The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 614 pages of information about The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860.

The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 614 pages of information about The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860.
sought to murder the Recorder, Sir Charles Wetherall, when he came down to that city to hold the quarter-sessions; and, when defeated in their attack on him, stormed the Mansion House, and set it, with the Bishop’s Palace and other public buildings, and scores of private houses, on fire, several of the rioters themselves, who had got drunk, perishing in the flames.  A similar mob rose in arms at Derby, but did less mischief, as there the magistrates knew their duty better.  But Nottingham almost equalled Bristol in its horrors.  Because the Duke of Newcastle was a resolute anti-Reformer, a ferocious gang attacked and set on fire the fine old Castle; and, not content with committing fearful ravages in the town, roamed over the adjacent district, attacked the houses of many of the leading country gentlemen, plundering and burning the dwellings, and in more than one instance murdering some of the inhabitants.

The King had hitherto borne himself between the contending parties in the state with scrupulous fairness to both.  Though, he had, probably, been taken by surprise by the sweeping character of the changes his ministers had proposed, he had given them a frank support, consenting, even at a moment’s notice, to dissolve the Parliament after the unfavorable division in the House of Commons on the first bill; but he had, at the same time, warned them that he would never consent to employ any means of coercion to overbear the free decision of the House of Lords.  And he had more than once rejected as unconstitutional their solicitations to allow them to make peers with that object.  At last they endeavored to compel his consent by resigning their offices, though the ground for so decided a step can hardly be deemed sufficient, since the provocation which they alleged was only Lord Lyndhurst’s success in carrying an amendment to take the enfranchising clauses of the bill before those of disfranchisement, so as to give the latter a more gracious appearance, as if the boroughs to be extinguished were made to suffer, not so much for their own positive unworthiness as in order to make room for others which had become of undeniably greater importance.  The King took the strictly constitutional line of accepting their resignation and intrusting the Duke of Wellington with the task of forming a new administration, warning the Duke, at the same time, that he considered himself now pledged to grant a large measure of Reform; but the Duke found the task impracticable, and then, as the only means of averting farther insurrectionary tumults, which bore no slight resemblance to civil war, and might not impossibly end in it, the King did at last consent to permit the creation of a sufficient number of peers to insure the passing of the bill.  But he could not overcome his repugnance to the measure as a severe blow to the constitution—­one which would in effect be tantamount to the extinction of the independence of the Upper House as a legislative body; and, thinking no means unjustifiable that would

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.