporation itself which was to be improved. In accordance with the principle of the Whig party, the new governing bodies were to be elected by constituencies of considerable breadth, but confined to the middle classes. A three years' residence and payment of the poor and borough rates was to be the qualification of an elector. By them the new governing body, called the town council, was chosen, which together with the constituency formed the corporation. To committees of the town council were intrusted the administration of the various branches of local government. To the whole body collectively was given the management of the borough funds, the proper expenditure of which was to be guaranteed by a publication of the accounts, properly audited by auditors not themselves town councillors. The Government reserved in its own hand the right of appointing justices of the peace and paid magistrates when required. Though the change was sweeping, and seemed somewhat to affect the rights of property, the abuses were so glaring that the Bill easily passed the Lower House. In the Lords several amendments were passed against the Government, especially one retaining their old privilege to existing freemen, but somewhat to the disappointment of the Tories, the Commons accepted the amendment, and the Bill was passed on the 7th of September.

So absorbing had been the interest of domestic questions that foreign affairs had been somewhat disregarded. Yet from time to time they had come before the public attention, and were in themselves of considerable importance. They had fallen chiefly into the hands of Lord Palmerston, a disciple of Canning's, and therefore by principle an upholder of peace and of the doctrine of non-intervention, but inspired also as his master had been with an admiration and love for the institutions of constitutional monarchy, which led him into a line of conduct which it is difficult to harmonize with his professed principles. The most striking characteristic of our foreign policy in his hands was the close apparent union with France in opposition to the three Eastern powers, which Palmerston still regarded as tainted with the old principle of the Holy Alliance, and of one of which, namely Russia, he was sensitively mistrustful on all points connected with the policy of the East of Europe. The sympathy between England and France was inevitable. In some sense the kings of the two countries were both citizen kings, the great change which had taken place in England was the counterpart of the Revolution of July. In both countries it was the middle class which had just obtained the predominance. In both countries there was the same character of government, and both expressed the same desire for peace. At the same time the questions which agitated Western Europe were all more or less connected with the establishment of that form of government which both countries admired.

The influence of the Revolution of July had, as has been mentioned, spread far and wide over Europe, but had made itself most prominently felt in Belgium, which had broken loose from its enforced connection with Holland, and in Poland, which rose in insurrection to free itself from the rule of Russia. With Poland England had little to do. In the existing state of circumstances, though the sympathy of all classes was strongly with the Poles, armed interference was not to be thought of, and it was impossible to prevent the total subjugation of that gallant nation, after a very brave but ineffectual attempt to withstand the might of Russia. The fall of Warsaw sealed its fate; it was incorporated, contrary to all the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, with the Russian empire.

But Belgium was nearer home. Its creation into a strong kingdom had been the pet scheme of English diplomatists; it was impossible to leave it to be overwhelmed by Holland, in conjunction with the Eastern powers, or to be absorbed by France. The difficult duty of the English minister was so to undo the work of his predecessors as if possible to prevent a war which would inevitably have arisen in either of the above cases, and so to preserve the independence of the Belgians that they might yet serve in some degree to fulfil the object of the negotiators of Vienna, as a check upon the power of France. To gain these ends he induced the five great powers to send representatives to a Congress in London. The first difficulty was to restrain the ambitious desires of France, where the propagandist and conquering spirit seemed for the moment to have been reawakened by the late revolution. The original plan of mediation was rejected by the King of the Netherlands, who, trusting to the assistance of Russia, invaded Belgium, and was only dislodged by the appearance of a French army. After a period of some anxiety, the firmness of Palmerston was successful in causing the withdrawal of the French troops, and the rejection of the crown by the King's son the Duc de Nemours. The immediate danger of war being thus averted, the London Conference drew up twenty-four articles (Nov 15, 1831), on which, though they were not thoroughly acceptable to either party, it was determined to insist. They specified the limits of the new kingdom more favourably for Holland than had been the case in the preceding and rejected scheme, and settled the division of the public debt. Upon the understanding that these arrangements were final, Prince Leopold, the husband of the late Princess Charlotte, accepted the throne, not however, as Palmerston was careful to explain, as the English candidate, but as a man generally acceptable to the powers. He shortly rendered his position more secure by marrying a daughter of the French King. But the difficulties did not end with his acceptance of the throne; the King of the Netherlands continued to refuse the proferred terms, till at length the two Western powers lost patience, and unable to procure the assistance of the other members of the Conference, took the matter into their own hands, laid an embargo on the Dutch ships, blockaded the mouth of the Scheldt, and laid siege to Antwerp with a French army. After a very gallant defence, Antwerp yielded, and though the final settlement between the countries was postponed till 1839, a provisional armistice was entered into which practically put an end to the difficulties.

