though it was plain that reform in some shape or other could no longer
be delayed, its introduction was beset with difficulties, of which the
greatest was by no means the opposition to be apprehended from the open
opponents of the measure. Any advance towards a fair representation was
certain to meet with the strongest opposition from men who regarded any
change as revolutionary, and saw a diminution of their own interests in
the slightest attacks upon the system of nominee boroughs. But such
bigoted and selfish opposition might certainly sooner or later be
overcome. A far greater danger was to be found in the exaggerated hopes
which had been fostered for many years among the suffering artisans, who
had been taught by their leaders and demagogues to ascribe all their
miseries to the want of fair representation. No measure which a
ministry, aristocratic in its character as the present ministry was,
could introduce, no measure which could satisfy the intelligent middle
classes, to whom social change was almost as abhorrent as to the Tories,
could fail to cause disappointment to the hopes of the lower classes;
and when they found how little practical relief they would gain by the
measure, there was only too much danger lest the revolution of which the
opponents of the measure were so fond of talking might really come into
existence. Signs of popular discontent were, as has been already
mentioned, clearly to be seen. Rick-burning still continued its course
in the South, and trades unions in their most aggravated form, and
accompanied by murder, had made their appearance in the manufacturing
districts. Extreme measures, such as the issuing of a special commission
in the disturbed districts, were urged upon the Government; but Lord
Grey replied that he considered the regular powers of the Government, if
properly used, were sufficient for all purposes. In fact, the ministry
understood that the contest was not an ordinary parliamentary one; it
was scarcely to be expected that of its own free will the House of
Commons should accept a Bill which must exclude many of its members from
their seats; it was as the spokesmen of a great national wish that the
ministers regarded themselves, and they intended to rely upon the nation
for their support. Not only did they therefore refrain from any
exceptional measures for the suppression of disturbance, they also
allowed to pass unquestioned the legality of the numerous political
unions which, following the example of the Union of Birmingham, of which
Mr. Attwood was the president, had sprung into existence all over
England, and which aimed at bringing into some sort of harmony the
demands of the wealthy and poorer classes. The ministry had in fact
determined to use all expressions of the national temper, even when
verging upon breaches of the Constitution, to forward what they
conceived to be the great healing measure which the evils of the times
demanded. The struggle thus assumed a far more dignified form than that
of an ordinary political question. In its first stage it was the people,
as usual with aristocratic leaders, who demanded and insisted upon their
will being heard by the Lower House. When that House had been
reconstituted, and become favourable to the popular claims, it was the
people speaking by the voice of their constitutionally chosen
representatives, supported by an irresistible and probably
unconstitutional action from without, which engaged in a life and death
struggle with the aristocracy, clinging tenaciously to their ancient
privileges.
[Sidenote: Reception of the Reform Bill. March 1, 1831.]
On the 3rd of February, when the Parliament reassembled, the intention
of the ministry to produce a measure of parliamentary reform in both
Houses was made known. The day for its introduction was fixed for the
1st of March. The interval was passed in Parliament in the ordinary
business of the session, and in the introduction of a budget which,
betraying as it clearly did a tendency towards the policy of Huskisson
in favour of the manufacturing industries, was received with an
opposition which showed the temper of the House, and which would
probably under ordinary circumstances have caused the fall of the
ministry. But it was understood that it was upon reform and upon no
other question that the fate of the Government depended. Without the
walls of Parliament agitation was vigorously at work. Petition after
petition for and against the approaching measure was prepared, and the
whole country was upon the tiptoe of expectation when on the appointed
day Lord John Russell made his statement as to the character of the
Bill. Although it has since been found necessary more than once to
enlarge it, at the time the completeness of the Bill surprised even the
friends of Government, while it seemed to its opponents little better
than an ill-timed jest. As in all Bills for reform of the
representation, there were two points to be regarded: in the first
place, to secure that the representatives of the people should be really
representatives and not nominees; in the second place, to secure by the
arrangement of the franchise that they should as far as practicable
represent all classes of the nation. On the first of these points the
Bill was complete, with very few exceptions rotten boroughs were
entirely swept away; it is on the second point that subsequent
legislation has been found necessary. The Bill as originally presented
destroyed at once sixty rotten boroughs, but with regard to the
franchise and the distribution of seats, as will be seen subsequently,
it showed considerable favour to the counties, that is to the landed
interest and to the middle classes, excluding entirely the artisan
class, which, when its members are prosperous and possess property, is
one of the most valuable elements in the constitution of the nation. As
Lord John Russell read the list of disfranchised boroughs, he was
greeted with shouts of laughter and ironical cries of "Hear" from the
members who represented them. The debate on the first reading continued
for seven nights; the chief objection raised was that the balance of
the Constitution would be changed and the power of the House of Lords
diminished. It was, however, passed without division, the struggle being
deferred to the second reading. Although its deficiencies were obvious
enough to the advanced reformers, the importance of securing the one
great step in advance which it promised in the annihilation of rotten
boroughs caused its general acceptance, and "The Bill and nothing but
the Bill" became the watchword of the Liberal party in England. There
was considerable disturbance, as was to be expected, throughout the
country, and in anticipation of a strong opposition many of the
political unions came to the formal determination that, if necessary,
they would refrain from paying taxes, and would even march to London;
they issued lists showing the numbers on which they could count, and it
began to be plain that, if constitutional means failed, the Bill would
be carried by unconstitutional pressure.
