Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/224

 2io History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1827- satisfy the Canningite ministers, because it slightly raised the scale of duties; but it was accepted all round as a compromise, and was speedily carried, being first brought in by Grant on the 3 ist of March, and on the 26th of June finally passed. It was known that these difficulties and concessions in Parliament answered to differences and dissensions in the Cabinet, and that the state of things there was strained and critical. The climax was reached in a quite unexpected manner. Canning had always been an opponent of Parlia- mentary reform, yet it was a question of reform which led to the separation of his former friends and followers from the Ministry. It was a little matter, to be sure ; but, as Mercutio says, it was enough. At the very beginning of the session, on the 3 ist of January, Lord John Russell obtained leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise Penryn and enfranchise Man- chester, giving votes to 20 householders ; and on the same day Mr. Tennyson took the same course with regard to East Retford in this case the members to be given to Birmingham. There was a difference of opinion as to the disposal of the seats, one party wishing to give them to large towns as pro- posed, another desiring to give them to the hundreds adjoining the original boroughs. Here again ministers were not agreed, Peel saying that if there were two boroughs disfranchised, he would enfranchise one large town ; and Huskisson declaring that if there were only one seat to dispose of, he would give that to a large town. It was not a very serious difference, as it seemed, but when the rupture was inevitable the exact occa- sion was not of much importance. Events seemed to conspire curiously to bring about the crisis. The Penryn Bill passed the House of Commons with the Manchester clause in. Whilst it was before the Lords, with a certainty, as was felt then, of being rejected, the East Retford Bill came on, and an amendment was moved to give the seat to the hundreds instead of to Birmingham. It was on the iQth of May that this critical question arose. Peel, who had consented to the enfranchisement of Manchester, was free to vote for the amend- ment, which he did. Huskisson's course was not so clear.