As important as Belgium were the affairs of Portugal and Spain. Don Miguel had pursued his career of cruelty and folly. Acts of unjustifiable violence committed on the subjects of France had compelled the French Government, in July 1831, to send a squadron to the Tagus to obtain satisfaction, a measure which threatened for an instant serious consequences, as the English Government still felt itself pledged to uphold Portugal, its old ally. Fortunately Miguel was too foolish to see his opportunity. Still worse behaviour towards some English subjects brought a British fleet to Portugal in the following spring also to demand satisfaction. It became certain that the two Western powers would act in union there as they had already done in Belgium. While continuing nominally a strict neutrality, all sorts of volunteer assistance was allowed to join Don Pedro, when in July 1832 he landed at Oporto, again to assert the claims of his young daughter. An Englishman commanded his fleet, a Frenchman his army, and his troops were largely composed of volunteers from both nations. On the other hand, the French Legitimists, with Marshal Bourmont at their head, crowded to assist Don Miguel. For a while Don Pedro's expedition met with poor success; he could barely make good his position in Oporto, but in the middle of the next year, Admiral Sartorius having given place to Napier, the tide of victory changed, Miguel's fleet was destroyed off St. Vincent, and before the end of June Lisbon was in the hands of the Queen's adherents. For some while longer the strife was continued; but the Whigs could boast that the question was practically settled, and constitutional government established, although the assertion they made that they had held a strict neutrality, and without helping either side had allowed them to fight the matter out, was scarcely consistent with truth.

The success of constitutional principles in Portugal was speedily followed by events which produced the same results in Spain. The law of succession in that country had been again and again changed; the liberal constitution of 1812 had excluded females; Ferdinand in 1830 had again admitted them to the succession, but, frightened by a dangerous illness, and under pressure from the priests, he subsequently withdrew this decree, thus leaving his brother Don Carlos, an extreme absolutist, heir to the throne. The return of health brought him under other influences. He had married a young Neapolitan Princess, Christina, by whom he had two daughters, and through her influence he was induced, in 1832, to re-establish the old law, settling the crown on his daughter Isabella. In September 1832 he died, and when Isabella was proclaimed Queen and Christina Regent, Carlos met with considerable sympathy, especially among the clergy, the peasantry and the old nobility, as they considered him tricked out of his inheritance by Christina's influence. But Christina had sense enough to throw herself heartily upon the side of the Liberal government, and rallied round her all the friends of constitutionalism in Spain and elsewhere. Thus there were in each of the neighbouring countries of the Peninsula a young Queen representing constitutional principles, opposed to an uncle with absolutist views claiming the throne. The Queen was successful in Spain; the Cortes was summoned under a Liberal minister, and Don Carlos was driven from the country. The similarity of their positions made the cause of the two Princes one, and Carlos betook himself to Don Miguel, who was still after his expulsion from Lisbon lying at Santarem. Lord Palmerston saw in this position of affairs an opportunity for carrying out his great object, of supporting constitutionalism and aiming a blow against the absolute powers of the East. He arranged, early in the year 1834, a Quadruple Alliance, primarily between Spain and Portugal, for the purpose of expelling the claimants to both countries from the Peninsula, a movement which was to be supported in case of necessity by a French army and an English fleet.

