facturing operatives of Lancashire and Yorkshire were in many instances receiving only threepence a day for more than twelve hours' labor. O'Connell stated in the House of Commons that in Ireland seven thousand persons were subsisting on threepence a day.1

Upon this state of things came the French Revolution of July, which, in the strained relations of classes and with the memories of the years 1789-1795, furnished a powerful stimulus of hatred and fear. It was felt on all sides that the only hope of relief lay in a reform of Parliament. Great cities, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, of growing importance, had no representation, while the food of their starving operatives was maintained at an artificial price by the landowners, who controlled Parliament through their pocket boroughs.

Under these circumstances, how was it that civil war and violent revolution, after the French fashion, were averted? There can be no hesitation in answering that the element of safety consisted in an executive ministry, standing between Parliament and the Crown on the one hand and the nation on the other, and occupying the position of official mediators. In all cases of quarrel, whether between individuals or bodies of men, the first thing for the preservation of peace is to find out exactly what they disagree about, and for that purpose to have an agent or negotiator in whom both sides have confidence. Blind exasperation, venting itself in abuse and recrimination, is pretty sure to lead to blows. But if both sides. can be brought to state exactly what it is that they want, this is in itself a sobering process and renders possible an examination whether there is any available basis of compromise. In the case under consideration, the first object was to place a ministry in power who would take up the subject of reform. To get such a ministry was a question of voting and not of violence, and for that purpose action

1 Ibid., p. 39.

upon public opinion was necessary, which again was to be brought about by agitation, indeed, but of a peaceful kind. In July of 1830 a general election took place, and the new Parliament met in October, under the influence of the recent revolution in France, to meet a ministry, led by the Duke of Wellington, in declared opposition both to Catholic emancipation and to parliamentary reform. Free speech and a free press, with the public reporting of debates, were, however, too much even for a Parliament of which the majority were representatives of a few individuals or close corporations, generally selling their right of nomination for a valuable consideration. In November the ministry were defeated on a different question, and sent in their resignation. The king, William IV., sent for Earl Grey, whose name had been for so many years identified with the reform of Parliament, and who accepted office on condition that this should be made a cabinet question. The first stage of the conflict had passed, and the next was to turn upon the measure of reform. If it had been open to every member of the House of Commons to propose a bill, and had been left to committees of the House to decide upon the merits of each, it would have been easy to postpone the subject indefinitely by proposing amendments and by the process known in the United States as "lobbying." But safety was found again in the principle which we have seen in the last chapter: that in all public affairs the preparation of bills is left exclusively to the ministry upon their responsibility to the House and the country. Earl Grey intrusted the preparation of the government measure to a committee, of which Lord John Russell was a member, and his plan was adopted by the committee.

Meantime, as the knowledge of the government action spread through the country, the strain at the Home Office abated for a time. Politics came in as a counter irritant, and agitation in the social form

it first assumed began to subside. There was not less suffering but the people were more hopeful. They knew, in a general way, that it was proposed to make a great change in the House of Commons. If that change could be brought about, surely it would be possible to make good laws and get rid of the evils from which the nation suffered. Hence, attention everywhere was fixed on the Reform Bill. It became a symbol of hope to those who felt the pinch of want. By some process, not very clearly comprehended, it was to act as a universal remedy.1

The bill, and nothing but the bill, was the tenor of the cry which arose on every side. The public feeling was raised to a high pitch of excitement, and it was felt that if anything went wrong with the bill serious events might happen.

The bill which Lord John Russell brought in on the 1st of March, 1831, began a battle which lasted, without cessation, till the 5th of June, 1832. On the 21st of March it was read a second time by a majority of one, but a defeat in Committee of the Whole decided the ministers to advise a dissolution. The interview at which Earl Grey and Lord Brougham tendered this advice would suggest a scene for the stage. The king fumed and his eye flashed with anger as he learned the preparations which had been made for his going down to the House, including even the ordering out of the Life Guards. His prerogative was doubly assailed. Ministers had dared to assume that he would do as they advised him, and they had even presumed to give prders to the army without his authority. But he went all the same. The House of Lords was in a state of tumult as the Tower guns announced the king's approach. The ministerial decision had taken the peers by surprise. They dreaded an appeal to the country, and sincerely believed that they were standing on the brink of a revolution.

