received in the House of Commons.

Nevertheless, the public mind was deeply moved. The perils of such
a precedent were evident enough to any thinking man. Although the
unwearied exertions of Bright, Roebuck, and other leading Radicals,
could not arouse the people to that state of unreasoning excitement in
which these demagogues delight, yet the tone of the press and the spirit
of the public meetings gave proof that the importance of the crisis
was not wholly underrated. These meetings were frequent and largely
attended; inflammatory speeches were made, strong resolutions passed,
and many petitions numerously signed, protesting against the recent
conduct of the Lords, were presented to the popular branch of
Parliament.

In the House of Commons the action was prompt and decided. A committee
was immediately appointed to search for precedents, and ascertain if
such a proceeding was justified by Parliamentary history. The result of
this investigation was anxiously awaited both by the Commons and the
nation. To the disappointment of everybody, the committee, after patient
and protracted research, submitted a report, giving no opinion whatever
on the question, but merely reciting all the precedents that bore on the
subject.

It must be confessed that the condition of affairs was not a little
critical. Both the strength of the Ministry and the dignity of the House
of Commons were involved in the final decision. But, unfortunately, the
Ministerial party was far from being a unit on the question. Bright and
the "Manchester School" demanded an uncompromising and defiant attitude
towards the Lords. Lord Palmerston was for asserting the rights and
privileges of the Commons, but for avoiding a collision. Where Mr.