aroused. The debate on the second reading began on the 7th of April, and was continued on the 3rd of June. Russell opposed the measure, objecting both to its secular character and to the principle of free education. Sir R. Inglis accused Mr. Fox of neglecting the eternal destiny of the children; Lord Ashley took a similar view, and the evangelical opponents were joined with equal vigour by the Roman Catholic party. The combination was too strong for the reformers, and the bill was rejected by 287 votes to 58.† It was after this defeat that, at a great conference at Manchester, the Lancashire Association was converted into the "National Public School Association," and the agitation was continued with increased determination. More immediate success attended another effort made by the party to promote popular education. On the 14th of February Ewart, who then sat for Dumfries, obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable town councils to establish * Adams, p. 154. He says, "From the high-priest point of view there was no good in the scheme, but only visions of Democracy! Socinianism! Communism ! and Infidelity! and all these because it was proposed to teach the alphabet." The following are the names of the members who were wise enough, in 1850, to vote for a plan which the whole nation-when it was more efficiently represented -declared to be necessary in 1870 : public libraries and museums. The bill, as passed,. was hampered by provisions which retarded its adoption and limited its operations. Many of these have since been removed, and the amount of good which the Act has accomplished cannot easily be estimated. Including those libraries established by private legislation, 113 towns in the United Kingdom have adopted Library Acts. Every provincial town in England of more than 100,000 inhabitants, except Hull, has adopted them. Apart from London, there are in England and Wales sixty-three towns of over 40,000 inhabitants apiece, with a population amounting altogether to 6,483,874. Forty-six of these towns have already adopted the Acts, and, since they were the most populous of the great towns, over five millions of the urban population of England and Wales enjoy the benefits of public libraries, supported by themselves and managed by themselves.* Ewart also moved, on the 7th of May, a resolution to abolish the advertisement duty; but he was defeated by 169 to 39,the minority being Radicals, and Milner Gibson acting with Ewart as teller. In the contest which arose over the policy of the Government—or rather of Lord Palmerston-respecting the difference with Greece over the Don Pacifico and Finlay claims, the Radicals were divided. Roebuck and some others of the party supported Palmerston, because they believed that he intended to use the influence of England on behalf. of constitutional governments in other countries; whilst Cobden, Bright, and Gibson represented a large section who maintained that strict non-intervention and non interference were the true lines on which the nation ought to act. The peculiarly arbitrary conduct of the foreign minister towards Greece and France was scarcely defensible on any grounds, but this part of the subject was dwelt upon lightly by the Government advocates. The attack made in the House of Lords by Stanley was successful, the vote of censure being carried by *Notes of a paper read to the Metropolitan Free Libraries Association, by Mr. H. R. Tedder reported in "Monthly Notes of the Library Association of the United Kingdom," vol. iv. No. 12. 169 to 139. Ministers took no action in consequence of this vote, and when questioned about it by Roebuck on the 20th of June, Russell laid down a principle which is fatal to the claim of the equality of the power of the Peers with that of the Commons. He said that while a change of government in consequence of a resolution of the House of Lords would be unconstitutional, it might produce great confusion in the State, and be to none so dangerous as to the House of Lords itself. So ministers intended to continue in that course which they had hitherto followed, and which had been condemned by the Peers. Roebuck, however, thought that the censure of one House ought to be met by a vote of confidence in the other, and he gave notice of his intention to propose such a resolution. This he did on the 24th of June, and a long and spirited debate followed, which was adjourned over four nights, the division being taken on the 28th of June, when the Government obtained a majority of forty-six, the numbers being 310 to 264. The debate was rendered memorable by its being the occasion of the delivery of the last speech which Sir Robert Peel made in Parliament. He spoke against ministers, and after alluding to the merits of the Greek dispute, addressed a long and careful argument in favour of a policy of non-intervention. He believed that the cause of constitutional liberty would only be encumbered by our help, while, by obtruding that help, we should involve this country in incalculable difficulties. This speech was delivered on the 28th of June; on the following day he met with the accident which led to his death, and he died on the 2nd of July. The sad event was felt by all classes as a national calamity. There were differences of opinion amongst politicians as to the effect upon public morality of having measures carried by men who had long and consistently opposed them: there was no difference on the subject of the thorough conscientiousness of Peel on the two great occasions when he had shattered his party by reversing its policy, and there was a universal recognition of his ability. The belief in his honesty, and the gratitude for his services, were as universal as was the sorrow for his loss. CHAPTER XVI. FROM THE DEATH OF PEEL TO THE RESIGNATION OF THE ABERDEEN MINISTRY (1850-1855). THE death of Peel had a great and almost immediate effect upon the position and fortune of English parties. It was a time when a change in the weight of personal influence made itself felt in an extraordinary manner. The Liberals, as we have seen, had a nominal majority of one only over the combined forces of Peelites and Protectionists, who, although strongly opposed on one subject, were united on general Conservative principles. The occasional antagonism had, like the quarrel of friends, aroused bitter personal feelings, which hindered re-union even when its original cause was ceasing to operate. The fiercest of these animosities had been directed. against Peel, because it was his powerful genius which had induced the defections from the old party lines which had twice carried into effect Liberal policy by Conservative votes. His removal, therefore, paved the way for a gradual reconciliation on the part of some at least of the men who had followed him. On protection itself they could not give way, but short of that they were willing to make concessions to the landed interests, and they were anxious to prevent changes in Church or State. The Liberals on their side were divided in opinions, the Radicals being desirous to force on reforms, to which a large section of the Whigs were opposed. So far as the death of Sir Robert removed a hindrance to union between the two sections of the Conservatives, it made the ministers more dependent upon the Radicals. It did more than that, for, as it tended more to equalize the balance of political power, it convinced some at least of the Liberal leaders that important changes must be made. A step might be taken in one of two directions. A coalition with a considerable number of the Peelites would give the Government a fair working majority; but it was doubtful how many of the rank and file the leaders would carry with them in an alliance, which would mean the adoption to some extent of Liberal policy. On the other hand, the Whigs, if they were not careful, were likely to lose as much by the secession of Radicals as they would gain by Peelite adhesions; and they would lose, besides, that hold upon public opinion which would be secured by loyalty to Liberalism, even if it did not take a very active form. There was only one other course, and that was called for as much by the absolute necessities of Government as by the interests of the Whigs themselves. If they could not strengthen themselves by coalition with Conservatives they must gain power on the Liberal side, and as it seemed impossible to do that with the existing constituencies, a reform in the system of representation was clearly desirable. The position was difficult to manage, and ministers were most unfortunate in their attempt to deal with it. They tried both methods, but did not succeed well with either. Their first efforts were directed to coalition, but an event occurred soon after the loss of Sir Robert Peel which complicated affairs considerably, and very much deranged party calculations. Parliament was prorogued on the 15th of August, 1850, in the midst, as it was thought, of a political calm; but in a couple of months later the country was in a blaze of excitement and indignation over what was known as the "Papal aggression." By a brief, dated the 30th of September, Pope Pius IX. created one archbishopric and twelve bishoprics in England with English territorial titles. This brief was promulgated in England with a pastoral by Cardinal Wiseman, the newly created Archbishop of Westminster, dated the 7th of October. Both these documents were pitched in a key of triumph on the restoration of England to the pale of the Roman Catholic |