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
|