Chapter LXXXVIII: Introduction: Of the Reform Bill (1)

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which, as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people, which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly, against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement, in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part, their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true, said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded, according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone, were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new constitution was as follows:—The cities, boroughs, and counties which were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns; and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders. The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections, as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn, and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise, which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced, both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole, Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds’ qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens: Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each, thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about 110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland, perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said, that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage. There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against him—namely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballot—his lordship concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.

This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium, and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question. Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures, he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The baronet’s speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed the bill “Russell’s purge!” which afforded much amusement to honourable and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly quoting Hume’s History of England for illustrations of his arguments. This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord Palmerston, who, in a most statesman-like oration, reviewed the whole question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood, Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel, who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr. O’Connell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not brought in till the 14th—a delay which gave occasion to some members of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the bill, in which one or two alterations and corrections had been made, was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition reserved themselves for the second reading—a stage at which, according to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is usually decided.

DEBATE ON THE MOTION THAT THE BILL BE READ A SECOND TIME, ETC.

From the moment that the general outlines of the plan of reform proposed by ministers had been discussed in parliament, public excitement daily increased. The bill contained few of those changes for which violent reformers had long clamoured; yet these persons professed to receive it with joy. The secret of their conduct was easy to be understood; for though the bill gave less than they wished or demanded, it granted more than they had expected. They were told, moreover, by their leaders, whose hopes lay in the future, that as ministers had determined to go no further, all would be lost unless government were strenuously supported by those who conceived a change desirable. From these causes they agreed to forget the defects of the bill, and to be silent regarding the ballot, universal suffrage, and annual parliaments. The ministerial measure became their standard; “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,” became their watchword; and ministers were invested for a time with a species of infallibility. No part of their measure was wrong, and their conduct was not to be questioned. The manufacturers of petitions again set to work; and the same places which had petitioned a month before for much more, now prayed that the bill might pass untouched and unimpaired. Men, in fact, who had craved reduction of taxation and retrenchment of expenditure—who had desired a more democratic house of commons as the only means of securing those good objects, now conjured the house to enact a measure of which even its patrons declared that it would neither reduce taxation or expenses. The number of petitions was large, but the majority of the names attached to them were from the lowest classes of society, to whom ministers had declared no power could be given. But all this petitioning, though regular, constitutional, and powerful, did not promise to be effective. Ministers had threatened convulsions as the consequences of refusing the bill, and the reformers resolved to support them by opinions which indicated its approach, and exhibitions of mob force which might be used as its means. Language of an intimidating nature was constantly used at their assemblies, and in petitions, against all who should dare to oppose the bill, which intimidation served the purposes of the reformers in two ways: on the one hand, many who were averse to the violent changes proposed were driven into acquiescence from the apprehension that resistance would produce confusion; and on the other hand, those who would actively have resisted the change were overawed from any public expression of their sentiments. The menaces of the reformers were even accompanied with a display of the means of executing them. Everywhere the political unions boasted of the numbers they could bring into the field. Ten thousand men, said Colonel Evans at a reform meeting held in London, are ready to march hither from Beigate to support his majesty’s ministers if they should be defeated; and the chairman of the Birmingham union openly declared that it could supply two armies, each of them as numerous and brave as that which had conquered at Waterloo, if the king and his ministers required them in the contest with the boroughmongers. Nor was the press idle in this critical state of affairs; that daily supplied the fuel by which the excitement was kept up, preaching, in some instances, doctrines subversive of all order and government. Individuals who distinguished themselves in opposing the change were attacked with every species of calumny that enmity could invent; the property of the church and the rights of the peerage were held out as illegally amassed treasures, which the people, in the exercise of their rights, would soon have the pleasure of pillaging; and pretended lists of the names of pensioners and placemen were circulated, in which were to be found the names of men who had never received one farthing from the purse of the state. Even parliament itself was the object of incessant and absurd attack, and privilege seemed no longer to exist.