[Sidenote: The second reading of the Reform Bill. March 21.]
[Sidenote: Dissolution of the Parliament. April 22.]
The second reading at length came on, and in the fullest House ever
known, 608 members being present, the ministry secured a majority of
one. Precedent would have demanded their resignation, but regarding
themselves as charged with a great national duty they kept their places,
and all England illuminated at the news. The next process was to pass
the Bill through Committee, and there the weakness of the Government at
once disclosed itself. They were defeated by a majority of eight on a
clause for reducing the whole number of members, and three days
afterwards the House refused to go into a question of supply. The
ministry, determined to bring matters to a crisis, regarded this, not
without some exaggeration, as a refusal of supplies, and declared that
they could do nothing but resign; but the King, as yet true to them,
refused their resignation, at the same time expressing a very strong
wish not to dissolve the House. As the Parliament was now in its first
session, this wish of the King was by no means unnatural, yet only by a
dissolution could the ministers and the Reform Bill be saved. They
themselves subsequently declared their belief that this was the real
crisis of the question. The Opposition also felt the importance of the
moment, and through their leader, Lord Wharnecliffe, moved an address to
the King, remonstrating against the intended dissolution. What the
arguments of the ministry had been unable to effect was done at once by
this ill-judged piece of violence, which the King considered an attack
upon his prerogative. He immediately declared his determination to
dissolve the House. The scene of excitement in the Lords has rarely
been equalled when he suddenly made his appearance and demanded the
presence of the Commons. An equally tumultuous scene had been going
forward in the Lower House, the Speaker had himself been unable to
obtain a hearing. At the summons of the Usher of the Black Rod, the
Commons appeared at the bar of the Upper House, and were at once told by
the King, in an unusually cheerful and firm tone, that he had come there
for the purpose of proroguing them, with a view to immediate
dissolution, in order to ascertain the sense of his people on the
question of representation.
[Sidenote: The Bill passes in the Commons. Sept. 23.]
[Sidenote: The Bill rejected in the Lords. Oct. 8.]
The dissolution thus taking place in the midst of the violent and
strongly-organized agitation of the nation, virtually secured the
passing of the Bill, although a long and dangerous period of contest had
yet to be passed. That the mob should break out here and there in riots
was inevitable; but it was the firm and determined attitude, not of the
rioters, but of the great body of intelligent non-electors, which really
influenced the elections. In all directions reformers were successful.
Six county members only were opposed to the Bill, and when in July the
second reading came on, the ministers found themselves in a majority of
136. Manifestly outnumbered, the opponents to the measure had recourse
to an irritating form of warfare. Every single detail was fought over in
Committee. There was a hope that, as the summer went on, the patience of
members would be tired out, that the session must either be terminated
or an accidental victory be snatched from the Government. So weary was
the nation of the lengthened delay, that the political unions held a
meeting to settle how much longer they would wait, but the question was
too important to allow of any laxity on the part of its supporters, and
on the 7th of September the report of the Committee was brought up. On
the 21st, after another debate of three nights, the Bill passed the
Commons by a majority of 109. Its fate now rested with the Peers, and
they were not long in showing how they meant to deal with it. On the
first reading it was thrown out by a majority of forty-one. The
opponents of the measure fondly hoped that its fate and that of the
administration were now sealed, but the Lords had not yet secured a
victory. Indignant at the rejection of their Bill, the Commons at once
passed a vote of confidence in the ministry, and all fear of their
resignation was thus removed.
[Sidenote: Consequent riots in the country.]
[Sidenote: Organized action of the political unions.]
