In the spring of 1832 the battle began again more fiecely than ever.
Again the House of commons voted the bill, and once again the House of
Lords defeated it.
Earl Grey, the Whig Prime Minister (S479), had set his heart on
carrying the measure. In this crisis he appealed to the King for
help. If the Tory Lords would not pass the bill, the King had the
power to create a sufficient number of new Whig Lords who would.
William refused to exercise this power. Thereupon Earl Grey, with his
Cabinet (S534), resigned, but in a week the King had to recall them.
Then William, much against his will, gave the following document to
his Prime Minister:
"The King grants permission to Earl Grey, and to his Chancellor,
Lord Brougham, to create such a number of Peers as will be
sufficient to insure the passing of the Reform Bill--first calling
up Peers' eldest sons.
"William R., Windsor, May 17, 1832"[1]
[1] "First calling up Peers' eldest sons": that is, in creating new
Lords, the eldest sons of Peers were to have the preference. William
R. (Rex, King): this is the customary royal signature. Earl Grey was
the leader of that branch of the Whig party known as the "Aristocratic
Whigs," yet to him and his associate Cabinet minsiters the people were
indebted for the great extension of the suffrage in 1832.
But there was no occasion to make use of this permission. As soon as
the Lords found that the Cabinet (S534), with Earl Grey at the head,
had actually compelled the King to bow to the demands of the people,
they withdrew their opposition. The "Great Charter of 1832" was
carried, received the royal signature, and became law.
The passage of this memorable act brought about these beneficent
changes:
(1) It abolished nearly sixty "rotten boroughs" (S579).
(2) It gave every householder who paid a rent of ten pounds in any
town a vote, and largely extended the list of county voters as well.
(3) It granted two representatives to Birmingham, Leeds,
Manchester, and nineteen other large towns, and one representative
each to twenty-one other places, all of which had hitherto been
unrepresented, besides granting fifteen additional members to the
counties.
(4) It added, in all, half a million voters to the list, mostly men
of the middle class, and it helped to purify the elections from the
violence which had disgraced them.[1]
[1] See Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p.xxvi,
S31.
Before the passing of the Reform Bill, and the legislation which
supplemented it, the election of a member of Parliament was a kind of
local reign of terror. The smaller towns were sometimes under the
control of drunken ruffians for several weeks. During that time they
paraded the streets in bands, assaulting voters of the opposite party
with clubs, kidnaping prominent men and confining them until after the
election, and perpetrating other outrages, which so frightened
peacable citizens that often they did not dare attempt to vote at all.
Finally, the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832 effected, in its own
way, a change which was perhaps as momentous as that which the
Revolution of 1688 had accomplished.[2] That, as we have seen (S497),
made the King dependent for his crown on his election to office by
Parliament. On the other hand, the Reform Bill practically took the
last vestige of real political authority from the King and transferred
it to the Cabinet (S534), who had now become responsible to the House
of Commons, and hence to the direct will of the majority of the
nation. But though the Sovereign had laid down his political scepter,
never to resume it, he would yet, by virtue of his exalted position,
continue to wield great power,--that of social and diplomatic
influence, which is capable of accomplishing most important results
both at home and abroad. To-day then, though the King still reigns,
the People, and the People alone, govern.
[2] Compare the three previous Revolutions represented by (1) Magna
Carta (S199); (2) De Montfort's House of Commons (S213); (3) the Civil
War and its effects (SS441, 450, 451).