The Great Reform Bill and the Corn Laws.
[=A Period of Riot and Tumult=]
At the close of the last chapter we depicted the miseries of the people
of Great Britain, due to the revolution in the system of industry,
the vast expenses of the Napoleonic wars, the extravagance of the
government, and the blindness of Parliament to the condition of the
working classes. The situation had grown intolerable; it was widely
felt that something must be done; if affairs were allowed to go on
as they were the people might rise in a revolt that would widen into
revolution. A general outbreak seemed at hand. To use the language of
the times, the "Red Cock" was crowing in the rural districts. That
is, incendiary fires were being kindled in a hundred places. In the
centres of manufacture similar signs of discontent appeared. Tumultuous
meetings were held, riots broke out, bloody collisions with the troops
took place. Daily and hourly the situation was growing more critical.
The people were in that state of exasperation that is the preliminary
stage of insurrection.
Two things they strongly demanded, reform in Parliament and repeal of
the Corn Laws. It is with these two questions, reform and repeal, that
we propose to deal in this chapter.
[=The Parliament of Great Britain=]
The British Parliament, it is scarcely necessary to say, is composed
of two bodies, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The
former represents the aristocratic element of the nation;--in short,
it represents simply its members, since they hold their seats as
a privilege of their titles, and have only their own interests to
consider, though the interests of their class go with their own. The
latter are supposed to represent the people, but up to the time with
which we are now concerned they had never fully done so; and they did
so now less than ever, since the right to vote for them was reserved to
a few thousands of the rich.
[=Two Centuries of Change=]
In the year 1830, indeed, the House of Commons had almost ceased to
represent the people at all. Its seats were distributed in accordance
with a system that had scarcely changed in the least for two hundred
years. The idea of distributing the members in accordance with the
population was scarcely thought of, and a state of affairs had arisen
which was as absurd as it was unjust. For during these two hundred
years great changes had taken place in England. What were mere villages
or open plains had become flourishing commercial or manufacturing
cities. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and other centres
of industry had become seats of great and busy populations. On the
other hand, flourishing towns had decayed, ancient boroughs had
become practically extinct. Thus there had been great changes in the
distribution of population, but the distribution of seats in Parliament
remained the same.
[=Disfranchised Cities and Rotten Boroughs=]
As a result of this state of affairs the great industrial towns,
Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, and others, with their
hundreds of thousands of people, did not send a single member to
Parliament, while places with only a handful of voters were duly
represented, and even places with no voters at all sent members to
Parliament. Land-holding lords nominated and elected those, generally
selecting the younger sons of noble families, and thus a large number
of the "representatives of the people" really represented no one but
the gentry to whom they owed their places. "Rotten" boroughs these were
justly called, but they were retained by the stolid conservatism with
which the genuine Briton clings to things and conditions of the past.
The peculiar state of affairs was picturesquely pointed out by Lord
John Russell in a speech in 1831. "A stranger," he said, "who was told
that this country is unparalleled in wealth and industry, and more
civilized and enlightened than any country was before it--that it is
a country which prides itself upon its freedom, and which once in
seven years elects representatives from its population to act as the
guardians and preservers of that freedom--would be anxious and curious
to see how that representation is formed, and how the people choose
their representatives.
[Illustration: RUDYARD KIPLING.
T. HALL CAINE.
A. CONON DOYLE.
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON.
GEORGE DU MAURIER.
JAMES M. BARRIE.
WILLIAM BLACK.
WALTER BESANT.
GEORGE MACDONALD.
POPULAR WRITERS OF FICTION.]
[Illustration: JUSTIN McCARTHY.
JAMES BRYCE.
JOHN MORLEY.
A. J. BALFOUR.
ENGLISH STATESMEN IN LITERATURE.]
[=The Case Presented by Lord John Russell=]
"Such a person would be very much astonished if he were taken to a
ruined mound and told that that mound sent two representatives to
Parliament; if he were taken to a stone wall and told that these
niches in it sent two representatives to Parliament; if he were
taken to a park, where no houses were to be seen, and told that that
park sent two representatives to Parliament. But he would be still
more astonished if he were to see large and opulent towns, full of
enterprise and industry and intelligence, containing vast magazines of
every species of manufacture, and were then told that these towns sent
no representatives to Parliament.
"Such a person would be still more astonished if he were taken to
Liverpool, where there is a large constituency, and told, 'Here you
will have a fine specimen of a popular election.' He would see bribery
employed to the greatest extent and in the most unblushing manner; he
would see every voter receiving a number of guineas in a bag as the
price of his corruption; and after such a spectacle he would be, no
doubt, much astonished that a nation whose representatives are thus
chosen, could perform the functions of legislation at all, or enjoy
respect in any degree."