But the indignation of the Commons was nothing to that of the people at
large, who saw the measure from which they hoped so much snatched from
them by the votes of a few wealthy and important men, who in no sense
represented them, and whose opposition bore in the popular eye all the
appearance of a selfish struggle for an exclusive and injurious
privilege. Again the disorderly mobs of London and other large towns
broke out into riots, but the number of rioters was usually few, and
many of them were known as belonging to the regular criminal and
ruffianly class. Of these riots the most important was that which
occurred in Bristol on the 29th of October. The occasion was the public
entry of Sir Charles Wetherell, a bitter opponent of reform, into the
city, of which he was recorder. It afforded another instance of the
mismanagement of the local magistracy. A mob, which seems never to have
reached a thousand in number, took possession of the town for two days,
broke into the mansion-house, and got drunk in the cellars, and then,
undisturbed, and after giving full notice of their intention, set fire
to Queen's Square, and burnt two sides of it to the ground. The military
had been in the town all day; at length they proceeded to act, and
re-established order with little difficulty, though with some loss of
life. Their commander was Colonel Brereton. The mayor and magistrates
had weakly given him but a general authority to act on his discretion,
willing no doubt to shift the responsibility to his shoulders. A man of
kind heart, he had shrunk from acting without more distinct authority;
he had tried his best to calm the crowd by friendly means, which only
increased their confidence and encouraged them with hopes of impunity.
He was tried by court martial, and, unable to face the prospect of a
slur on his professional character, committed suicide. But far more
important than these riots was the constantly increasing vigour shown by
the organized unions. Hitherto left untouched by the Government, they
now proceeded to measures which clearly brought them under the action of
the law. The London Radicals held a great meeting on the 31st of October
in Lincoln's Inn Fields, presided over by Sir Francis Burdett, when a
National Union was established, intended to draw together the various
unions of the country, and to form a central directory of delegates.
Before the meeting separated, it was plain that some of its members were
ready to go much further than the unions had yet gone, and the
Metropolitan Union summoned a meeting for the 7th of November, and
issued a programme demanding the abolition of all hereditary privileges
and distinctions of rank. On this occasion the Government acted quickly
and wisely. Lord Melbourne received a deputation of the Union, and
persuaded them to postpone their meeting, and shortly afterwards, on the
22nd of November, a proclamation was issued for the suppression of such
political clubs.
[Sidenote: Opposition of the King.]
[Sidenote: The Bill passes on the second reading in the Lords. April 14,
1832.]
This proclamation is believed to have been put forward at the
instigation of the King, who had been much frightened by the riots at
Bristol, and was constantly worked upon by the ladies of the Court, who
were strong anti-reformers. His support could be no longer relied on by
the ministry, and at this time his help was more especially necessary,
as it began to dawn upon men's minds that nothing short of a large
creation of Peers could overwhelm the obstinate majority of the Upper
House, and secure the passage of the Bill. As the last Bill had been
rejected, before the fight in the Upper House could be recommenced the
whole work had to be gone through again in the House of Commons. It was
not long delayed there. Brought in by Lord John Russell on the 12th of
December, it finally passed the Commons by a majority of 116 on the 23rd
of March. On the 14th of April the second reading of the Bill in the
Lords took place, and it became apparent that a certain number of the
Peers had taken fright at the threatened increase to their numbers, and
had begun to recognize the danger of their obstructive policy; the
ministry succeeded in obtaining a majority of nine.
[Sidenote: Preparations during the recess.]
[Sidenote: The Bill rejected in the Lords. May 7.]
The 7th of May, after the Easter holidays, was the day fixed for the
Committee on the Bill. The holidays were well used by the reformers
outside Parliament. Monster meetings were everywhere held, and the
Political Union of Birmingham, which held the first rank among the
popular organizations, appointed a great meeting of all the unions of
the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford for the same day as the
opening of Parliament. The recess was not less eagerly employed by the
anti-reformers; his Tory friends, his courtiers, his wife, and his
sisters, worked upon the King's mind; he was persuaded to refuse the
creation of Peers, and to try once more what coercion could do in
suppressing the national ferment; the Duke of Wellington was applied to,
and orders to keep the troops in readiness were sent to various parts of
England, especially to Birmingham. Thus, when the day arrived, while
150,000 men assembled at Newhall Hill in Birmingham were swearing with
bare heads and raised hands, "With unbroken faith, through every peril
and privation, we here devote ourselves and our children to our
country's cause," Lord Lyndhurst, who had been most active in organizing
the present opposition, had contrived to secure a majority of
thirty-five in the House of Lords for a motion postponing the
disfranchising clauses of the Bill.
[Sidenote: The ministry resigns. The Duke of Wellington fails to form a
ministry.]
[Sidenote: The old ministry returns to office. May 15.]
[Sidenote: The Bill passes in the Lords. June 4.]