Such was the state of the public mind when, on the 21st of March, the second reading of the bill was moved. The debate lasted only two days. It was commenced by Sir R. Vyvyan, one of the members for Cornwall, who moved that the bill should be read that day six months. He declared that the bill affected no interests of his own, but it was a measure full of danger to the institutions of the kingdom, and which, therefore, his conscience bound him to oppose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cartwright, who stated that Mr. Hume had actually written to the radical reformers of Glasgow, entreating them not to say a word about the ballot. Mr. Sheil, an Irish agitator, repeated the usual arguments in favour of the bill, dwelling at great length on the disfranchisement of the Irish boroughs at the time of the union, and the later disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, as justifying in principle everything that was now proposed. He treated as ridiculous the idea that the bill could be dangerous either to the crown or to the aristocracy. There was variance between the logic of the non-reformers and their sarcasms. The syllogisms were overthrown by their satire, and their arguments evaporated in their vituperation. This bill would wrench despotism from oligarchy, but it would not touch the legitimate influence of property, and birth, and station, and all the other circumstances which create a title to respect. It would take power from individuals, and give it to a class; it would cut off the secret and subterraneous conduit-pipes through which aristocratic influence was now conveyed to that house, and would make it flow in a broad, open, constitutional, and natural channel. Mr. Charles Grant followed on the same side. The solicitor-general said that the whole argument against the bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was something in the British constitution inconsistent with change, and that to make an alteration would be to effect its destruction. The history of this country, however, and its institutions, showed that there had been an almost uninterrupted series of conflicts between the principle of democracy and despotism, with alternations of success, and the inevitable consequences of that, a system of perpetual change. The present bill, therefore, was in every point of view in perfect harmony with the whole current of our legislation. In six years after the Revolution, he said, the triennial act was passed, distinctly admitting on the part of the legislature of that period that the Revolution was not a settlement to be permanently unchangeable. Neither was the triennial act itself treated with undeviating respect, for, in the year 1715, its repeal was sanctioned by some of the very men who had brought about the Revolution; then the septennial act was passed, and another great change effected in the constitution of parliament. Did any one at that period hold that the septennial bill was a revolutionary measure? So far from any such character being imputed to it, the measure had always been treated as one within the constitution of parliament to enact. Sir Edward Sugden complained that the solicitor-general had gone back to the bill of rights, instead of attempting to explain and justify this bill of wrongs. It was perfectly true that the septennial act did not spring from the Revolution; it was brought in by Whig ministers for the same purpose for which the present bill was brought in by Whig ministers—as the only means by which they could retain their places. Mr. Pendarvis warmly supported the bill; and Mr. Cavendish declared his intention of voting for it, although his constituents at Cambridge had petitioned against it; many of them, he said, were not hostile to the whole measure, but objected to the new qualification as being too low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been, during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs, and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members, and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case, and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his experience but three members had been called to account by that house in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house divided on Sir B. Vyvyan’s motion, when there appeared for the amendment three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations, and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion, although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for comities would be left to freeholders, as they already stood; but that leaseholders of fifty pounds a year, under leases of twenty years, would be added to them. Clergymen likewise were to vote, if they were freeholders to the extent of fifty pounds; and householders who occupied a house let at the yearly rent of ten pounds per annum. The machinery of the bill was to be nearly the same with that proposed for England; and the necessary result of the measure would be to take the franchise out. of the hands of the corporations, who had hitherto monopolised it; and Mr. Stanley thought that no one could deny its propriety. The English bill, he said, in continuation, made no change in the election of the members for the universities; but an alteration was to be made in regard to the University of Dublin. In future it was to return two members instead of one; and the number of electors was to be increased by bringing back the right of voting to what it had originally been. At Oxford and Cambridge the masters of arts had always voted; but in Dublin, a subsequent charter having excluded scholars from receiving their _stipendia_ after the expiry of the five years, it had been held by a forced construction that they lost their right to vote for the university-member after the same period, though they still continued to be scholars. The present bill would restore the original right, by extending their academic franchise to all persons who at any time had been scholars of the university, provided they placed their names on the books, as claimants of the right, within six months after the passing of the act. Mr. O’Connell admitted that the bill would prove a great boon to Ireland, and would produce an effective constituency; but there were parts of it which he hoped would be altered. In the first place, he thought that a greater number of members ought to be given to Ireland. He objected, likewise, to the arrangement concerning the university, because it still left to the franchise an exclusive character; no Roman Catholic could vote there, because he could not become a scholar of a Protestant university; scholarships, therefore, ought to be thrown open to all classes of the community. Nor did the Irish counties receive justice. Many counties in England, because their population extended to 200,000, were to receive two members each, while in Ireland there were twelve counties, with a population above that point, whose representation was not to be increased. In reply to the demand for opening the university-scholarships to Catholics, and making all masters of arts voters, the Irish solicitor-general announced that the charter did not allow it. At Oxford and Cambridge the charters gave the rights to the masters, but at Dublin it was only given to the fellows and scholars, and it was the principle of the bill to preserve vested rights and settled institutions, as far as could be done consistently with an efficient reform. Mr. Bankes, and Sir C. Wetherell, and Mr. Hardinge, argued, that the giving of additional members to Ireland, as well as Scotland, was unjust towards England, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the two legislative unions. They also complained of the effects which the bill would inevitably produce upon the Protestants of Ireland. If the bill passed, it would be impossible, they said, for an Irish Protestant to be returned to parliament, unless two-thirds of the Catholic population chose to vote for him. It would be a virtual exclusion of all Protestants from the representation of Ireland; not one would be elected unless he became an agitator, pledged himself to all that was demanded, and basely pandered to the passions and views of the Catholic electors. The chancellor of the exchequer, in reply to these objections, stated that the bill did not interfere with the unions, any more than the union with Ireland had violated the union with Scotland; and that as to the different circumstances in which Irish Protestants might find themselves, he and his colleagues entertained no apprehensions of their opponents being able successfully to raise against them a no-popery cry; the public mind was too enlightened to be affected by such idle clamours. The bill was allowed to be read a first time; and the second reading was fixed for the 18th of April.

