MR. BEALES-THE HYDE PARK RIOTS. no government should undertake a measure of reform without seeing a fair possibility of carrying it, declared that that possibility depended on an understanding and joint action between the two great parties in the state. He added that he should be glad if an opportunity occurred for passing a safe and satisfactory measure. He would like to see a number of the class now excluded admitted to the franchise, but he feared that the portion of the community most clamorous for a reform bill was not that which would be satisfied with any measure that could be approved of by either of the great parties in the country. These utterances were the result of what had happened; but it soon became evident that the country was not altogether dependent on the two great parties in parliament, and that certain extra-parliamentary forces had been called into an active operation, which continued all through the subsequent discussions until a reform bill was passed. Immediately after the defeat of Earl Russell's ministry demonstrations were made which showed that no other government could neglect the introduction of such a measure. A meeting was held in Trafalgar Square, where it was said 10,000 persons assembled, and there the late premier was censured for not having decided on a dissolution of parliament. This was significant. It appeared as though there was already a growing conviction that a general election would have given a majority in favour of a measure of reform as inclusive as that which had been rejected mainly through the opposition of those who had been avowed supporters of Liberal principles. During the recess, after the prorogation of parliament, these demonstrations continued both in London and in the large provincial towns. In many places the meetings were of imposing size, and the proceedings were of a very emphatic character. At some of them language was used which afterwards gave occasion for accusing the speakers of preaching democracy, republicanism, terrorism, revolution, and even anarchy; but there could at anyrate be no longer a doubt that the large body of people were becoming very much in earnest in demanding such an extension of the fran 223 chise as the members of the Conservative Mr. Edmond Beales, a barrister of reputable position, was the recognized leader of the association known as the Reform League, and either presided or spoke at numbers of large meetings, especially those which were held in London. Mr. Beales was, on the whole, an excellent president of such an association, and seldom or never lost self-control or failed to sustain a certain "respectability" in the proceedings so far as the platform was concerned. It was sometimes thought that this was aided by the persistence with which he displayed his degree of Master of Arts; the letters M.A. appearing after his name in the big "posters" and all the announcements of the meetings at which he presided. It was one of the harmless humours of the time never to mention the name of Mr. Beales without parenthetically, but with much emphasis, adding "M.!A.!" When the Reform Bill had passed, this gentleman very easily subsided and retired to the distinguished obscurity of a county court judgeship; but he carried on the work he had undertaken during the agitation with considerable tact, and with a gravity and earnestness which had a very remarkable effect. Perhaps the most conspicuous instance of his influence, and of the action of the council of "the League," occurred during the time of what were called the "Hyde Park Riots," a term rather in excess of anything that really happened, though the combined blundering and. uncertainty displayed in the conduct of some of the authorities might easily have produced much more serious consequences than the overturning of the park railings and the sudden invasion of what was after all a public place by a rather noisy but not particularly mischievous or revolutionary mob. A number of the supporters of the government had taken alarm, and the government itself preferred to regard the meetings which had been held, as assemblies called together for the purpose of political disturbances. At the same time Mr. Lowe and some of the Adullamites were complaining of the manner in which they had been denounced and misrepresented by a few of the speakers. It was scarcely surprising, therefore, that when the council of the League proposed to hold a monster meeting in Hyde Park on the 23d of July (1866) for the purpose of showing the number and proving the determination of the reformers, a great deal of alarm was excited. In opposition to the proposal of the council of the Reform League the government came to the weak determination to prevent the meeting in the park. The council had taken legal opinion on the subject, and were not without precedent, so that they did not withdraw their avowed intention though Sir Richard Mayne, the chief commissioner of the metropolitan police force, issued a notice forbidding the assembly, and was supported by Mr. Walpole at the Home Office. No argument could prove that the holding of such a meeting was contrary to law, or that those who might attend it were not within their right in assembling at a public place; and supported by this assurance the Leaguers were prepared to put their claim to the test. But they did so in a way that was perfectly