, was lost by
a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and
fifty-eight.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831--1832}

This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October.
When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a
motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by
pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims
to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question
of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their
course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of
the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into
criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the
court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;--"That while this
house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into
the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the
country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by
discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself
most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the
principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express
its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of
those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted
the best interests of the country." The motion was supported by Messrs.
O'Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that,
as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only
thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for
a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation
would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law.
Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable
and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the
majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not
hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be
required to secure a triumphant majority. "The people," it was said,
"have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons;
why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the
other house?" The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert
Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and
u