When the house met, on the 12th of April, after the Easter recess, Lord John Eussell communicated certain alterations which it had been found necessary to make in the schedules of boroughs to be disfranchised, in consequence of inaccuracies discovered in the population returns of 1821, on which the whole plan had been founded. Lord John Russell also declared that, although ministers had not changed their opinion regarding the propriety of reducing the numbers of the house, and would try to carry that clause in the bill, still “they were not prepared to say that this was a question of such essential and vital importance, that, if the feelings of the house were strongly shown in a desire to keep up the present number, they might not be induced to relax their determination on that point. If it should appear to be the sense of the house that the whole number of six hundred and fifty-eight members should be retained, the government would not feel that they were altering a vital or essential part of the measure by agreeing to that proposition.” On the following day Mr. Stanley, when adverting to the same topic, to prevent any misconception that ministers, though they might consent to retain the numbers, would leave them to the boroughs, stated, that they were determined to adhere in all circumstances to the disfranchisement of every borough whose population did not reach a particular standard, and the partial disfranchisement of every borough falling beneath a certain other standard; the number of members to be added should be given to such populous towns as might be considered in that event to have a fair claim to representation.

On the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the reform bill. In doing so he stated the alterations which had been recently made in it by ministers. According to his statement, it appeared that five boroughs had been transferred from schedule A to schedule B, and allowed to retain one member, and that seven of those in schedule B were allowed to retain their two members, in consequence of its having been ascertained that the population returns had not accurately represented the number of inhabitants. On the other hand members were to be added to the following counties: namely, Bucks, Berks, Cambridge, Dorset, Hereford, Hertford, Oxford, and Glamorgan. Members were also to be added to the following towns: namely, Oldham, Buly, Bochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and Stoke-on-Trent: Halifax was restricted to the township, and to return only one member, the parish being twenty-five miles in extent. Sons of freemen entitled to the privilege of freemen, and apprentices having entered into indentures in the same manner, were to retain their franchise on taking out their freedom, being resident, and registered under the provisions of the bill. General Gaseoyne moved as an instruction to be given to the committee, “That it is the opinion of this house, that the total number of knights, citizens, and burgesses returned to parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, ought not to be diminished.” This motion was designed to get rid of the bill altogether, and it produced a violent and contentious debate. Mr. Sadler, who seconded it, delivered a long, argumentative, and learned speech against the general principles of the whole plan of reform. He was followed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who declared that he was quite sure that the amendment was put with a view of destroying the bill. It was impossible to misunderstand it: it was the first of that series of motions by which it was intended to interfere with the progress of the committee, and which, if agreed to, would be fatal to the bill. The debate was adjourned till the next day. On that occasion, of the members who opposed it, some did not see how an agreement to the amendment could be considered hostile to the principle of the bill, even if it were carried; and not one, except ministers themselves, pretended it would be a good reason for abandoning the whole bill. Mr. Bulwer, for instance, thought that this question regarding the number of members would make no difference in the general character of the measure, and Mr. J. Campbell hoped that the bill would go on, though the amendment should be carried. Mr. Wynn, who had resigned office because he was opposed to the bill, also thought that this motion was not of much consequence one way or the other. Sir George Warrington, though opposed to the bill, would resist the amendment, on the idea that the effect of it would be, if the bill went on, to prevent the giving of additional members to Scotland. Sir George Clerk said, that he, also, would vote against it if he anticipated any such results; but he saw no reason that it should be so. Sir Robert Wilson, one of the most zealous of all the reformers, expressed great surprise at the view which ministers, after all that had passed, chose to take of this amendment. In voting for it he was not voting against increasing the representation of either Scotland or Ireland, nor did he believe that the fate of the bill depended in the slightest degree on the success or the failure of the present motion. Mr. Stanley, however, declared that this discussion would decide the fate of the bill. The amendment, he said, was concocted in a spirit of hostility to the bill, and brought forward to embarrass ministers. He warned those honourable members, who, while they professed themselves friendly to reform, supported this amendment, that it would decide the fate of the bill, and that by their votes on this occasion they would be judged by their constituents and by the country. In giving their votes, he added, they would either vote for or against the carrying of that question, for the carrying of which, if now lost, an opportunity so favourable might not soon again return, and that the result of that night’s division would be, either to carry that great question, or to defeat the hopes of the people of this country. Sir James Graham, on the same side, remarked that he did not say if this amendment was carried, ministers would abandon the bill; but he did say, that if it should be, it would be a matter of very grave consideration, whether the bill would be so impugned, that they ought not to attempt to carry it through its other stages. General Gaseoyne expressed his surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the sixty-two members was inconsistent with the essence and principles of the bill. If I understood the noble lord who brought in the bill, right, in a conversation which I had with him only yesterday, he distinctly admitted to me that my amendment would not touch the principle of the bill. Lord John Russell replied that the amendment now moved was a different one to that to which General Gaseoyne alluded: and thus ended this debate. On a division, the amendment was carried by two hundred and ninety-nine against two hundred and ninety-one, being a majority of eight against ministers.

MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832}

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General Gaseoyne as one likely to destroy the bill of reform which they had introduced into parliament. It was evident from the beginning that a majority of the present house could not be relied on by its supporters. Ministers, however, did not seem at first determined to have recourse to a dissolution. On the 20th, nothing transpired except that Mr. Hume declared that he would offer no opposition to the ordnance estimates, because, after the vote of last night, he was anxious to assist ministers in getting through the necessary business, in order that a dissolution might take place. On the following day, Lord Wharncliffe, in the upper house, asked Earl Grey whether ministers had advised his majesty to dissolve parliament, and whether it had been resolved that that course should be adopted. Earl Grey declined answering the question; and his interrogator then gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased not to exercise his prerogative of dissolving parliament. The same question was put in the commons by Sir R. Vyvyan, and Lord Althorp replied, that it was not his duty to answer the question. The discussion on the propriety of a dissolution was continued till the morning of the 22nd, and an adjournment on the ordnance estimates was then moved till the next sitting. This was strenuously resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer, on the ground that the topic which had occupied so much time was not a question before the house; and that he wished to get on with the report of the committee of supply on the ordnance estimates. On a division, however, ministers were left in a minority of twenty-two. It was clear from this that ministers had more to decide on than the reform question, and that they had to straggle not merely for their bill, but their places. On the next day, therefore, they resolved to dissolve parliament.

When the house met on the 22nd, the presentation of a petition connected with parliamentary reform furnished occasion in the commons for another discussion on that subject. Sir R. Vyvyan inveighed strongly against the desperation with which ministers were believed to be urging on a dissolution in the present state of the country. He was called to order by Sir Francis Burdett; but the speaker declared that Sir B. Vyvyan was not out of order. A scene of indescribable confusion ensued, in which the authority of the speaker was for some time set aside. At length Sir B. Peel was enabled to address the house. He referred to the scene which had been exhibited, and made a disingenuous use of it, declaring that it was a specimen of what might be expected in a reformed house of commons, whereas the disturbance was created by those who were desirous, _per fas et nefas_, to obstruct the measure before the house. Sir Robert, in a strain of unhappy invective, reiterated his previous denunciations of all reform.

Sir Robert was interrupted by the sergeant-at-arms, who knocked at the door, and the usher of the black rod, who suddenly appeared to summons the speaker and the members, to the house of peers, to hear the prorogation of parliament.