legal and eminently orderly. Mr. Beales, who had held the office of revising barrister for Middlesex, a position from which it was afterwards stated he had been removed because of his political associations with the League, acted with considerable prudence, and both he and his colleagues proved that they were capable of organizing a large association in a manner which would prevent a breach of the law if they were let alone. It mostly happens, however, that any public movement maintained by monster meetings and demonstrations attracts numbers of disorderly and lawless persons who care little or nothing for its objects, and only make use of its assemblies for the purpose of robbery or riot. The prospect of a vast crowd assembled at Hyde Park would therefore have justified such precautions as might have enabled the police to deal with any attempt to resort to violence or the destruction of property. As it was, steps were taken to deal, not with an unruly mob should occasion arise, but to use force for the purpose of preventing a political demonstration by members of the League. Notices had been posted throughout London stating that the park gates would be closed to the public at five o'clock on the evening appointed for the meeting. At that hour thousands of persons were standing at the entrances to the park, which were kept by the police who were posted inside the gates. The council of the League had met in the afternoon and determined to abide by their arrangements. The members of the association, divided into sections, were to march from various parts of London in regular order, with their banners, to the place of meeting. For these processions the crowd was waiting, a crowd largely composed of idle and mischievous lads and rough fellows ready to take advantage of any chance of horse-play and willing to show impatience of authority. A few stones and two or three sticks were thrown, and the police were then marched outside the gates, before which they stood in a semicircle, the mounted constables in front of them. Presently the banners of the first procession were seen approaching the Marble Arch, and the mob greeted them with cheering, and made way for the leaders to pass towards the gates. Mr. Edmond Beales, Colonel Dickson, and other active members of the League, came first in a carriage, from which they alighted. Mr. Beales, speaking to the nearest mounted police officer, requested admission to the park, but was told that he could not enter. On his asking for a reason the officer said, “I have authority to prevent you." To the inquiry, What authority? he replied, "Our commissioner." The leaders of the party then returned to their carriage amidst the cheers and remonstrances of the dense crowd, which had been estimated to consist of at least a hundred thousand persons. The procession then reformed as well as it could, and turned back, following its leaders through Oxford Street to Trafalgar Square, where in a few words two resolutions were passed-one urging the prose cution of lawful and constitutional means for MR. WALPOLE-THE NEW MEASURE. extending the franchise, and the other thanking Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and others for remaining faithful to the cause of parliamentary reform while so many had basely deserted it. 225 the life-guards reappeared. Hostilities wore themselves out, and eventually the park was cleared. That night half London had shared in the panic, which seemed to have originated with the government; but the next day all was quiet, and another, comparatively lawabiding and orderly, crowd was in Park Lane and about Piccadilly, curious to see the ruined railings and to walk over the scene of the conflict. That conflict was over. It had, strictly speaking, little or nothing to do with the question of the franchise, but it was asserted on all hands that it hastened a measure of reform such as the government of Lord Derby would not have proposed except under the pressure of what they supposed to be a threatening demonstration. It seems far more likely, however, that the attitude immediately afterwards assumed by the leaders of the League had that effect. Only two days had elapsed when Mr. Beales, Colonel Dickson, and others who had sought to lead the procession into the park, and on being refused what they believed to be their legal right, had peacefully retired, waited upon the home secretary on his invitation to consult in reference to the disturbances in Hyde Park. Then was their opportunity. Mr. Walpole was a kindly, humane gentleman, and was already deeply concerned that the prohibition he had ordered should have had such a painful result. It soon became evident that he was not quite sure of the ground he had taken, and Mr. Beales very solemnly and very truly represented to him that it was impossible to overrate the gravity of the crisis; that to restore order, it was necessary to withdraw the military and the police from the park. If this were done, he, Mr. Beales, and his friends would use their best efforts to pacify the public. Mr. Walpole thanked them for going to see him and for the conciliatory tone they had used in reference to the "unhappy proceedings." He was much affected by the in That was an end of the proceedings so far as the members of the Reform League were officially concerned, but the crowd about Hyde Park had not dispersed. They