the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly
altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally
considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long
endurance. ... The differences upon financial measures between
Mr. Herries ... and Mr. Huskisson ... could not be reconciled
by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
{953}
His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that
he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king
told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which
he should be the head. ... It was understood that lord
Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington
immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of
Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility
of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the
Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the
government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of
some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the
Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of
Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant,
became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb,
afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for
Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these
arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was
unchanged."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 9._
_W. M. Torrens,
Life of Viscount Melbourne,
volume 1, chapter 15._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1828.
Corn Law amendment.
The Sliding Scale.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1829.
Catholic Emancipation.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform.
Death of George IV.
Accession of William IV.
Fall of the Wellington Ministry.
"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain
and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members;
after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days
of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a
population of a little more than eight millions; in the later
days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters,
out of a population of twenty-two millions. ... But the
inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if
we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up
into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of
counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the
counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the
Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of
Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling
freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned
members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were
about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in
Ireland,--all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few
exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish
boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be
Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic
interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail.
Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have
been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the
Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the
more important places were selected; though other
considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners
of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a
very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the
King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some
important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small
boroughs, increased the number of county members, and
enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms
were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very
few changes were made. ... In the hundred and fifty years
which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in
the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of
either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed,
and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were
remarkable examples of the latter,--Old Sarum was an example
of the former. ... At one time a place of some importance, it
declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and,
even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a
town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary
boroughs. ... Many other places might be named [known as Rotten
Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]--such as Gatton in Surrey, and
Ludgershall in Wiltshire--which represented only their owners.
In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was
a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under
consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by
eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his
estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine
members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and
several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one
authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned
one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to
1780, the members for the county of York--the largest and most
influential of the counties--were always elected in Lord
Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected
instances. Many others might be cited. According to a
statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons
returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793,
the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and
declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals
returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150
members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307
members--the majority of the House before the Union with
Ireland--no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society
asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to
prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which
there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were
returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50
electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not
more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by
26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in
England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to
representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis.
... In some cases the suffrage was practically household
suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely
restricted. But they all returned their two members equally;
it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or
only three or four. Such being the state of the
representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was
practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller
boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to
see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. ...
{954}
As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is
on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr.
Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were
£200,000. ... It is not to be supposed that a condition of
things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no
attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far
back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de
Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of
Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the
borough representation as 'the rotten part of the
constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke
of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the
House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and
annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782,
1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of
Reform. ... After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr.
(afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he
presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends
of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and
founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793,
1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large
majorities. ... From the beginning of the 19th century to the
year 1815--with the exception of a few months after the Peace
of Amiens in 1802--England was at war. During that time Reform
dropped out of notice. ... In 1817, and again in 1818 and
1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for
Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of
Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was
defeated by a tremendous majority. ... The next ten years were
comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this
history is concerned. ... Two events made the year 1830
particularly opportune for raising the question of
Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death
of George IV. [June 26],--the second, the deposition of
Charles X. of France. ... For the deposition of
Charles--followed as it was very soon by a successful
insurrection in Belgium--produced an immense impression upon
the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally.
In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two
continental countries what the people of England had been
asking for in vain for years. ... We must not omit to notice
one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This
was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation.
The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at
the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our
history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be
no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute.
... By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of
the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament
which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since
the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime
Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home
Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to
dissolve at once. ... In the Parliament thus dissolved, and
especially in the session just brought to a close, the
question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very
beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the
Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an
amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed
the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most
imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation
will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to
their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' ...
He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell,
but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he
introduced a specific plan of Reform--a very Radical plan
indeed--but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d
of February, Lord John Russell ... asked for leave to bring in
a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester,
and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in
the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and
finally, on the 28th of May--scarcely two months before the
dissolution--Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish
universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments,
but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332.
... Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country,
not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is
not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it
occupied all minds. ... The whole of August and a considerable
part of September, therefore, were occupied with the
elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of
excite merit. ... When all was over, and the results were
reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who
represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say
nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were
Minsterialists. ... Of the 236 men who were returned by
elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were
Ministerialists. ... The first Parliament of William IV. met
on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened
till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered
his Speech. ... The occasion was made memorable, however, not
by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of
Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. ... 'The noble Earl
[Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape
of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to
acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of
Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's
Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on
my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never
read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which
could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the
representation could be improved, or be rendered more
satisfactory to the country at large than at the present
moment. ... I am not only not prepared to bring forward any
measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as
far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly
fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's
career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the
16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced
that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been
something like a panic in the city, because Ministers,
apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to
abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor
at the Guildhall.
{955}
On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the
House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on
the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil
list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it
was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to
Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his
continuance in office was impossible."
_W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapters 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_A. Paul,
History of Reform,
chapters 1-6._
_W. Bagehot,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform,
essay 2._
_H. Cox,
Antient Parliamentary Elections._
_S. Walpole,
The Electorate and the Legislature,
chapter 4._
_E. A. Freeman,
Decayed Boroughs
(Historical Essays, 4th series)._
England: A. D. 1830-1832.
The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
Ministry of Earl Grey.
"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord
Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the
government would 'take into immediate consideration the state
of the representation, with a view to the correction of those
defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of
time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that
confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid
Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that
is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and
the preservation of the government.' The government were now
pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the
Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the
cause was eagerly supported by the people. ... So great were
the difficulties with which the government had to contend,
that they needed all the encouragement that the people could
give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,--the
interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt,
unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,--the opposition of
two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of
the House of Commons,--and above all, the strong Tory spirit
of the country. ... On the 3d February, when Parliament
reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had
succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective,
without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised
moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of
the whole government.' ... On the 1st March, this measure was
brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell,
to whom,--though not in the cabinet,--this honorable duty had
been justly confided. ... On the 22d March, the second reading
of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House
of 608,--probably the greatest number which, up to that time,
had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April,
on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a
minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General
Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England
ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced
that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On
that same night, they were again defeated on a question of
adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was
decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the
king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It
was one of the most critical days in the history of our
country. ... The people were now to decide the question;--and
they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned,
pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the
second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a
majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions
ensued in committee,--night after night; and the bill was not
disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a
majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill
was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to
oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October,
after a debate of five nights,--one of the most memorable by
which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a
great event in history,--the bill was rejected on the second
reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be
fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to
think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they
were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the
House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was
prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement,
turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on
the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought
in,--changed in many respects,--and much improved by reason of
the recent census, and other statistical investigations.
Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no
longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second
time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of
162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons,
and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of
again rejecting it could not be concealed,--the courage of some
was shaken,--the patriotism of others aroused; and after a
debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the
narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The
peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were
preparing to change its essential character by amendments.
Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous.
... The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced;
or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted
to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers
resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the
Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform
ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was
immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of
unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his
Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will
carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,
that bill for reforming the representation of the people,
which has recently passed this House.' ... The public
excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the
people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when
Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The
bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition
to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and
the bill,--the Great Charter of 1832,--at length received the
Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of
this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the
faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than
half a century.
{956}
The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten
boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,--having
less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,--were
swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000
inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The
next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented;
and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including
metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning
two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county
populations were also regarded in the distribution of
seats,--the number of county members being increased from 94
to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of
members adjusted with reference to the importance of the
constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal
franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of
election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household
franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were
the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but
residence within the borough was attached as a condition to
their right of voting. ... The county constituency was
enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for
terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a
year. ... The defects of the Scotch representation, being even
more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not
likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of
reform. ... The entire representation was remodelled.
Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union:
this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted
to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise
was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to
certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to
all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many
of the defects of the English system. ... The right of
election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in
£10 householders; and large additions were made to the county
constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act
of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."
_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of the Reform Bill of 1832._
_W. Jones,
Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers._
_Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 21-22._
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 11 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831.
First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.
See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
Intervention in the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
Factory Bill.
Irish tithes.