Fortunately, the worst of the evil was averted, by the total indifference of the Duke to all such demonstrations.  The greatest men have been despisers of mankind, of the swaying multitude, that is to say, the unthinking, the headstrong, and the violent—­not of necessity merely, from that intrinsic superiority and natural antagonism which forbid their commingling; but also, and with a more hearty potency, from the experience which they, alternately the adored or the scorned, have had of the inconstancy of the giddy people.  In this light estimation, indeed, of the judgment of their less worthy fellows, lies the secret of their greatness and their strength.  They ride towards their goal while the stream tends that way, and when the course of the current is diverted, they are not dismayed.  Their scorn of the means leads them to pass on by their own strength, or to rest secure on the foundation-rock of our moral nature—­principle, and the consciousness of duty done.

In April, 1832, on the motion for the second reading of the new Reform Bill in the House of Lords, the Duke made a speech, characterised by unqualified opposition to the measure, at a time when many of the conservative peers (called “waverers,”) were for giving it a qualified support.  But, after a defeat of ministers in committee, on Lord Lyndhursts motion of the 7th of May, followed by their resignation, and when the king, rather than agree to create peers, called on the Duke of Wellington to form an administration, he expressed his readiness to do so upon the principle of moderate reform.

This sudden inconsistency the public could not understand; the Duke’s avowed reason was that when called on by his sovereign he could not leave him alone in his difficulty.  However, the Duke’s efforts were brought to a summary conclusion by the refusal of Sir Robert Peel to join in the attempt.

It is amusing to see the opposite Views these two statesmen took of their duties to their king.  Sir Robert Peel considered that “his acceptance of office pledged to carry an efficient Reform Bill, he being a determined enemy to such a measure, would be a political immorality which would not allow him to enter on his services with a firm step, a light heart, and an erect attitude.”  The Duke said, “if he had refused to assist his majesty, because he had hitherto given his opposition to parliamentary reform, he would not have been able to show his face in the streets for shame of having deserted his sovereign in circumstances so painful and alarming.”  The result of Sir Robert’s refusal was, that the Duke gave up the attempt, and Earl Grey was recalled.

During the sessions of 1833 and 1834, the Duke was the leader of the opposition in the House of Lords; always at his post, and always ready to grapple with the different questions brought before the peers.  On the 9th of June, 1834, took place his installation as Chancellor of the University of Oxford;—­a brilliant scene, at which some of the most distinguished men of the day assisted.