as for

he did, the talent of the gentleman who took the lead (Mr. Attwood) at the Birmingham meeting, he, for one, would much rather see that gentleman in the House of Commons, tunately he saw the honorable member for Clare in the House of Commons. He would rather see the leader of the Birmingham meeting here as the representative of that town, than in conducting such an association, sending forth those statements and appeals to the country, which was, perhaps, too prone, at the present moment, to act on the apprehensions generated by them."1 Is it possible that Mr. Huskisson did not see,—he who had so clear an eye for some things less evident, that, when the attention of any portion of the English people is once fairly fixed on the principle of any one of their institutions, the yielding of a single point of detail can never satisfy them? If Birmingham had at that time obtained representation, and had sent Mr. Attwood to Parliament, did he suppose that the Birmingham Union would have dissolved, any more than the Catholic Association would have dissolved, if Mr. O'Connell had been permitted to take his seat after his first election for Clare? The Birmingham Political Union was formed for the promotion of the whole question of parliamentary reform, and not only for obtaining a representation of its own town. If this enfranchisement had been granted now, the success would have stimulated Manchester and Leeds, and other places, to a similar pursuit of their object; and then the old Tories would have charged the government with the consequences of yielding to popular movements. As it was, the denial answered the same purpose, of stimulating the popular will. The truth was, the time was come for the change. It mattered little, except as to the tempers of the parties concerned, whether government gave assent or denial. The time was come for the rending of the garments which the nation's life had outgrown; and the agreement or refusal to mend the first slit could make but the difference of a day in the providing of a new suit. The Duke of Wellington was soon to show that he saw nothing of this; but, if Mr. Huskisson did not, it is only a fresh proof how little those who stand in the midst of a crowd of events can see before them.

Lord John Russell brought forward the subject of the representation of large towns, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds to return members to the House of Commons; and this was the occasion of Mr. Huskisson's last speech on parliamentary reform. He supported the motion, but under protest against any extension of the boon beyond special and very pressing cases. There is an interest in reading his statement of his views, though his views

1 Hansard, xxii. p. 347.

may not be ours, as the last words we shall be able to give of " To one whose memory will ever be precious to his country. such a measure of reform," as the present, "he should give his cordial support. As to a more extensive parliamentary reform

to

a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present Constitution such a general revision and change of our Constitution, he had been always opposed; and, while he had a seat in that House, he should give it his most decided opposition. He conceived, that, if such an extensive reform were effected, they might go on for two or three sessions in good and easy times, and such a reformed parliament might adapt itself to our mode of government, and the ordinary concerns of the country; but, if such an extensive change were effected in the Constitution of Parliament, sure he was, that, whenever an occasion arose of great popular excitement or re-action, the consequence would be a total subversion of our Constitution, followed by complete confusion and anarchy, terminating, first in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, and then in that of a military despotism,-these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have always been hitherto seen to observe. He was therefore opposed to such an extensive change and revision of our representative system. It might be easy to raise objections to the boroughs, and, by separating the representative system into its various constituent parts, to point out evils and abuses in several of them; but it was a waste of time, and a perversion of common sense, to look at it in that way. He would take it as a whole; and, regarding our present system as one aggregate, he was opposed to any material change in it."

Weak words, to be the last from such a man! With the explosive elements of wrong involved, as he allowed, in this aggregate, was the entireness to be best preserved by leaving the explosive elements to burst and shatter every thing connected with them, or by taking them out while they might yet be safely handled? These were weak words to be the last from such a man; but the wisest men are weak when they prophesy of the future under the instigation of fear instead of the inspiration of faith. The motion was lost by a majority of 48. The subject was brought up again in May, however, when Lord John Russell took occasion to propose two resolutions in the place of a motion of Mr. O'Connell's, which was negatived. Mr. O'Connell's motion was for leave to bring in a Bill to establish universal suffrage, triennial parliaments, and vote by ballot. Lord John Russell's resolutions were in favor of an increase in the number of representatives, and for the additional ones being given to large

1 Hansard, xxii. p. 891.

towns and populous counties.1 This incessant bringing-up of the subject during the session, by Tory, Whig, and Radical leaders, testifies to the progress of the question in the national will. The French Revolution might accelerate the demand and the movement; but these preceding transactions show that parliamentary reform would have been required and obtained without the awakening of any new sympathy with any foreign people.

The man in all England who, at this critical season, did most Duke of to promote the cause of parliamentary reform, was the Newcastle. Duke of Newcastle. He made an avowal so broad and clear of his belief, that the franchises of the citizens of Newark were his own, as much as any property whatever that he held, that many were startled into a contemplation of the actual system itself, who might otherwise have continued to argue about mere words. The independent voters of Newark sent up a petition to Parliament complaining of the undue influence of the Duke of Newcastle in the elections, which he exercised without any apparent recollection of the statute which prohibits the interference of Peers in elections.2 The Duke's influence was mainly derived from his being the lessee of crown-lands, amounting to 960 acres, which formed a sort of belt round three-fourths of the town of Newark. The ministers declared plainly in the House, that they had no intention of renewing the lease of these lands to the Duke of Newcastle; and this being the case, and the exposure and disgrace very complete, the committee asked for was considered by the majority not to be needful. The most really useful part of the affair, however, was the innocent amazement of the Peer himself at such an interference with his use of his influence; an amazement expressed in words which were never let drop for a day during the continuance of the reform agitation, and which are a proverb to this hour: "May I not do what I will with mine own?" He had looked upon the electors of Newark as his

66

own:" but the 587 who had resisted his dictation, and striven to return an independent member, were very far from answering to the Peer's notion of what Newark electors ought to be; and a great blessing the country from this time felt it to be, that there were 587 electors within the Duke's belt of land who were not his "own."

the King.