still hung about the railings, by which they were prevented from entering the park itself. There were, no doubt, many reformers among them, but they were certainly a small minority. The business of the day was over, and nothing exciting had come of it. A dense mass began to move towards Park Lane, where there was already considerable pressure. Nobody could afterwards prove whether the railings there, being already shaky, began to sway inward by the weight of those who stood leaning on them, or whether, finding them already loose, one person or twenty persons gave them a sudden push. Whatever may have been the immediate cause, they went down at one point, and in a few minutes the whole line of half a mile of iron rails followed, and the park was invaded by the shouting, screaming, triumphant mob, who, of course, resisted the attempts of the police to drive them back, and went scampering and leaping over the grass and trampling over the flower-beds. There were numerous free fights, truncheons were used with considerable vigour, stones flew, and several persons were badly injured. A detachment of foot-guards arrived and amidst the cheers of the mob took up a position by the gate, a body of life-guards were greeted in the same enthusiastic manner as they galloped off to another part of the park. It was against the police that the mob exerted itself, and doubtless many in that surging crowd regarded the police as their natural enemies, and tried to do them mischief. Many of them were seriously hurt, and it was not to be wondered at that they defended themselves and repeat-terview, and it was said that he shed some edly charged their assailants. A second body of foot-guards arrived and were held in readiness to fire on the rioters if things became more serious; they aided the police in driving back and separating their opponents. Then VOL. IV. tears. Perhaps he did, and they were certainly no disgrace to him, though they may have been an evidence that he was not made of stuff stern enough for the office he held and soon afterwards resigned. When the 78 Reform Leaguers left him it was with an understanding that had the government known they meant to try their right to enter the park in a legal way, they would have had every facility for doing so, and that if they would not, in the meantime, insist on their presumed right, and on condition that there were no disturbance and no attack on property, there should be no display of military or police in the park. The end of it was that notice was given by the League that there would be no further meetings in the park except only on the following Monday afternoon, “by arrangement with the government." Amidst these disquieting events Mr. Gladstone preserved a certain reticence. He took no part in the demonstrations that were made, but waited to see whether any measure, or what kind of measure, would be brought forward by his opponents. There were members of the new cabinet who would have held out against the introduction of any bill dealing with the question of reform; but both Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli knew that the ministry would not be able to retain office for many days if they refused to make prompt advances to meet what had now grown to a loud and general demand. The difficulty chiefly fell on Mr. Disraeli, as leader in the House of Commons. He had opposed the whole scheme proposed by his predecessors, had denounced the extensions it proposed, and had declared that it was calculated to change the character of the English constitution to that of America. The victory by which he had again come into office had been won by the division of the opposition, and the party which had aided him to defeat the Liberal government were little likely to accept any proposals for reform, without exercising the power of destructive criticism. It required all his adroitness to meet these combined difficulties, and a man less confident in his own dexterity would have shrunk from the task that lay before him. Two questions seem to have presented themselves to him. The first was how to bring in a reform bill which should be so plastic as to take its shape from the opposition, and so enable the ministry to retain office: the second, how to pacify and persuade his colleagues that they might agree to present a bill wide enough to have a chance of being committed to discussion. The reference made in the royal speech to parliamentary reform was, "Your attention will again be called to the state of the representation of the people in parliament; and I trust that your deliberations, conducted in a spirit of moderation and mutual forbearance, may lead to the adoption of measures which, without unduly disturbing the balance of political power, shall freely extend the elective franchise." The latter part of this intimation was interpreted by many Liberals to mean, "There will be some changes, but no such alterations as will make any considerable difference in the result of elections, no disturbance of the political power enjoyed by the landed aristocracy." The meaning of the first part of the reference was soon apparent, for the ministry acted with remarkable promptitude. The session commenced on Tuesday the 5th of February, 1867, and on the following Monday the leader in the House of Commons was prepared with his statement of the government scheme. In