The antagonistic forces seemed to have come to a final issue, from which
there was no escape except by the creation of Peers, a measure as
repugnant to the aristocratic feeling of Lord Grey as to the King. The
Prime Minister, however, explaining the situation, demanded of the King
the one necessary step. He was refused, and resigned. His resignation
was accepted, and the Duke of Wellington was sent for to attempt to form
a Conservative ministry. At the same time things had gone too far for
complete repression, and the Duke was instructed to form a ministry
which would introduce some extensive measure of reform. The news of the
fall of the ministry was received in fierce anger by the whole people.
The papers came out in mourning. The National Union decreed that whoever
should advise a dissolution was a public enemy. Petitions praying that
no supplies should be granted till the Bill was passed were signed in a
few hours by many thousands of people, and sent to London, where they
were joyfully received by the House of Commons. The great Birmingham
Union made preparations to march to London 200,000 strong, and encamp on
Hampstead Heath. Two insurmountable difficulties met the Duke of
Wellington, and prevented the inevitable ruin which must have followed
his success. It became clear to him that the military could not be
trusted, that repression by force was out of the question, and he could
find no Conservatives sufficiently courageous to join him in the
ministry. The King was obliged again to have recourse to his former
ministers. It was plain to the Lords that further opposition was
useless, and would lead only to a public proof of the powerlessness of
their resistance by the creation of new Peers. They therefore wisely
attended to a circular letter from the King himself, begging them to
withdraw their opposition. Wellington left the House, and was followed
by about a hundred other Peers; the Bishops in a body withdrew their
opposition, and the Bill was finally carried by a considerable majority.
[Sidenote: Description of the Reform Bill.]
The measure as passed was not and could not be final, but it was a wide,
comprehensive and judicious beginning. The chief evil of the
representation had been the existence of nomination and rotten
boroughs; of these 56, having less than 2000 inhabitants, were
disfranchised, and 111 seats left vacant. Thirty boroughs, with less
than 4000 inhabitants, were each deprived of one member; Weymouth and
Melcombe Regis lost two. There were thus 143 seats to dispose of. Of
these 65 went to the counties, an arrangement which showed the still
unbroken power of the landed aristocracy, twenty-two large towns
received the right of returning two members, and 21 the right of
returning one. The remaining 13 were left for Ireland and Scotland. The
second evil was the very irregular and restricted franchise. In some
towns the freemen alone elected; in others the suffrage was almost
universal; the whole number of electors on the roll was very small. A
uniform £10 household franchise was now established in boroughs, but, as
a concession to the rights of vested interests, freemen of corporate
towns who resided within the borough, and who had been created before
1831, were allowed to retain their votes. In the counties copyholders
and leaseholders were added to the constituencies, and by a clause
introduced by the Marquis of Chandos, and carried in opposition to the
Government, tenants at will paying a rent of £50 were also enfranchised.
In this point again the landed interest showed its power, as such
tenants were only too liable to be influenced by their landlords. At the
same time, to decrease the disorders and expenses of elections, the
duration of the poll was shortened. The period of fifteen days during
which in county elections votes could be taken was restricted to two in
England and to five in Ireland. Along with the English Bill, Reform
Bills for Scotland and Ireland were also produced and passed. In
Scotland the representation had been far more imperfect than in England;
it was now wholly remodelled. The county franchise was given to all
owners of property, and long leaseholders of the value of £10 a year,
and even to tenants for shorter periods paying a rent of £50; in the
burghs the same £10 franchise was established as in England. The number
of burgh representatives was changed from fifteen to twenty-three. The
number of county members remained the same as before, but with some
slight difference in distribution. To Ireland four additional boroughs
were allowed, the counties there remained the same. But considerable
discontent was caused by the adoption of the £10 freehold franchise in
the counties, which very much restricted the number of the electors,
from whom it will be remembered that till quite lately a 40s.
qualification only was required.
[Sidenote: Importance of the measure.]
Thus was completed, after a delay of nearly an hundred and fifty years,
the second act of the English Revolution. Incomplete and aristocratic in
its character, the movement of 1688 yet established the superiority of
Parliament as a whole, and its predominance over the royal power. From
that time onwards the Government had been in the hands of the
aristocracy, from whichever of the political parties the members of the
administration had been drawn. The attempt of George III. to
re-establish the power of the Crown had been attended with some success
as long as it was supported by the good wishes of the people. Events had
allied him with a party bent on the repression of all popular movements
and of all constitutional growth. Submissive during the war, the people
on the return of peace had been aroused to a sense of the injury under
which they suffered by their exclusion from all share in the Government.
Events in France had brought their discontent to a climax, and they had
now at length gained possession of that part of the Legislature which
had long pretended falsely to represent them.
[Sidenote: Introduction of the middle classes to power.]