CHAPTER XLI.

State of the Reform Question-Meeting of Parliament-Introduction of the Reform Bill--Debate on the Motion that the Bill be read a Second Time, &c.-Motion of Adjournment pending the Ordnance Estimates carried against Ministers-Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament -The Budget; Proposed Change in Taxes, &c.: Arrangement of the Civil List-General Election: Meeting of Parliament: The Reform Question renewed in Parliament, and carried in the CommonsRejection of it by the Lords-Consequences of its Rejection-Financial Statements-Prorogation of Parliament-Coronation of William IV. -Opening of the New London Bridge-Ravages of the Cholera Foreign Affairs-Meeting of Parliament-New Reform Bill— State of Ireland.

STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

A.D. 1831.

IT has been seen that the ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of Wellington were pledged to apply themselves forthwith to what was termed the reform of the representation; that is, to strengthen and enlarge the democratic part of the constitution. While they were occupied in this work, the details of which were as yet unknown, meetings were held in all parts of the country, for the purpose of getting up petitions in support of their policy. The prayers of the petitions were various, and in many cases very indefinite. Thus one set of petitioners prayed that the right of suffrage should be equalised and extended; but whether they meant such an extension and equalisation as would convert the government into a democracy, or some more modified degree of change, did not appear. Others said that a real, substantial, and effectual reform in the representation of the people had become necessary; but what reform they actually wanted was all conjecture. Some petitions, however, plainly declared what species of reform the petitioners required. These demanded the annihilation of all influence on the part of the aristocracy in returning members of the house of commons; the shortening the duration of parliaments; the extension and equalisation of the elective franchise; and vote by ballot. Another set of petitions recommended a reform of property as well as of representation, actually demanding that the possessions of the church should be seized, and appropriated to "the necessities of the state." In other petitions, the petitioners, apparently at a loss to conceive what kind of reform was required, were satisfied with announcing that the country was ruined, and that it could only be restored by reform; at the same time gravely leaving it to his majesty's ministers to declare what change would best answer the purpose. But, besides petitions in favour of reform, permanent political associations had begun to be formed in different parts of the country, for the purpose of organising large numbers of individuals into one body, to act on the mind of the public, and to press the question upon government. These associations took the name of Political Unions; and they had a regular array of officers, with a council, which transacted the ordinary business. Their objects were to push on changes to any extent possible; to insist on whatever they chose to demand, as a right which could not justly be refused; to repress opposing opinions in their neighbourhood; and to make even the government feel that they existed in order to dictate, not to obey. The whole kingdom was indeed in a ferment; and not only the correction of abuses, but immediate relief from national calamities, was confidently expected by the multitude in a reform of parliament. It was to prove a balm for all their sufferings -the commencement of a golden era of prosperity.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 3rd of February. Hitherto ministers had veiled in profound secrecy the plan of reform which they intended to produce. The question was introduced on this day by Earl Grey; but it was only to state that ministers had succeeded in framing a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation; that it had received the unanimous assent of the government, and that it would be introduced into the house of commons at an early period.

INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

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 sixtyeight 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 lands 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

VOL. III.

provision was made for shortening the duration of parlia ments, 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 statesmanlike 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 pre

3 P

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, Bury, Rochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and Stoke-onTrent: 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 Gascoyne 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 Gascoyne expressed his surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the sixtytwo members was inconsistent with the essence and prin

ciples 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 Gascoyne 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.

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General Gascoyne 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 struggle 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 R. 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 R. 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