FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174  
175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   >>   >|  
because it formed part of the whole odious policy of reform. King William is believed, at one time, to have set hopes on the efforts of the Waverers, and to have cherished a gladsome belief that they might get him out of his difficulties about the Reform Bill; as indeed it will be seen they did in the end, though not quite in the way which he would have desired. Lord Grey introduced the third Reform Bill on March 27, 1832. The first reading passed, as a matter of course, but when the division on the motion for the second reading came on on April 14, there was only a majority of 9 votes for the Bill: 184 peers voted for it and 175 against it. Of course Lord Grey and his colleagues saw, at once, that unless the conditions were to be completely altered there would be no chance whatever in the House of Lords for a measure of reform which had passed its second reading by a majority of only 9. The moment the Bill got into committee there would be endless opportunities afforded for its mutilation, and if it were to get through the House at all, it would be only in such a form as to render it wholly useless for the objects which its promoters desired it to accomplish. This dismal conviction was very speedily {174} verified. When the Bill got into committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to the effect that the question of enfranchisement should precede that of disfranchisement. Now this proposal was not in itself one necessarily hostile to the principle of the Bill. It is quite easy to understand that a sincere friend to reform might have, under certain conditions, adopted the views that Lord Lyndhurst professed to advocate. But the Ministry knew very well that the adoption of such a proposal would mean simply that the whole conduct of the measure was to be taken out of their hands and put into unfriendly hands--in other words, that it would be utterly futile to go any further with the measure if the hostile majority were thus allowed to deal with it according to their own designs and their own class interest. [Sidenote: 1832--The Peers and the third Reform Bill] Lord Lyndhurst was a man of great ability, eloquence, and astuteness. He was one of the comparatively few men in our modern history who have made a mark in the Law Courts and in Parliament. As a Parliamentary orator he was the rival of Brougham, and the rivalry was all the more exciting to the observers because it was a rivalry of styles as well as of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174  
175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
measure
 

Lyndhurst

 

Reform

 
reading
 

majority

 

reform

 

passed

 

conditions

 

hostile

 

proposal


committee

 
rivalry
 

desired

 
Ministry
 
advocate
 

professed

 

Brougham

 

observers

 

simply

 

adoption


conduct

 

exciting

 

necessarily

 

principle

 

precede

 
disfranchisement
 

adopted

 

friend

 

understand

 

sincere


styles

 

unfriendly

 
ability
 

eloquence

 

Sidenote

 

astuteness

 

modern

 

history

 

comparatively

 

interest


futile
 
utterly
 

Parliamentary

 

Parliament

 

designs

 
Courts
 

enfranchisement

 
allowed
 
orator
 

promoters