Thus, as in the affairs of Belgium, France and England had been successful in thwarting the Eastern powers and establishing a constitutional power, so now again they had induced Spain and Portugal to add their weight to the constitutional cause. "I reckon this to be a great stroke," said Palmerston; "in the first place it will settle Portugal, and go some way to settle Spain also, but what is of more permanent and essential importance, it establishes a quadruple alliance between the States of the West, which will serve as a powerful counterpoise to the Holy Alliance of the East." The treaty did in fact at once put an end to the opposition of Don Miguel. A Spanish army marched to attack him on the rear, and he surrendered, and promised to leave the Peninsula. In the affairs of Spain the treaty was not so effectual. Don Carlos escaped in an English ship, to return subsequently and carry on a civil war, which lasted till 1840. During that period the English, though still preserving external neutrality, allowed an English legion, under the command of Sir De Lacy Evans, to go to the assistance of the Queen, whose final triumph he materially assisted in gaining. The whole fruit of the Whig foreign policy, and of the friendship with France, which the similarity of feeling in the two countries had engendered, was to consolidate for the time the West of Europe upon constitutional principles, in well-defined opposition to the East. But this had not been done without the exertion of an amount of influence, and an indirect employment of physical force, which could scarcely be honestly veiled under the name of neutrality; nor had the joint influence of the two countries been sufficient to check the Unavailing against Russian advance. growth of Russia in the East. Mahomet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, had formed the idea of creating an Arabian monarchy from portions of the Turkish Empire. His adopted son and heir, Ibrahim Pasha, overran the whole of Syria, and, in 1832, seemed on the highroad to Constantinople. In its extremity the Porte applied to Russia for assistance, and although the French Ambassador contrived a temporary arrangement with the Pasha which postponed for a time the interference of the Russians, the further advance of Ibrahim compelled a renewed demand for help, and finally, on July 8, 1833, most of the demands of Mahomet Treaty of Unkiar Skelesi. Ali were granted, and the Treaty of Unkiar Skelesi was signed with Russia, which opened the Bosphorus to the Russians, and closed the Dardanelles to the ships of war of other nations; the protests of England and France remained entirely unheeded.

Palmerston's dislike to the advance of Russia in the East rested not only on his general antipathy to the prince, whom he regarded as the head of the absolutist party, but arose from the feeling that it was necessary to secure our road to India, which has been the chief spring of the policy of England in the Mediterranean, and indeed, that nothing should interfere with our Indian possessions, became yearly more important. Uninfluenced in its general course by the changes of parties, the Indian Empire had been steadily increasing for the last thirty years. Though Wellesley's view stated broadly, that England must be the one great power of India, was not accepted by several of his successors, without wish of their own they had been compelled to act much as he would have acted, constantly to increase the English dominions, and to complete the system of subsidiary treaties with those powers which were still allowed a separate existence.

Lord Cornwallis' second tenure of office, interrupted by his speedy death, was too brief to allow him to reverse his predecessor's policy, as seems to have been his intention. Nor was the government of Sir George Barlow, one of the civil servants of the Company, who devoted himself chiefly to the financial business of his office, of sufficient length to produce much effect. But during the rule of Lord Minto, sent out to replace him by the Grenville administration in 1807, some events of importance took place. Of these the most important were the capture of the Dutch and French possessions in the East, the check which was given to the rising kingdom of the Sikhs in the Punjaub, and the strange incident of a mutiny of the English officers in Madras. In July Capture of Batavia and Mauritius. of Bourbon was taken with little loss, and in the following November, General Abercrombie, with an expedition consisting of troops from Bengal and Madras, attacked the Isle of France; within three days of his reaching the island he succeeded in overcoming all opposition, the island was surrendered, and the last remnant of French power in the East disappeared. In February of the same year the possessions of Holland, then forming a part of the French Empire, were also attacked, and in 1811 a considerable army was landed in Java. Batavia at once surrendered, but it was not till after a severe battle with the Dutch General Jansens, and the loss of about a thousand men, that the island was subdued; it was intrusted to the government of Mr. Raffles, afterwards Sir Stamford, and was much improved under his hands, but at the Peace of Vienna it was restored with most other colonial conquests. It has been believed that its value and wealth were not thoroughly known or appreciated by the ministry at the time. It was the interest of the European war also which brought Lord Minto's government into contact with powers on the north-east of India. A French embassy to Persia, 1810 the Island Check of the Sikhs. really directed against the Russians, was thought to have reference to an intended attack upon India, which was known to have been at an earlier time a favourite project of Napoleon's. It became therefore necessary for the English Government to attempt to secure the friendship of the Affghans and the Sikhs. This latter race, originally organized in a sort of confederacy, had been gradually brought under the subjection of one family, the representative of which was now Runjeet Singh. In their dread of the French, the English were for a while blind to his encroachments even on the east of the Sutlej, but as events in Europe showed that Napoleon's Eastern dreams were for the present over, a firmer tone was adopted, and in 1809 the appearance of English troops proved to Runjeet that his hopes of further conquest were futile, and he consented to enter into a treaty of perpetual friendship. The mutiny at Madras was somewhat similar to that which Clive had suppressed in the Bengal army. The withdrawal of Mutiny at Madras. an allowance known as the tent contract was the immediate cause of the disaffection, but there had been for some time discontent among the officers, unfortunately supported by some whose age and position gave them influence over their juniors. General Macdowell, having been refused a seat in the Council, had thrown up his command, and was returning to England in disgust. He entered into an unseemly quarrel with the Quartermaster-General, Colonel Munro, and published a general order declaring that had he remained in India he would have brought him to a court-martial. The Government, in great anger, suspended those officers who had assisted in publishing the general order, and finding them largely supported by their fellow-officers, proceeded to remove a considerable number from their command. This was followed by an open mutiny which broke out in Hyderabad, Seringapatam, and elsewhere. At Seringapatam the mutineers were suppressed by force of arms, elsewhere they came to their senses, and accepted the conditions imposed on them by Lord Minto, who had come to Madras to attempt to meet the difficulty. Lord Minto returned to England in 1813, after an honourable discharge of his duties, and was succeeded by the Earl of Moira, afterwards Marquis of Hastings.