The general impression, that the King was very ill, continued Illness of in the absence of all reliable information about his state, and notwithstanding the activity of the preparations for his customary birthday fête in April. It became known at length, however, that those preparations were countermanded; and, on the 15th of April, His Majesty's physicians issued a bulletin, announcing that the King was ill of a bilious attack, 2 Hansard, xxii. p. 1084.

1 Hansard, xxiv. pp. 1223-24.

accompanied with difficulty in breathing. The bulletins during this illness were extraordinarily deceptive; and the nation was kept as nearly as possible in the dark about the King's state to the last, almost every bulletin declaring him better, till, as a contemporary observed, "Amidst these accumulated betternesses, the nation was wondering why he was not well, when it heard that he was dead." It is supposed that the King insisted on seeing the bulletins, and that the physicians feared the responsibility of making them true. This is a mockery which should have been prevented by some means or other. On the 24th of May, however, a message from the King to both Houses of Parliament, indicated the truth. The message told that the King was so ill that it was inconvenient and painful to him to sign papers with his own hand, and that he relied on the readiness of Parliament to consider without delay how he might be relieved of this labor.1 There was no doubt in this case about the reality of the bodily illness, nor of the ability of the King to understand and give orders about the business brought before him but the danger of the precedent was very properly kept in view; and the provision for affixing the sign-manual without trouble to the King was fenced about with all possible precautions, which could prevent the authority from being used by the creatures of an insane sovereign. The stamp was to be affixed in the King's presence, by his immediate order, given by word of mouth, to obviate mistake of any sign by head or hand; a memorandum of the circumstances must accompany the stamp; and the document stamped must be previously indorsed by three members of the Privy-council. The operation of the Bill was limited to the present session, that, if the King's illness should continue, the irregular authority asked for must be renewed at short intervals. The Bill was passed on the 28th of May; and the occasion for its use was over within a month. The King died at three o'clock in the morning of the 26th of June. The final Death of the struggle was sudden and short. He was sitting up King. when he felt what appears to be the peculiar and unmistakable sensation of death. He leaned his head on the shoulder of a page; exclaimed, "O God! this is death!" and was gone.2 The immediate cause was the rupture of a blood-vessel in the stomach. Ossification of some of the large vessels about the heart had begun many years previously; and, before the end, the complication of diseases had become terrible.

The Kings of England and France were beckoned down from their thrones nearly at the same time. George IV. died just after his brother of France had issued his canvassing proclama

1 Hansard, xxiv. p. 986.

2 Annual Register, 1830, p. 132.

VOL. III.

11

tion, his last words to his people, and before the result could be known; and both sovereigns were in a state of discontent, anger, and fear at the state of the popular mind, and in view of the future. Two men more unhappy than they were at this time could hardly have been found in the dominions of both.

It would indeed be difficult to point to a more unhappy life, Life and through its whole extent, than that of George IV. character. Nothing went well with him; and, as his troubles came chiefly from within, he had none of the compensations which have waited upon the most unfortunate of kings. Kings defeated, captive, dethroned, or diseased in body, or betrayed in their domestic relations, have usually had solace from noble emotions, strenuous acts, or sweet domestic affections. But our unhappy King had none of these. Through life he achieved nothing. He was neither a warrior, nor a statesman, nor a student, nor a domestic man. If he had been even a mechanic, like Louis XVI. the locksmith, it would have been something. He was nothing but the man of pleasure; and, even in an ordinary rank, no one leads such a life of pain as the man of pleasure. In his rank, where real companionship is out of the question, even that life of pain is deprived of its chief solace, the fellowship of comrades. The "first gentleman in Europe might make himself as vulgar as he would in the pursuits of dissipation; he was still Prince, and therefore excluded from the hilarity which cannot exist where there is not equality.

His youth was unhappy. His parents disliked and restricted him, and thus drove him early into distrust and offence. What his married life was, is seen in the story of his Queen. If he loved his only child, she did not love him; and he lost her. He had no friends; and, if he chose to give that name to any of his counsellors, he knew that he had often their disapprobation and their compassion. Between himself and his people there was no tie, nor any pretence of one. He never showed the least desire for their happiness, which involved any personal sacrifice. He showed himself capable of petty resentments: he showed himself incapable of magnanimity. He let it be seen that the best government of his reign took place against his will, while he attempted disgraceful acts which did not succeed. He surrounded himself with persons whom the nation could not respect, while his selfish prodigality at their expense checked every growth of that loyalty which springs from personal attachment and esteem. Faulty as was his temper, his principles were no better. We have seen in the course of this history, that his word was utterly unreliable; and other proofs stood out from the whole surface of his life. If it is asked whether there was no good to set against this amount of evil, the only answer, probably, that could be