modifying some clauses which were ill-considered or unpopular.

The indisposition of the House was soon manifested. Upon a resolution moved by General Gascoigne, that the number of members for England and Wales should not be diminished, this latent hostility burst out. Mr. William Holmes, in the course of the debate said, privately, to a friend of the Government, For good or for ill, there is a majority of eight in the House in favour of this motion.' So it appeared on the division, a majority of eight voting in favour of General Gascoigne's motion.

Upon this event, it became the duty of Lord Grey and his colleagues, to consider seriously their position. They had brought forward a great measure affecting the constitution of the country, and the course of legislation for generations to come. They could neither tamely abandon their situation, nor allow their measure to be frittered away, and rest contented with the fragment of a plan, the whole of which had been enthusiastically accepted by the country. It was manifest that the existing House of Commons would endeavour to destroy in detail that which they had sanctioned in the bulk. It was evident that the country was ready to follow Lord Grey, and to adopt his measure as a satisfactory settlement of a question which, since 1780, had always been in the minds of Liberal politicians, and which was now rooted in the heart of the people.

Lord Grey, therefore, prepared the King for the decision to which the Cabinet arrived, to advise his Majesty to have recourse to an immediate dissolution of Parliament. The King, though averse to such a proceeding, little more than six months after the general election, was disposed, at this time, to trust implicitly to Lord Grey, and I am inclined to believe the popular story, that when it appeared necessary, in order to prevent remonstrance from the

House of Lords, that the King should appear in person to dissolve the Parliament, and some trifling difficulty of plaiting the horses' manes was interposed as an objection, the King said at once, Then I'll go down to Parliament in a hackney coach.' Had such been the spirit of Louis XVI. he might have been the leader instead of the victim of the French Revolution.

The scenes which occurred in the two Houses of Parliament, so far as I was a witness of them, were singular and unprecedented. Before the King arrived, the House of Commons was assembled, and Sir Robert Peel and Sir Francis Burdett rose at the same time to address the House. Lord Althorp, amid the confusion and clamour of contending parties, following the precedent of Mr. Fox, moved that Sir Francis Burdett be now heard. Sir Robert Peel, on the other hand, imitating a precedent of Lord North, said, and I rise to speak to that motion.' But instead of saying a few words, as Lord North had done, to put an end to all further debate, Sir Robert Peel quite lost his temper, and in tones of the most violent indignation attacked the impending dissolution. As he went on, the Tower guns began to fire, to announce the King's arrival, and as each discharge was heard, a loud cheer from the Government side interrupted Sir Robert Peel's declamation. Sir Henry Harding was heard to exclaim, 'The next time those guns are fired they will be shotted!' Presently we were all summoned to the House of Lords, where the King's presence had put a stop to a violent and unseemly discussion. The King in his speech announced the dissolution, and retired to unrobe. scene that followed was one of great excitement and confusion. As I was standing at the bar, Lord Lyndhurst came up to me and said, 'Have you considered the state of Ireland, do not you expect an insurrection ?' or words to that effect. It so happened that in going into the

The

House of Commons, I had met Mr. O'Connell in the lobby. I asked him, Will Ireland be quiet during the general election?' and he answered me, 'Perfectly quiet.' He did not answer for more than he was able to perform. But of course I said nothing of this to Lord Lyndhurst, and left him to indulge his anger and disappointment.

Many good Liberals were in great despondency about the election, and fancied, as they well might, that an appeal to the condemned boroughs to sanction their own extinction, would meet with a very unfavourable reception, while Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield, and the principal manufacturing towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, on the other hand, would be unable to take part in the election.

But the forty shilling freeholders, both in those towns and in the rural counties, made themselves heard in favour of Reform. Middlesex, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Devonshire, were unanimous in their choice of reform candidates.

The members for the English Counties, with the addition of two members for Yorkshire in place of Grampound, were altogether 82; of these upwards of 70, I think 76, were pledged to support Lord Grey and the Reform Bill. The proportion of the two parties appeared on the second reading, when there divided in favour of the bill 367, making, with 9 pairs and 2 tellers, 378; against it 231, with the same addition of pairs and tellers 242, giving a majority of 136 for the Government and the Reform Bill. This was a majority which no skilful manœuvres, nor even the authority of the time-honored House of Lords was likely to counteract or overbear, even when led by such men as the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst.

The Parliament met on June 14, and after the election of a Speaker, and a debate on the address, the new Reform Bill was immediately introduced. The second reading, as I have said, was carried by a large majority, and the

opponents of the bill, no way dismayed, reserved their opposition for the committee. For forty nights the subject was discussed, in its principles as well as in its details. Sir Robert Peel, besides objecting to the large amount of disfranchisement, and the ten pound franchise, took special exception to the partial disfranchisement in Schedule B of the bill, and, after a very neat and well arranged speech of Mr. Praed, Sir Robert argued with his usual force and ability, that more room should be left for the entrance into Parliament of men of retired and studious habits. Subsequent legislation seems to indicate that, according to public opinion, too many seats, rather than too few, were left to men of retired and studious habits. But, besides these fair and plausible objections to the extent and democratic tendency of the Bill, skilful lawyers like Sir Edward Sugden and Sir Charles Wetherell, tried to pick out every thread, and leave no rag of the whole texture. That which Penelope did with a view to keep off her suitors, they attempted to do with a view to keep off reform. But, at the end of forty nights, on the seventh of September, the debate was closed, and after much labour, and a considerable sacrifice of health, I was able, on that night, to propose, amid much cheering, that the Bill should be reported to the House.

The Bill was then carried to the House of Lords, and on October 2, the second reading was proposed by Lord Grey. There never was a debate of greater importance, or one marked by greater ability. Lord Grey's opening speech recording that, in 1786, he had voted with Mr. Pitt in favour of reform of Parliament; his clear and able statement of the reasons which seemed to him to require that the Bill should be adopted by Parliament, and that in order to be safe and enduring, it should be large and commensurate with the evil to be abated, was powerful and convincing.

One of the greatest speeches ever delivered in the House of Lords, was spoken on this occasion by Lord Brougham; and among the most striking passages of that speech, was the reference to the events in Ireland, which preceded the grant of Catholic emancipation. I copy this remarkable passage:-Those portentous appearances, the growth of later times, those figures that stalk abroad, of unknown stature and strange form-unions, and leagues, and musterings of men in myriads, and conspiracies against the Exchequer whence do they spring, and how come they to haunt our shores? What power engendered those uncouth shapes-what multiplied the monstrous births, till they people the land? Trust me, the same power which called into frightful existence, and armed with resistless force the Irish volunteers of 1782-the same power which rent in twain your empire, and conjured up thirteen republics— the same power which created the Catholic Association, and gave it Ireland for a portion. What power is that? Justice denied-rights withheld-wrongs perpetrated-the force which common injuries lend to millions-the wickedness of using the sacred trust of Government as a means of indulging private caprice-the idiocy of treating Englishmen like the children of the South Sea Islandsthe frenzy of believing, or making believe, that the adults of the nineteenth century, can be led like children or driven like barbarians. This it is that has conjured up the strange sights at which we now stand aghast. And shall we persist in the fatal error of combating the giant progeny, instead of extirpating the execrable parent? Good God! Will men never learn wisdom, even from their own experience? Will they never believe, till it be too late, that the surest way to prevent immoderate desires being formed, aye, and unjust demands enforced, is to grant, in due season, the moderate requests of justice? You stand, my Lords, on the brink of a great event-you are in the crisis