The new Parliament met after a short interval, and a second reform bill was introduced. Ministers were now all-powerful in the House of Commons. The bill was read a third time by a majority of 106, and on October 3 the second reading began in the House of Lords. It was thrown out by a majority of 41, and the country was brought at once to the verge of civil war. The restless spirits who hang on to the skirts of every popular movement were eager for mischief. Nottingham Castle was set on fire. Bristol was for three days in the hands of the mob. These and similar outbreaks were speedily suppressed. There was much greater difficulty in dealing with the

1 Dunckley, "Life of Lord Melbourne."

The move

Birmingham Political Union and the mighty force of public opinion which it embodied. The members were giving themselves a military organization. They professed to be peaceful in their aims, but had pledged themselves to pay no taxes unless the king would create as many peers as were necessary to pass the bill, and they might any day turn out into the streets an army ready for action. ment, moreover, was extending. Unions were being formed in London. They were advised to carry arms, and were beginning to call themselves the National Guard. By the steady administration of Lord Melbourne at the Home Office danger was kept at bay till the success of an adverse motion, by Lord Lyndhurst, threw out a third bill, led to the resignation of ministers, and brought the Duke of Wellington into power for three days. When the duke seemed to be preparing to take the revolution in hand, and the soldiers in the barracks at Birmingham were sharpening their swords for what might happen, the danger seemed extreme, but it disappeared when the ministry were reinstated in office and the passing of the bill was rendered certain by the consent of the king to create peers, should it be found necessary.1

The House of Lords had no mind to see their privileged order swamped with new creations of Liberal peers and yielded. With the royal assent to the bill England passed without violent revolution from the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century. It is impossible to insist too strongly upon the fact that this was not because she had a population less exasperated or less determined than that of France, or an aristocracy less selfish or less obstinate, but because of that feature of her political machinery which admitted of reducing all the suffering and all the discontent of a nation to two simple issues to be answered by "Yes" or "No." The first was whether a ministry should be placed in power pledged to deal with the subject; and the second, the framing by that ministry of a measure which, though extremely complex in itself, and understood by very few of the people, was accepted by the whole nation as the embodiment of their demands, and was forced upon the aristocracy by the combined weight of 1 Dunckley, op. cit.

public opinion, until, seeing the exact nature of the sacrifice demanded, they were compelled to give way. We shall have occasion to consider hereafter what was in an analogous case the effect of the absence of such machinery.1

It would not be possible, within the limits of this work, to follow all the achievements of a reformed Parliament under the guidance of an executive ministry. But there is one department which cannot be overlooked. An Austrian statesman is said to have once remarked, "Show me good finance, and I will show you good politics," and British national finance for sustained skill of management during half a century is perhaps without parallel in the history of the world.

Sir Robert Peel became first lord of the treasury in 1841. The position of the head of the finances, whether called by that name, or, as has since become more customary, by that of chancellor of the exchequer, is well indicated in the words of his biographer.

Except by a few, Peel was little loved and scarcely understood, but by all he was honored and felt to be necessary. He was, therefore, punctually obeyed, and had his colleagues and his followers as well disciplined as the crew of a man-of-war. The Opposition had been very pressing to know by what expedients Peel meant to restore order in the affairs of the country. Peel answered every such demand by saying that he must have time to gather information and to mature his plans.2

In

The principle of his finance was very simple. every one of the last five years there had been a deficit, and the total of these deficits amounted to £8,000,000. It was known that unless a remedy was applied the current year would add to this sum total a fresh deficit of £2,500,000. The old familiar remedy was to add a little to each of many indirect taxes, but this remedy 1 Post, Chap. XIX.

2"Life of Sir Robert Peel," by F. C. Montague, Chap. VIII.