In the upper house proceedings had been of a similar nature to those in the commons. Lord Wharncliffe had scarcely risen to move for an address to his majesty against the dissolution, when the Duke of Richmond rose to complain that all the peers were not sitting in their proper places, as usual on such occasions. This gave rise to a scene of noise and confusion, in which one noble lord was heard to say that ministers were taking the crown off the king’s head. Lord Wharncliffe, being at length allowed to proceed, stated that, without wishing to provoke discussion on the subject, he was anxious that it should be entered on the journals of the house, that he in his place yesterday did give notice that he would move an humble address to his majesty not to exercise his undoubted prerogative of dissolving parliament. His lordship then made a motion to that effect. The lord-chancellor said, that he had never yet heard it doubted that the king possessed the prerogative of dissolving parliament at pleasure; still less had he ever known a doubt to exist on the subject at a moment when the lower house has thought fit to refuse the supplies. The near approach of his majesty was now announced, and Lord Shaftesbury was called to the chair amid discordant noises which it was difficult for him to subdue. Lord Mansfield addressed the house, but was interrupted in his speech by the entrance of the king, and the house of commons having been summoned, his majesty prorogued parliament in these words:—“My lords and gentlemen,—I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this parliament with a view to its dissolution. I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear to require, and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the people.” Parliament was prorogued to the 10th of May, and a proclamation appeared the next day announcing its dissolution, and directing a new election, the writs of which were made returnable on the 14th of June.

The dissolution of parliament was hailed by the people with great joy. Illuminations were got up on every hand. That in London was authorised by the lord-mayor; and the consequence was that, in the west end of the town, the rabble vented their fury on the houses of all those members of parliament who had expressed sentiments unfavourable to the bill, and in whose windows no candles were placed. Many people, doubtless, illuminated their houses lest they should become obnoxious to the mob; yet these illuminations were made use of by the reformers to keep up their incessant cry, that the inhabitants of the country, from one end to the other, were animated by one universal feeling of enthusiasm for the reform bill, and for the act which got rid of a parliament that refused it. It has been well remarked that, in political disputes, to place candles in windows is no proof of political opinion, or of anything else than a prudent desire to avoid the outrages of a mob.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST.

The other business of this session related chiefly to financial matters. The budget was opened on the 11th of February by Lord Althorp, who estimated the charge for the year at £46,850,000; while the revenue, on account of the many taxes repealed, would yield only £47,150,000, and thus give an excess over the charge of only about £300,000. This, he said, did not afford much room for the reduction of taxation; but still he thought that something might be done, especially by reducing those imposts which pressed on the industry of the country; by relieving trade from fiscal embarrassments; and by introducing, in many cases, a more equal distribution of taxes. Lord Althorp avowed that he had taken his principles and general views from Sir Henry Parnell’s work entitled “Financial Reform.” He divided the taxes into three classes:—first, taxes on commodities of which there would be an increased consumption and revenue; secondly, taxes which, instead of being equally and impartially distributed amongst all classes, pressed more severely on one part of the community; and thirdly, those taxes which, besides interfering with commerce, took more out of the pockets of the people than was furnished to the revenue. Under the first head, his lordship explained that he intended to reduce the duty on tobacco, and on newspapers, stamps, and advertisements; under the second, that of sea-borne coal, which he proposed to repeal altogether; and under the third, the duties on tallow and candles, calicoes, glass, &c. The estimated loss of the reductions in the whole was £3,170,000, a reduction which the revenue could not sustain. The next point was, therefore, how to make good this loss without imposing an equal burthen on the people. Lord Althorp proposed to equalise the duties on foreign wines, and foreign European timber and exported coals; and to place duties on cotton, steam-boats, and the _bona fide_ sale or transfer of landed property. The estimated revenue from these sources was £2,740,000; while on the other hand, the amount of taxes repealed or reduced was £4,080,000; so that the country gained £1,340,000, while it was stated the public services would not suffer. This financial project of Lord Althorp was vehemently attacked by all parties in the house. The experiment, it was said, was a dangerous one, and the probability was, that it would be necessary to raise by exchequer-bills a sum to meet the charges of the year; thus gratifying the country for a time by an apparent relief from taxation, only to produce the necessity of afterwards imposing heavier taxes on the people. The experiment was represented as the less justifiable, as not one shilling was included in the budget as being applicable to the diminution of the national debt. It was always believed by some that the budget was not one of reduction, but of mere transposition. Some taxes were reduced, but others were imposed to make up the loss. At all events, it was said, the budget was merely a pretext of doing something, while in truth it did nothing, or did mischief. An attack was especially made on the tax proposed on transfers in the public funds, and Lord Althorp was induced to abandon it. Ministers were also defeated on a division in regard to a proposed diminution of duties on Baltic timber, and an augmentation of those grown in Canada. The tax on steam-boat passengers was likewise abandoned, and an increased duty on our colonial wines, which his lordship consented to reduce. Finally, the proposed duty on the importation of raw cotton was reduced, and the whole affair produced a strong impression of the practical inefficiency of the government. Under any other circumstances, indeed, ministers could not survive the defeats they had experienced; but the anchor of reform saved the ship in which they had embarked, albeit it was a crazy one, from foundering in the sea of politics.