It was during Lord Moira's administration that the work of Wellesley was completed and the position of England rendered absolutely paramount in India. His first difficulties were with Nepaul, where the Goorkhas had succeeded in establishing a power of some importance, and had not refrained from attacking English territory. The war was a severe one; on more than one occasion the English troops were defeated or foiled by the strong fortifications of their opponents. But after two campaigns, in 1815, Sir David Ochterlony succeeded in securing the hill-fortresses and compelling the Goorkha chief to come to terms. The Nepaulese surrendered to the English a portion of the Terrai, a territory lying to the south of their country, reinstated a considerable number of the small princes they had lately dispossessed, and received an English resident at Catmandoo, their capital. It was at the close of this war that Lord Moira received his marquisate. But events, to which Lord Hastings owes his chief celebrity, arose in a more important quarter. The centre of India was occupied by the great princes of the Mahratta nation, who, though subdued by Lord Wellesley, were uneasy under their altered circumstances, and were dreaming of the restoration of their national greatness. Their nominal head was the Peishwa resident at Poonah, and now placed under a subsidiary treaty with the English. These princes kept up communications among themselves. Agents from Poonah were at all their courts, and some of them certainly engaged War with the Pindaries and Mahrattas. in intrigues both with the Nepaulese and Runjeet Singh, the late enemies of the English. Besides these covert and dangerous enemies, there existed a body of freebooters called the Pindaries. Recruited from all nations and all religions, their hordes found employment sometimes with the armies of the native princes at war with each other, sometimes in predatory excursions of their own. The reward for which they served was nearly always the right to rob. Their expeditions were of the most destructive character; all mounted and lightly armed, they crossed the country in marches of from forty to fifty miles a day, fell upon the devoted district, and carried off everything moveable in it, frequently burning what they could not carry away, and having recourse to the cruellest tortures to wring from the wretched inhabitants a knowledge of their hidden treasure. They had found their chief support among the Mahrattas, and had established themselves in the country between the Nerbudda and the Vindhya hills. Till 1815 they had refrained from attacking the English, but during the Nepaulese war they had crossed the river into the Deccan, and had ravaged the territory of our ally the Nizam; and the year after they had even passed the British frontiers and plundered more than three hundred villages. Lord Hastings determined to put an end to these robbers, supported as he believed that they were by the Mahratta confederation, before he dismissed the army collected for the war of Nepaul. He applied for leave to act on a great scale, and, having received it, brought into the field large armies from all the Presidencies, and prepared for war on such a scale as rendered it plain that he intended to make a final settlement of Central India. It was the complicity of the Mahrattas with the Pindaries which rendered his work difficult. The Peishwa had already shown his intentions. His favourite, Trimbucjee, had procured the murder of the agent of the Guicowar, who, in union with the English, was negotiating for a new lease of the Peishwa's property in Gujerat. The murderer was screened, and signs were everywhere visible that the Peishwa was meditating treachery. Yielding to the pressure of the English resident, he surrendered Trimbucjee; but on the escape of his favourite he again gave him refuge, and eluded the English demands. At length, yielding to the strong measures taken by them, he apparently gave up the point, and in June 1817 entered into a new treaty considerably more stringent than the Treaty of Bassein, and designed to destroy the Peishwa's nominal superiority over the Mahratta confederation, which was the source of so much danger. The effect of the treaty was very temporary. The Peishwa continued his measures against the English, attacked and burnt the British residency, was defeated after a severe battle and fled, intending to make common cause with his compatriots. Meanwhile events of a somewhat similar character had been taking place at the courts of the other Mahratta chiefs. It was thought necessary not only to separate them from the Pindaries, but to oblige them to join in the suppression of those freebooters. In November Sindia was compelled to make a treaty to that effect, containing a most important clause, as it allowed the English to make separate treaties, which had hitherto been forbidden, with those chiefs, especially the Rajputs, who were dependent upon Sindia. The unity of