London, May 16. The resentment of the bourgeois opposition 
caused by the vote in the House of Lords on the occasion of 
Ellenborough’s motion is a symptom of weakness. On the contrary, 
they ought to celebrate the rejection of the motion as a victory. To 
force the House of Lords, the supreme council of the aristocracy, 
in solemn public debate to declare its satisfaction with the way the 
war has hitherto been conducted, loudly to acknowledge Palmer- 
ston as their champion and representative, and definitely to reject 
mere pious wishes for administrative reform, for any kind of 
reform—what more favourable results could the enemies of the 
aristocracy expect from Ellenborough’s motion? Above all they had 
to seek to discredit the House of Lords, the last bastion of the 
English aristocracy. But they complain that the House of Lords 
disdains fleeting popularity at the cost not of its privileges but of 
the existing cabinet. It is in the order of things for The Morning 
Herald to complain, being the Tory organ, the organ of all the 
prejudices of “our incomparable constitution”.* For The Morning 
Herald it was a comforting prospect, after the Whig oligarchy 
performing as the friends of the bourgeoisie and of “liberal 
progress” for a century and a half, to see the roles change and the 
Tories now entrusted for another century and a half with the role 
of “aristocratic” representatives of the bourgeoisie and of “liberal 
progress”. The Morning Herald has a right to complain, a good, 
solid right. But the bourgeois opposition? Did it perhaps imagine 
that a moderate demonstration of City merchants would be 

1855, published by The Morning Herald, No. 22432, May 16, 1855.— Ed. 

enough to force the aristocracy into committing suicide, into 
abdicating? The truth, however, is that the bourgeoisie desires a 
compromise, that it expects flexibility from the other side to 
enable it too to be flexible; that it would like, if possible, to avoid a 
real struggle. As soon as the struggle becomes a real one, the 
“million”, as they call the “lower” classes, too, will rush into the 
arena, not just as spectators, not just as referees, but as a party. 
And the bourgeoisie would like to avoid this at all costs. It was a 
similar reason that kept the Whigs out of the Cabinet from 
1808-1830. They wanted to throw out their opponents at any price 
except the price of real concessions to the bourgeoisie, without 
whose aid the Tories could not be thrown out, except the price of 
a parliamentary reform. We have seen the ambiguous, off-hand 
way and the aloof, ironically non-committal manner in which 
Ellenborough and Derby set themselves up as supporters of the 
bourgeois administrative reform, while doing everything to ward 
off their supposed allies. We now see, on the other hand, how 
timidly and perfidiously the reforming businessmen of the City 
first tried to forestall any opposition from the Chartists and 
temporarily secure their silence, so as to juggle them out of the 
positions they had voluntarily granted them. In the case of the 
City merchants no less than in that of the Tories, fear and dislike 
of the supposed ally outweighs hostility towards the supposed 
enemy. The course of events was briefly this. 

The “Administrative Reform Association” feared opposition 
from the Chartists, who, as the reader will remember, had got the 
better of the “National and Constitutional Association” at two 
large meetings in St. Martins Hall and Southwark, forcing it to 
retreat from the territory it had chosen itself.* On April 26 they 
sent Mr. James Acland (a former Anti-Corn Law lecturer”) to the 
rooms of Ernest Jones, where he announced himself as an 
“envoy” of the Administrative Reform Association, which was 
counting on the support of the Chartists, it being its wish to 
abolish the “class legislation” and install a popular government. 
He invited Ernest Jones to a meeting the next day with the 
committee of the said administration.© Jones declared that he was 
not entitled to reply in the name of the Chartist party. He had to 
decline to attend the meeting until he had consulted the London 

executive committee of the Chartists,© which was to meet the 
following Sunday. 

On Sunday evening, April 29, Jones informed the Chartist 
committee of the whole affair. He was authorised to proceed with 
the negotiations. The following morning Jones had a meeting with 
Mr. Ingraham Travers, the leader of the City movement, who 
personally accredited Mr. James Acland as the authorised agent 
and representative of his party. Mr. I. Travers assured Jones that 
their intention was to form a popular government. The resolutions 
as printed in The Times* were only provisional; the means of 
achieving their goal had to be decided first by the executive 
committee to be elected at the London Tavern meeting. As 
evidence of their sympathy for the cause of administrative reform 
the Chartists should appoint a speaker to represent them at the 
meeting. He would be called upon by the chairman to support one 
of the resolutions. Further, the Chartists should appoint a 
representative who, at the suggestion of the provisional committee 
of the City merchants, would be appointed a permanent member 
of the executive committee of the Reform Association at the 
Tavern meeting. Finally it was agreed that, admittance being by 
ticket only, the Chartists would receive their due share of these 
tickets. Jones declined to let the matter be left to a purely verbal 
agreement and informed Mr. Ingraham [Travers] that he would 
have to put forward all the points mentioned in a letter to the 
Chartists’ executive committee. 

This was done. The letter arrived, overflowing with assurances. 
However, when the time came for the delivery. of the admission 
tickets, only 12 tickets arrived. When the Chartist committee 
complained about this breach of promise, the others apologised 
saying there were no more tickets left. However, if the Chartist 
committee would station two of its members at the door of the 
Tavern, they would be authorised to admit whoever they pleased, 
even without a ticket. Messrs. Slocombe and Workman were 
elected by the Chartists for this purpose and received Mr. 
Travers’s authorisation. To eliminate all suspicion the Admuinistra- 
tive Reform Association sent a special messenger with a letter for 
Jones on the day of the meeting,” a few hours before its 
commencement, to remind him that the chairman would request 
him to speak in favour of resolution 4, and that he would be 
proposed to the meeting as a member of the executive committee, 
in his status as representative of the Chartists. 

‘ “Administrative Reform”, The Times, No. 22040, April 28, 1855.— Ed. 
May 5, 1855.— Ed. 

About an hour before the meeting .large numbers of Chartists 
assembled outside the Tavern. As soon as the doors were opened, 
Messrs. Slocombe and Workman were forbidden to admit anyone 
without a ticket. Eight tickets were reluctantly distributed in 
order to gain time at a moment when the pressure from outside 
seemed to be getting serious. This time was used to bring along a unit 
of police waiting in readiness in a sidestreet. From this moment on 
nobody else was admitted except “well-known merchants and 
bankers”. Indeed, people in working-class dress, in the familiar 
corduroy jackets, were turned away even if they had entrance 
tickets. To deceive the crowd of workers waiting in the street, the 
doors were suddenly locked and notices put up saying, “The hall 
is full. Nobody else will be admitted”. At the time, however, the 
hall was not even half full, and “gentlemen” arriving in their 
carriages were admitted through the windows and by way of a 
back-door through the kitchen. The crowd of workers dispersed 
calmly, since they did not suspect any treachery. Although Ernest 
Jones showed his “platform ticket” at the meeting, he was not 
allowed up on the platform, much less permitted to speak of 
course. The Association had achieved two aims—to prevent any 
opposition from the Chartists, and to be able to point to the crowd 
in the street as their supporters. But these were only supposed to 
appear as extras in the street. 

Ernest Jones, in an appeal to the workers of England, relates this 
comedy of intrigues and on behalf of the Chartists throws down the 
gauntlet to the Administrative Reform Association.*