Ministers were not more skilful in the arrangements of the civil list. The late ministry had gone out of office after a vote by which the house of commons declared its opinion that the civil list should be referred to a select committee. When these arrangements were considered, it appeared that the most material changes made after the abolition of certain offices, were the reduction of the pension list in future to the sum of £75,000 per annum, and the subtraction of £460,000 from the civil list, to be placed under the control of parliament. On hearing the statements of the chancellor of the exchequer, the members of the late government expressed their satisfaction that the present ministers, so loud against expenditure when out of office, and pledged to retrenchment when they came in, had been driven to acknowledge that they found it impossible to carry economy further, in the matter of the civil list, than had been done by their predecessors. The new estimate, they said, was identically the same with the former, except as to the principle, whether a certain portion of the amount should be kept constantly under the control of parliament. The system of retrenchment proposed was by no means satisfactory to Messrs. Hume, Hunt, and others of the radical school. Ministers, they said, had not adhered to their promises of retrenchment in framing the estimates, especially in regard to the pensions. It was of no use to tell the people that most of these pensions were charitable; charity begins at home; and the house was bound to be just to the people before being generous to poor peers, or the poor relations of wealthy peers. Another point on which ministers had to encounter stern opposition from their old allies, was a proposal which they made for an increase in the army of 7680 men. No opposition, however, was offered to a resolution moved in consequence of a royal message, assigning to the queen, in case she should survive his majesty, £100,000 per annum, with Marlborough House and Bushy Park as town and country residences.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The election of the new parliament took place in the midst of general excitement. This was very auspicious for the ministry. The declared intention of the dissolution had been to obtain from the people a house of commons pledged to support the reform bill. The only test by which candidates were tried, was their determination to support that measure. Nor was it sufficient to save a candidate from the storm which raged all over the country, that he should be willing to reform the representation. It was demanded of him that he should support the particular measure which the ministry had proposed. It was to be “the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill.” Candidates who had long represented places were told by the electors that they could no longer vote for them, not because they were against the bill, but that they were against the king; they did not know much about it, but it was the king’s, and it must pass. The official influence of the ministry was put forth unsparingly and unblushingly. In some instances, indeed, it defeated its own object. Thus, in Ireland, two pledged supporters of the bill were elected for the city of Dublin. The losing candidates petitioned against the return, and it came out in the proceedings before the committee, that the vice-regal government had interfered directly to ensure the success of the sitting members. The consequence of this was that the committee found the sitting members were not duly elected; and, on a new election, two members were returned who were hostile to reform. The tumult and license which usually characterise a general election were more than ordinarily rampant and intolerant. Anti-bill candidates and their supporters were exposed to the most lawless violence wherever they dared to show themselves on the hustings, and were denounced on the one hand as oppressors of the people, and on the other as disloyal opponents of the people. In some instances the life, as well as the property of unpopular men was sacrificed; and in Scotland especially, the elections were controlled by the violence of riotous mobs. At the election for the county of Lanark, the late member was attacked with stones and missiles, from the gallery of the church in which the election took place; and when he was re-elected, those who voted for him were detained prisoners for some hours, until the military arrived to shield them from lawless violence. At Dumbarton, also, the successful candidate for the county was obliged to conceal himself in a garret, till the mob, believing he had escaped, dispersed. From the excitement and violence which everywhere prevailed, it was not surprising that the great majority of the elections terminated in favour of the reforming candidates. Out of the eighty-two county members for England, with the exception of about twelve, all were pledged to support the bill. Ministers, indeed, completely succeeded in obtaining a house of commons fashioned after their own mind: the great majority of the members were pledged to implicit obedience to the will of the people.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 14th of June; being opened by commission till the preliminary forms necessary to be gone through in the house of commons should have been completed. On the 21st. after Mr. Manners Sutton had been re-elected speaker without opposition, and all the members were sworn in, his majesty opened the session in person. In his speech his majesty remarked: “I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to your advice and assistance, after the dissolution of the late parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that in any measures which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogative of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people are equally secured.” No amendment was proposed to the address in the upper house. The discussion chiefly turned on the dissolution of parliament, the inattention of government to the security of property during the London illuminations, and the arts used to inflame the public mind during the election. The same topics were also discussed in the commons, and the address was carried there without opposition.