a house crowded with anxious and curious listeners Mr. Disraeli rose to speak, and his first communication was received with an outburst of laughter from the opposition, for it was to the effect that in the opinion of the government, parliamentary reform should no longer be a question which ought to decide the fate of ministers. It was soon to become evident that the Conservative government would neither destroy their bridges nor burn their boats, but would keep the means of retreat open and in repair. So far from Mr. Disraeli being disconcerted by laughter, he had probably calcu lated on exciting it, and he went on to justify the opinion he had expressed by reference to the fact that all parties in the state had at one time or other failed in endeavouring to deal with the question; that successive governments had brought in bills and had not been able to carry them. This was all very well, but when as a consequence of his declaration he announced that it was intended to proceed with the bill by way of resolutions, it soon became evident that the house would THE "TEN MINUTES BILL." have none of them. These resolutions (there were thirteen of them) were, so to speak, "ready cut and dried,” and were of a cleverly mixed character. Some of them may be said to have been obvious political axioms, or accepted statements on the subject of the franchise and electoral qualifications; but others presented such changes as it was thought the house might be induced to endorse, or at all events to accept with certain modifications. One of them proposed to base the occupation franchise in counties and boroughs on the principle of rating. Another declared in favour of a plurality of votes, to facilitate the settlement of the borough franchise; another that it was not expedient wholly to disfranchise any existing borough, and another proposed to leave it at the option of an elector to record his votes by means of polling papers. The thirteenth resolution was to ask for a royal commission to consider and submit a scheme for altering or determining the boundaries of parliamentary boroughs. The opposition to these resolutions was as prompt as the action of the government. While they were being read to the House of Commons a meeting of working-men's tradesunions was assembled at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, where 20,000 persons were present. To this meeting Mr. P. A. Taylor read the resolutions proposed to the house, and after some discussion counter resolutions were passed to the effect that no improvement of the representation of the people in parliament would be satisfactory which was not based on the principle of the people themselves being personally represented, and that such direct and real representation could only be effected by means of residential and registered manhood suffrage, protected in its exercise by the ballot. There was no mistaking the decisive character of this opposition, and among the numerous demonstrations which were being held those of the trades-unions were undoubtedly not the least important, either in the numbers of people which they represented or in the completeness of their organization. On the 21st of February a meeting of the supporters of the ministry was held, and the details of the measure to be brought before 227 the house were discussed. Lord Derby then declared that this would be the last time he would attempt to deal with the subject of reform, and that nothing would induce him again to accept the onerous post he then occupied. But the measure which was brought before the house four days later was not the measure that had been decided on. It was another bill, said to have been got up in a hurry after a meeting of the cabinet at which some of the members had unexpectedly refused, after all, to lend their support to the more comprehensive measure that had been submitted to the previous meeting. Three of the ministers threatened resignation-the Earl of Carnarvon, colonial secretary; General Peel, war secretary; and of course Viscount Cranborne. Then, it was stated, another measure had to be prepared, and as the meeting of the cabinet was held only just before the hour at which parliament was to assemble to hear the provisions of the bill, there was no time to frame another measure. The abortive proposal introduced to the house on the 25th of February was therefore satirically named the "ten minutes bill." The facts appear to have been (according to a statement afterwards made by Lord Derby in the Lords) that a part of the adroit proceedings of the ministry consisted in the preparation of two bills, the most comprehensive of which was to have been submitted to the house if the house had consented to proceed on resolutions. This was the bill which was to have been presented even after the resolutions were abandoned, one objecting member of the cabinet (Lord Carnarvon) waiving his dissent; but at the last moment two other members, General Peel and Viscount Cranborne, refused their assent, and the government then determined to bring before the house a less comprehensive measure which they seemed to have in reserve in case of opportunity or emergency—a measure which they did not themselves consider satisfactory, but which they hoped might for a time settle the question. We need not detail the proposals of this bill, which, when it was presented to the |