suming powers independent
of the civil magistrates, to be "unconstitutional and illegal". The
political unions proposed to consider themselves outside the scope of
the proclamation, which had little visible effect, though it was not
without its value as proving that the government was a champion of order
as well as of liberty.

[Pageheading: _NEGOTIATIONS WITH WAVERERS._]

During the short recess of less than six weeks political discontent,
constantly growing, was aggravated by industrial distress and gloomy
forebodings of a mysterious pestilence, already known as cholera. A
voluminous correspondence was carried on between the king and Grey on
the means of silencing the political unions and smoothing the passage of
a new reform bill. It was not in the king's nature to conceal his own
conservative leanings, especially on the imaginary danger of increasing
the metropolitan constituencies, and Grey complained more than once of
these sentiments being confided, or at least becoming known, to
opponents of the government. At the same time attempts were being made
not only by the king himself, but also by peers of moderate views to
arrange a compromise which might save the honour of the government, and
yet mitigate the hostility of the tory majority in the upper house. In
these negotiations behind the scenes, Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury,
and Carr, Bishop of Worcester, took part, as representing the episcopal
bench, while Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, in temporary concert with
Chandos, professed to speak for the "waverers" among peers. As little of
importance resulted from their well-meant efforts, and as nearly all the
supposed "waverers," including the bishops, drifted into open
opposition, it is the less necessary to dwell at length on a very
tedious chapter in the history of parliamentary reform. Suffice it to
say that when parliament reassembled on December 6, 1831, the prospects
of the forthcoming bill were no brighter than in October, except so far
as the danger of rejecting it had become more apparent.

The final reform bill introduced by Lord John Russell on the 12th was
identical in its principle and its essential features with the former
ones. The chief alteration was the maintenance of the house of commons
at its full strength of 658 members. This enabled its framers not only
to reduce the number of wholly disfranchised boroughs (schedule A) from
sixty to fifty-six, and that of semi-disfranchised boroughs (s