[=Dissenters and Catholics Admitted to Parliament=]
Such was the state of affairs when there came to England the news
of the quiet but effective French Revolution of 1830. Its effect in
England was a stern demand for the reform of this mockery miscalled
House of Commons, of this lie that claimed to represent the English
people. We have not told the whole story of the transparent falsehood.
Two years before no man could be a member of Parliament who did not
belong to the Church of England. No Dissenter could hold any public
office in the kingdom. The multitudes of Methodists, Presbyterians,
Baptists, and other dissenting sects were excluded from any share
in the government. The same was the case with the Catholics, few in
England, but forming the bulk of the population of Ireland. This evil,
so far as all but the Catholics were concerned, was removed by Act of
Parliament in 1828. The struggle for Catholic liberation was conducted
in Ireland by Daniel O'Connell, the most eloquent and patriotic of its
orators. He was sneered at by Lord Wellington, then prime minister of
Great Britain. But when it was seen that all Ireland was backing her
orator the Iron Duke gave way, and a Catholic Relief Bill was passed in
1829, giving Catholics the right to hold all but the highest offices of
the realm. In 1830, instigated by the revolution in France, the great
fight for the reform of Parliamentary representation began.
The question was not a new one. It had been raised by Cromwell, nearly
two hundred years before. It had been brought forward a number of times
during the eighteenth century. It was revived in 1809 and again in
1821, but public opinion did not come strongly to its support until
1830. George IV., its strong opponent, died in that year; William IV.,
a king more in its favor, came to the throne; the government of the
bitterly conservative Duke of Wellington was defeated and Earl Grey,
a Liberal minister, took his place; the time was evidently ripe for
reform, and soon the great fight was on.
[=The Reform Bill Introduced=]
The people of England looked upon the reform of Parliament as a
restoring to them of their lost liberties, and their feelings were
deeply enlisted in the event. When, on the 1st of March, 1831, the
bill was brought into the House of Commons, the public interest was
intense. For hours eager crowds waited in the streets, and when the
doors of the Parliament house were opened every inch of room in the
galleries was quickly filled, while for hundreds of others no room was
to be had.
The debate opened with the speech by Lord John Russell from which we
have quoted. In the bill offered by him he proposed to disfranchise
entirely sixty-two of the rotten boroughs, each of which had less than
2,000 inhabitants; to reduce forty-seven others, with less than 4,000
inhabitants, to one member each; and to distribute the 168 members thus
unseated among the populous towns, districts, and counties which either
had no members at all, or a number out of all proportion to their
population. Also the suffrage was to be extended, the hours for voting
shortened, and other reforms adopted.
[=The Fate of Reform in Parliament=]
The bill was debated, pro and con, with all the eloquence then in
Parliament. Vigorously as it was presented, the opposing elements
were too strong, and its consideration ended in defeat by a majority
of eight. Parliament was immediately dissolved by the premier, and an
appeal was made to the people. The result showed the strength of the
public sentiment, limited as the suffrage then was. The new Parliament
contained a large majority of reformers, and when the bill was again
presented it was carried by a majority of 106. On the evening of its
passage it was taken by Earl Grey into the House of Lords, where it
was eloquently presented by the prime minister and bitterly attacked
by Lord Brougham, who declared that it would utterly overwhelm the
aristocratic part of the House. His view was that of his fellows, and
the Reform Bill was thrown out by a majority of forty-one.
[=England on the Verge of Revolution=]
Instantly, on the news of this action of the Lords, the whole country
blazed into a state of excitement and disorder only surpassed by that
of civil war. The people were bitterly in earnest in their demand
for reform, their feelings being wrought up to an intense pitch of
excitement. Riots broke out in all sections of the country. London
seethed with excitement. The peers were mobbed in the streets and
hustled and assaulted wherever seen. They made their way to the House
only through a throng howling for reform. Those known to have voted
against the bill were in peril of their lives, some being forced to
fly over housetops to escape the fury of the people. Angry debates
arose in the House of Lords in which even the Bishops took an excited
part. The Commons was like a bear-pit, a mass of furiously wrangling
opponents. England was shaken to the centre by the defeat of the bill,
and Parliament reflected the sentiment of the people.
On December 12th, Russell presented a third Reform Bill to the House,
almost the same in its provisions as those which had been defeated.
