(1.) _An Essay on the History of the English Government and
Constitution, from the Reign of Henry VII. to the Present Time._ By
JOHN, EARL RUSSELL. Longmans and Co.
(2.) _Selections from Speeches of Earl Russell, 1817-1841._ With
Introductions. Longmans and Co.
It happens sometimes that political power is transferred from one set
of hands to another without creating a panic, or even greatly
startling society. Changes, of so much moment as almost to rank with
revolutions, may be effected so calmly and quietly as to leave the
society they affect unconscious of their full meaning. If the drums
and the banners of revolution are beaten and displayed, and the other
outward and visible signs of a violent dislocation of the compact of
society are plainly to be discerned, the event takes its place as a
revolution, and the nervous system of society is fluttered and shaken.
But if the promoters of political change are content to leave
undisturbed the ancient symbols, forms, and nomenclature of the past,
the substantial alterations may be comparatively unheeded. For
example, we are told by Tacitus, in few but pregnant words, that when
political power was passing from the senate and the people of Rome
into the hands of the Cæsars, the republican forms were so carefully
preserved as to mask and veil that immense change. 'Domi res
tranquillæ; eadem magistratuum vocabula;... Tiberius cuncta per
consules incipiebat tanquam vetere republicâ.... At Romæ ruere in
servitium consules, patres, eques.'[22] Thus, without appearing to
override or annul the functions of the senate or the people, the
Emperor made himself, in fact, 'the sole fountain of the national
legislation.'[23] So, also, a vital change in the government of
Florence was brought about in the same way. The form of government was
ostensibly a republic, and was directed by a Council of ten citizens,
and a chief executive officer, called the Gonfaliere. Under this
establishment, the citizens imagined they enjoyed the full exercise of
their liberties. But, in reality, the Medici, acting apparently in
harmony with the Constitution, and working under the sanction of
republican forms, names, and offices, and ever seeming to defer to
public opinion, drew into their own hands, without fluttering or
alarming the citizens, the reins of personal government.[24] It is
even so with ourselves. The political transfer has taken place in an
opposite direction to those which have just been alluded to. But
though, in those instances, the tendency was towards the concentration
of power, and in ours towards its diffusion, yet they closely resemble
each other in that discreet preservation of ancient forms and legal
nomenclature which intercepts a veil between the eyes of society and
its real position. For the splendours of the royal court are as
imposing and attractive as ever. People still talk complacently of
royal prerogatives, the hereditary peerage, the House of Lords, and
the many shadowy forms of ancient administration. The barriers and
landmarks of fashionable society are but slightly altered. To the
superficial observer, society presents a picture differing very little
from that of earlier times. There are still some Sir Leicester
Dedlocks, who live in the contemplation of their family greatness, and
some Sir Roger de Coverleys, who sway their neighbourhoods with
unresisted authority; and there are thousands of Englishmen who are
constitutionally averse to the recognition of distasteful facts. Some
persons refuse to perceive that children have become adults, and that
they themselves are growing old and weak; and some do not choose to
perceive that, despite the ancient names and forms of government, the
constitution has been so completely re-cast that we seem destined to
live for a time under the reign and influence of democracy.
It will be useful to refer very briefly to the two great statutes
which have brought us to the present state of affairs. Prior to the
Reform Bill of 1832, the real power of the State was lodged in the
hands of certain wealthy and ennobled families, which numbered less
than five hundred. This oligarchy, to be sure, was not a pure one,
because there were some outlets for genuine popular feeling in a few
free constituencies, whose decisions were always watched with special
attention. Nottingham, Leicester, Norwich, Westminster, and Southwark
had thoroughly popular elections; Liverpool and Bristol had the same
privilege; but though these and some other constituencies constituted
safety-valves, through which the popular feelings were relieved, yet
the essential characteristic of the government was a disguised
oligarchy--that is, the possession of political power by a few. Does
this assertion seem incredible to our younger readers? Let them listen
to the testimony of a witness of the highest authority, who lived in
those times, and was profoundly versed in the history and mechanism of
governments. 'It is difficult,' says Lord Macaulay, 'to conceive any
spectacle more alarming than that which presents itself to us when we
look at the two extreme parties in this country--a _narrow_ oligarchy
above, and an infuriated multitude below.'[25] This was a description
of the British Government in 1831 by that very eminent man. And why
did he venture to affirm that a narrow oligarchy was dominant in the
State? Oligarchy is chiefly distinguished from aristocracy, by the
smaller numbers of the governing body. Before the period of Lord
Grey's Reform Bill, the signs and symbols of popular government
(inherited from times when the shell contained a kernel) were allowed
to appear, and be in use; but the substantial power was vested in the
hands of the owners of rotten boroughs, and the great proprietors of
estates in the counties. Notwithstanding a few free elections, and
many popular rights, the voting power of practical politics was
directed by that narrow oligarchy.
In the year 1792, a petition was presented by Mr. Grey, in which it
was asserted, and proof was offered, that one hundred and fifty-four
peers and rich commoners _returned_ a majority of the House of
Commons. This statement may have been somewhat overdrawn, but it had a
perfectly truthful basis. We summon the late Duke of Wellington as a
witness to prove how boroughs were manipulated, negotiated, bought,
and sold. When he was Chief Secretary for Ireland in the year 1807, he
wrote the following words:--
'MY DEAR HENRY,--I have seen Roden this day about his
borough. It is engaged for one more session to Lord Stair
under an old _sale_ for years, and he must return Lord
Stair's friend, unless Lord Stair should consent to sell
his interest for the session which remains....
Portarlington was sold at the late general election for a
term of years ... &c.--Ever yours, ARTHUR WELLESLEY.'