--and his
failure left matters, the ministers, and the perplexed monarch, of
course exactly "as they were."

The excitement occasioned by the Lords was tremendous. At London,
Birmingham, Manchester, and other large centres, simultaneous meetings
were held to petition the Commons to stop the supplies. In the
metropolis placards were everywhere posted, recommending the union of
all friends of the cause; the enforcement of the public rights at all
hazards; and a universal resistance to the payment of taxes, rates,
tithes, and assessments; the country in fact was on the brink of
revolution. At the meetings of the political societies, even in the
leading journals, projects were openly discussed and recommended for
_organizing_ and _arming_ the people; the population of the large towns
was ready to be launched on the metropolis. "What was to be done--peers
or no peers? A cabinet sat nearly all day, and Lord Grey went once or
twice to the king. He, poor man, was at his wits' end, and tried an
experiment (not a very constitutional one) of his own by writing to a
number of peers, entreating them to withdraw their opposition to the
bill."[111] The letter to which Mr. Charles Greville refers is evidently
the following circular:--

"ST. JAMES'S PALACE, _May 17th, 1832_.

"MY DEAR LORD,--I am honoured with his Majesty's command to acquaint
your lordship, that all difficulties to the arrangements in progress
will be obviated by a declaration in the House to-night from a
sufficient number of peers, that in _consequence of the present state
of affairs_, they have come to the resolution of dropping their
further opposition to the Reform Bill, so that it may pass without
delay, and as nearly as possible in its present shape.

"I have the honour to be yours sincerely,

"HERBERT TAYLOR."

Such a request, coming from such a quarter, was not only weighty in
itself, but necessarily implied after all that had taken place, that his
Majesty suggested this course as the only means of avoiding the creation
of a large number of additional peers. The majority of the House were
thus placed in the unenviable position of being compelled to choose
whether they would see a hundred members added to the number of their
opponents to carry a measure which was hateful to them, or to abandon
for a time their rights, privileges, and duties as legislators. They
chose the latter alternative, and during the remainder of the discussion