The debate now was brief, and the result certain. It was felt to be no
longer safe to juggle with the people. On the 18th the bill was passed,
with a greatly increased majority, now amounting to 162. To the Lords
again it went, where the Tories, led by Lord Wellington, were in a
decided majority against it. It had no chance of passage, unless the
king would create enough new peers to outvote the opposition. This King
William refused to do, and Earl Grey resigned the ministry, leaving the
Tories to bear the brunt of the situation they had produced.
[=How the Reform Bill Was Passed=]
The result was one barely short of civil war. The people rose in fury,
determined upon reform or revolution. Organized unions sprang up in
every town. Threats of marching an army upon London were made. Lord
Wellington was mobbed in the streets and was in peril of his life. The
maddened populace went so far as to curse and stone the king himself,
one stone striking him in the forehead. The country was indeed on the
verge of insurrection against the government, and unless quick action
was taken it was impossible to foresee the result.
William IV., perhaps with the recent experience of Charles X. of
France before his eyes, gave way, and promised to create enough new
peers to insure the passing of the bill. To escape this unwelcome
necessity Wellington and others of the Tories agreed to stay away from
Parliament, and the Lords, pocketing their dignity as best they could,
passed the bill by a safe majority, and reform was attained. Similar
bills were passed for Scotland and Ireland, and thus was achieved the
greatest measure of reform in the history of the British Parliament. It
was essentially a revolution, the first great step in the evolution of
a truly representative assembly in Great Britain.
[=The Extension of the Suffrage=]
The second great step was taken in 1867, in response to a popular
demonstration almost as great and threatening as that of 1830. The
Tories themselves, under their leader Mr. Disraeli, were obliged
to bring in this bill, which extended the suffrage to millions of
the people, and made it almost universal among the commercial and
industrial classes. Nearly twenty years later, in 1884, a new crusade
was made in favor of the extension of the suffrage to agricultural
laborers, previously disfranchised. The accomplishment of this reform
ended the great struggle, and for the first time in their history
the people of Great Britain were adequately represented in their
Parliament, which had ceased to be the instrument of a class and at
last stood for the whole commonwealth.
The question of Parliamentary reform settled, a second great question,
that of the Corn Laws, rose up prominently before the people. It was
one that appealed more immediately to them than that of representation.
The benefits to come from the latter were distant and problematical;
those to come from a repeal of the Corn Laws were evident and
immediate. Every poor man and woman felt each day of his life the
crushing effect of these laws, which bore upon the food on their
tables, making still more scarce and high-priced their scanty means of
existence.
[=The Corn Laws=]
For centuries commerce in grain had been a subject of legislation.
In 1361 its exportation from England was forbidden, and in 1463 its
importation was prohibited unless the price of wheat was greater than
6s. 3d. per quarter. As time went on changes were made in these laws,
but the tariff charges kept up the price of grain until late in the
nineteenth century, and added greatly to the miseries of the working
classes.
The farming land of England was not held by the common people, but by
the aristocracy, who fought bitterly against the repeal of the Corn
Laws, which, by laying a large duty on grain, added materially to
their profits. But while the aristocrats were benefited, the workers
suffered, the price of the loaf being decidedly raised and their scanty
fare correspondingly diminished.
[=Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law Crusade=]
[=Great Britain Adopts Free Trade=]
More than once they rose in riot against these laws, and occasional
changes were made in them, but many years passed after the era of
parliamentary reform before public opinion prevailed in this second
field of effort. Richard Cobden, one of the greatest of England's
orators, was the apostle of the crusade against these misery-producing
laws. He advocated their repeal with a power and influence that in
time grew irresistible. He was not affiliated with either of the great
parties, but stood apart as an independent Radical, a man with a party
of his own, and that party, Free Trade. For the crusade against the
Corn Laws widened into one against the whole principle of protection.
Backed by the public demand for cheap food, the movement went on, until
in 1846 Cobden brought over to his side the government forces under Sir
Robert Peel, by whose aid the Corn Laws were swept away and the ports
of England thrown open to the free entrance of food from any part of
the world. The result was a serious one to English agriculture, but
it was of great benefit to the English people in their status as the
greatest of manufacturing and commercial nations. Supplying the world
with goods, as they did, it was but just that the world should supply
them with food. With the repeal of the duties on grain the whole system
of protection was dropped and in its place was adopted that system of
free trade in which Great Britain stands alone among the nations of the
world. It was a system especially adapted to a nation whose market was
the world at large, and under it British commerce spread and flourished
until it became one of the wonders of the world.