his kingdom was thus broken up. A treaty of a similar character was concluded with Ameer Khan, the head of a large body of freebooters in close connection with Holkar, though at the time resident at Jeypoor. With the other two great chiefs, the Rajah of Nagpoor and Holkar, more violent measures were found necessary. Appa Sahib, the uncle of the late prince, had obtained the government of Nagpoor, and had pretended a close friendship with England. But the same national aspirations as had moved the Peishwa acted upon him too. As the Peishwa was the nominal viceroy of the Mahrattas, so was he their nominal commander-in-chief. He repeated the treachery at Poonah, and attacked the British residency; and as his army was strong, and consisted largely of Arabs, he was only defeated after a battle of eighteen hours' duration. By December, however, he was thoroughly conquered, and had given himself up to the English; Nagpoor had been evacuated, and the Arabs dismissed. Just about the same time the forces of Holkar had been also defeated at Mahidpoor, in the neighbourhood of Oojein. On the insanity of Holkar himself, his power had passed into the hands of his young wife, Toolsee-Bhye, as regent for the young prince; but she was mistrusted by the war party, seized, and put to death. The chiefs then plunged into war, but were thoroughly defeated by Hislop's forces, and the young Holkar was compelled to enter into a treaty, which, among other things, bound him to perpetual peace, and established the Company as the arbitrator in all his quarrels. As in the case of Sindia, the Rajput princes subject to his dominion were allowed to contract separate treaties with the English, and gladly seized the opportunity. Thus the great confederation was defeated in detail, and the Peishwa alone, a fugitive from his capital, was capable of making resistance. It was found nearly impossible to come up with him; though combats were occasionally fought, no general battle resulted. But a new plan was devised which before long completed his destruction. The strongholds of his country were one by one reduced; and among others, in February, Satara, the residence of the descendants of Sevaji, whose nominal minister the Peishwa was. The authority of this prince was re-established, and the Peishwa was deposed, and thus the national character of his resistance destroyed. Soon after, also (Feb. 19, 1818), he was forced to battle at Ashtee, near Bunderpoor, and there thoroughly beaten. His power of resistance was now at an end, his fortresses had fallen one by one; his motley army, consisting largely of Pindaries, was broken up, and in June, finding himself surrounded, he surrendered to Sir John Malcolm. He accepted an allowance of £80,000 a year, with leave to withdraw and reside at Benares, where he remained quietly during the rest of his life. He had refused even to the last to surrender Trimbucjee, who was, however, shortly afterwards captured, and kept a prisoner till his death. The destruction of the Mahratta power had gone hand in hand with that of the Pindaries. Wherever they had been met with they had been beaten. By the end of February all their leaders had surrendered, and such remnants of them as were left had been removed to Goruckpoor, where they settled quietly down. There was one exception; their great chief, Chetoo, was still at large, and when Appa Sahib of Nagpoor, continuing his treachery after the treaty, and still holding communication with the Peishwa, was dethroned, the two chiefs took refuge in the Mahadeo hills on the south of the Nerbudda, and there assembled a mixed army of Mahrattas, Arabs, and Pindaries, to the number of about 20,000. The destruction of these troops closed the war. The English forces were concentrated for a great attack; seeing the hopelessness of resistance, the leaders fled, and took refuge in the fort of Aseerghur, which belonged to Sindia, with whom no doubt Appa had still relations. The fortress could not long shelter him. Sindia, in fear, refused to receive him; he fled to Runjeet Singh, and was finally allowed to return and live peaceably in Judpore. Chetoo, deprived of most of his followers, also took flight; he attempted to retire into the Malwa, but during his retreat sought refuge in a thicket, and was there devoured by a tiger. As a punishment for having received the fugitives, Aseerghur was besieged and taken, and as clear proofs were found in it of Sindia's treachery, it was retained. This was the last act of the war. At its conclusion the whole dominions of the Peishwa, with the exception of a district given to the Rajah of Satara, and all Appa Sahib's dominions in Berar, passed directly into the hands of the English. All the Rajput rajahs had placed themselves under British protection, and Sindia was the only prince with whom there had not been concluded a satisfactory subsidiary treaty. Lord Hastings had thus the merit of thoroughly completing the great plans of the Marquis of Wellesley.

