Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/122

 io8 History of the Radical Party in Parliament, [i Soy- measure. When a companion bill had been introduced, Mr. Herbert moved for a committee of inquiry, but was defeated by forty votes to fifteen. It was of this coercion bill that Lord Byron, in his first speech to the House of Lords, declared that its provisions could only be enforced by twelve butchers as a jury and Jeffreys for a judge. It was only the prelude to a series of Acts by which Sidmotith endeavoured to suppress by mere force every public manifestation of opinions or feelings. It was resisted at every stage, and led to violent discussions- ministers, of course, making the most of the lamentable crimes of the Luddites and frame-breakers, and the opposition dwell- ing upon the misery and suffering which drove the ignorant people to violence. When a break in the distress and a pause in the violence took place, and men began to talk about political reform instead of joining in bread-riots, Sidmouth could not distinguish between the two processes, but restrained and punished one as well as the other. He regarded every speech as sedition, every meeting as treason. Whilst these matters affecting the material prosperity of the country were being discussed, the Catholic question was press- ing itself forward under conditions most embarrassing to the leaders of parties. It was now to find in ministerial complica- tions and difficulties an opportunity of still further advance. On the 2 ist of April Lord Donoughmore submitted a resolu- tion to the House of Lords in favour of Catholic relief, and obtained 102 votes to 174. For a similar motion brought forward in the Commons by Grattan, the votes were 215, and 300 voted against. This was the third Parliamentary defeat, and it proved that the influence of the Prince of Wales, who had now, by the confirmed illness of his father, acceded to full power, would not be exerted on behalf of religious liberty. But a sudden and painful event which altered the Adminis- tration made a great difference in the position of the question. On the nth of May Mr. Perceval, the Prime Minister, was shot in the lobby of the House of Commons. The murderer, Bellingham, was actuated by motives of private revenge, but the public consequences of his act were serious. It was no