the strong Tory spirit of the country. Tory principles had been strengthened by a rule of sixty years. Not confined to the governing classes, but pervading society; they were now confirmed by the fears of impending danger. On the other hand, the too ardent reformers, while they alarmed the opponents of reform, embarrassed the government, and injured the cause, by their extravagance.

On the 3d February, when Parliament reassembled, Lord First Reform Grey announced that the government had sucBill, 1830–31. ceeded in framing "a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and welladvised 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. In the House of Commons he had already made the question his own; and now he was the exponent of the policy of the government. The measure was briefly this: to disfranchise sixty of the smallest boroughs; to withdraw one member from forty-seven other boroughs; to add eight members for the metropolis; thirty-four for large towns; and fifty-five for counties, in England; and to give five additional members to Scotland, three to Ireland, and one to Wales. By this new distribution of the franchise, the House of Commons would be reduced in number from six hundred and fifty-eight, to five hundred and ninety-six, or by sixty-two members.1

For the old rights of election in boroughs, a 107. household franchise was substituted; and the corporations were deprived of their exclusive privileges. It was computed that half a million of persons would be enfranchised. Improved arrangements were also proposed, for the registration of votes, and the mode of polling at elections.

This bold measure alarmed the opponents of reforın, and 1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., ii. 1061.

failed to satisfy the radical reformers; but on the whole, it was well received by the reform party, and by the country. One of the most stirring periods in our history was approaching but its events must be rapidly passed over. After a debate of seven nights, the bill was brought in without a division. Its opponents were collecting their forces, while the excitement of the people in favor of the measure, was continually increasing. On the 22d March, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House of six hundred and eight, 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.1 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.2

1831.

This last vote was decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, " with Dissolution in a view to its immediate dissolution.” 8 It was one of the most critical days in the history of our country. At a time of grave political agitation, the people were directly appealed to by the king's government, to support a measure by which their feelings and passions had been aroused, and which was known to be obnoxious to both Houses of Parliament, and to the governing classes. The people were now to decide the question;

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., iii. 1687.

- and they

2 Ibid. 1806. It has often been represented, and was so stated by Lord Brougham on the following day, that this vote amounted to "stopping the supplies." It cannot, however, bear such a construction, the question before the House being a motion concerning the Liverpool election. Late down in the list of orders of the day, a report from the Committee of Supply was to be received, which dropped by reason of the adjournment.

8 Hansard's Deb, 3d Ser., iii. 1810. See supra, p. 122.

Second Reform Bill, 1831.

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 one hundred and thirty-six. 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 one hundred and nine.2

That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain; Rejected by but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture the Lords. 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.*

Bill, 1831-32.

The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too Third Reform 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.5

On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence, and danger, 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 Ayes, 367; Noes, 231.

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., iv. 906. 2 lbid. vii. 464. The division was Bill do pass."

taken on the question, "That this

8 The position of the Peers at this time has been already noticed, supra, p. 249, et seq.

4 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., viii. 340. This debate I heard myself, being present in the House of Lords until the daylight division on the 7th October. It was the first debate in the Lords, which I had yet had the privilege of attending.

5 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., viii. 380.

Read second

Lords.

18th of December, by a majority of one hundred and sixty two.1 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 time by the 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. Compulsion and physical force were spoken of; and political unions, and monster meetings assumed an attitude of intimidation. A crisis was approaching, — fatal, perhaps, to the peace of the country: violence, if not revolution, seemed impending.

postponed.

The disfranchisement of boroughs formed the basis of the measure; and the first vote of the peers, in com- Disfranchismittee on the bill, postponed the consideration ing clauses of the disfranchising clauses, by a majority of thirty-five. Notwithstanding the assurances of opposition peers, that they would concede a large measure of reform, it was now evident that amendments would be made, to which ministers were bound in honor to the people and the Commons, not to assent. 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

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., ix. 546.

2 Ibul. xii. 677.

"OL. I.

22

8 See supra, p. 251.

all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House."

passed.

that

The king, meanwhile, insisted upon one condition, Reform Act any new ministry, however constituted, — should pledge themselves to an extensive measure of reform. But, even if the Commons and the people had been willing to give up their own measure, and accept another at the hands of their opponents, - no such ministry could be formed. The public excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the people were in imminent danger of 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.2

The Reform

1832.

It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the Act, England, faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than half a century. The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these, having less than two thousand inhabitants, and returning one hundred and eleven members, were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than four thousand inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. This disfranchisement extended to one hundred and forty-three 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 twenty more, of returning one. The large county populations were also regarded in the distribution of seats, the number of county members

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., xii. 783; Ibid. 995, the Duke of Wellington's explanation, May 17th; Roebuck's Whig Ministry, ii. 313.

22 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45.