When Hastings left his office, which he had held for nine years, he was succeeded by Lord Amherst, who reached Calcutta in August 1823, and held the Governor-generalship till 1828. During that period the dominions of England received a still further accession, and the difficulty of putting a stop to a course of conquest once begun was shown. At the same time that Clive had laid the foundation of the English Empire, a man of the name of Alompra had established a great empire on the other side of the Ganges. He had succeeded in bringing into one the kingdoms of Siam, Pegu, Ava, and Aracan. By degrees the two empires of Burmah and of India had become conterminous. The Burmese had been rendered so confident by their successes that they had demanded of Lord Hastings the surrender of Chittagong, Dacca, and other places, as having been originally dependencies of Aracan; their demand had of course been absolutely disregarded, but they were now proceeding to conquer Cashar, a district in North-Eastern Bengal, the rajah of which applied for help to the English. A further act of encroachment on their part brought on a war; they seized, on the coast of Chittagong, a little island in the possession of a small British outpost. No satisfaction could be obtained, and in March 1824 war became inevitable, much against the will, and somewhat to the surprise, of The Burmese War. Lord Amherst, who had intended to be peaceful. The attack of the English was made upon Rangoon at the mouth of the Irawaddi. It was easily occupied, but the Burmese were a warlike race, and being strengthened in their wish for resistance by successes on the Bengal frontier refused to come to terms. Again and again the great pagoda of Rangoon, which had become the English citadel, was assaulted. In December a final unsuccessful attack was made under the command of Maha Bundoola, who had distinguished himself in the north. From May to February the fighting about Rangoon had continued, the chief difficulty met with being the skill of the enemy in the defence of stockades. Then, at last, Sir Archibald Campbell found it possible to advance up the Irawaddi towards Prome. In April he reached that place and found it deserted. There the English remained during the rainy season. In November hostilities were renewed, and the English gradually forced their way up to within forty-five miles of Ava, the capital. There at length, in February 1826, a treaty was concluded by which the Burmese ceded Assam, Aracan, and the country south of Martiban along the coast. They also gave up their claims upon the English provinces, paid a large sum of money, and established friendly relations between the courts, to be kept up by an interchange of ambassadors.

The occupation of England in a foreign war had given rise to hopes among the princes of India that an opportunity had come for reasserting their freedom. But all such thoughts were dashed to the ground by the capture and destruction of the fortress of Bhurtpore, hitherto considered impregnable. At the beginning of 1825 a disputed succession had occurred. The expelled Prince was under British protection; it remained to be seen how far it now availed him. Lord Amherst was at first inclined to non-intervention, but the army was in the hands of Lord Combermere, an old Peninsula officer, not likely to shrink before difficulties. He at once undertook to reduce the stronghold. Having demanded the dismissal of women and children, which was refused, he proceeded to bombard the town. After two months of siege, the assault was given, and in two hours the town was secured; the fortress was then razed to the ground, and the rightful prince reinstated, and the great movement against the English which had been dreaded by many thinking men in India thus at once checked. The Indian Empire had now reached the limits which were not increased for many years. The subsequent conquests of the Punjaub and Sinde have set a natural and geographical boundary to it, which, it may be hoped, will prevent the necessity of those wars of conquest, which were really wars of defence, to which it owes its present gigantic dimensions.