one hundred and thirteen, by giving two members to each of the three ridings of the county of York, instead of two for the whole county, and by similar additions to other large counties; and to admit copyholders and leaseholders for terms of years, as well as freeholders, to the county franchise. As regards the boroughs, he proposed to substitute for the numerous rights of election, one uniform household franchise. And in order to diminish the expense of elections, he suggested that the poll should be taken, throughout the whole kingdom, at one time. His scheme comprised, in fact, an outline of the great measure, which this eminent statesman was ultimately destined to mature, as the consummation of his labors during half a century. His motion was seconded by Mr. Erskine, in a speech which went far to contradict the assertion, so often made, that in the House of Commons this great forensic orator was wholly unequal to his reputation. At once eloquent, impassioned, and argumentative, it displayed those rare qualities, which have never been equalled at the British bar, and not often in the senate. The motion was also supported, in an admirable speech, by Mr. Fox. But vain were moderate and well-considered plans, vain were eloquence and argument. The feelings, fears, and prejudices of the people were adverse to the cause: reform being now confounded with revolution, and reformers with Jacobins. Whatever was proposed, more was said to be intended; and Paine and the "Rights of Man" were perversely held up, as the true exponents of the reformer's creed. The motion was rejected by a large majority.1 Further dis of reform. Again the question slept for many years. The early part of the present century was a period scarcely more favorable for the discussion of parliamentary re- couragement form, than the first years of the French revolution. The prodigious efforts of the country in carrying on the war - victories and disasters, - loans, taxes, and subsidies, engrossed the attention of Parliament, and the thoughts of 1 Parl. Hist. xxxiii. 644. Ayes 91, Noes 256. VOL. I. 21 -- the people. The restoration of peace was succeeded by other circumstances, almost equally unpropitious. The extreme pressure of the war upon the industrial resources of the courtry, had occasioned suffering and discontent amongst the working classes. The Government were busy in repressing sedition; and the governing classes, trained under a succession of Tory administrations, had learned to scout every popular principle. Under such discouragements, many of the old supporters of reform, either deserted the cause, or shrank from its assertion; while demagogues of dubious character, and dangerous principles, espoused it. "Hampden Clubs," and other democratic associations, chiefly composed of working men, - were demanding universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, which found as little favor with the advocates of reform, as with its opponents; and every moderate scheme was received with scorn, by ultra-reformers.1 But notwithstanding these adverse conditions, the question of reform was occasionally discussed in Parliament. In 1809, it was revived, after the lapse of thirteen years. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, who had first fought together in support of the same principles, and afterwards on opposite sides, were both no more: Mr. Grey and Mr. Erskine had been called to the House of Peers; and the cause was in other hands. Sir Francis Burdett was now its advocate, — less able and influential than his predecessors, and an eccentric politician, but a thoroughbred English gentleman. His scheme was such as to repel the support of the few remaining reformers. He proposed that every county should be divided into electoral districts; that each district should return one member; and that the franchise should be vested in the taxed male population. So wild a project found no more than fifteen supporters.2 Sir F. Burdett's plan, 1809. On the 13th June, 1810, Earl Grey, in moving an address on the state of the nation, renewed his public connection with the cause of reform, avowed his Earl Grey, 1810 1 Com. Journ. lxv. 360, &c. 2 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xiv. 1041. Ayes 15 Nces 74. adherence to the sentiments he had always expressed, — and promised his future support to any temperate and judicious plan, for the correction of abuses in the representation. He was followed by Lord Erskine, in the same honorable avowal.1 In 1818, Sir F. Burdett, now the Chairman of the Hampden Club of London, proposed resolutions in favor Sir F. Burof universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, dett, 1818-19. vote by ballot, and annual Parliaments. His motion was seconded by Lord Cochrane; but found not another supporter in the House of Commons. At this time, there were numerous public meetings in favor of universal suffrage; and reform associations, not only of men but of women, were engaged in advancing the same cause. And as many --- of these were advocating female suffrage, Sir F. Burdett, to avoid misconstruction, referred to male suffrage only.2 In 1819, Sir F. Burdett again brought forward a motion on the subject. He proposed that the House should, early in the next session, take into its consideration the state of the representation. In the debate, Lord John Russell, who had recently been admitted to Parliament, expressed his opinion in favor of disfranchising such boroughs as were notoriously corrupt. The motion was superseded by reading the orders of the day. At the commencement of the following session, Lord John Russell, whose name has ever since been honor- Lord J. Rus pro sell, 1820. ably associated with the cause of reform, posed his first motion on the subject. In the preceding session, he had brought under the notice of the House the scandalous proceedings at Grampound. He now took broader ground, and embraced the general evils of the electoral system. The time was not favorable to moderate counsels. 1 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xvii. 559, 590. 2 See a learned and ingenious article in the Edin. Rev., January, 1819 by Sir J. Mackintosh, on Universal Suffrage, Art. viii. 8 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1440. 4 Ibid. xli. 302, 1091. On one side were the intemperate advocates of universal suffrage on the other the stubborn opponents of all change in the representation. But such was the moderation of Lord John's scheme of reform, that it might have claimed the support of the wiser men of all parties. He showed, in a most promising speech, that in former times decayed boroughs had been discharged from sending members, and populous places summoned by writ to return them; he described the wonderful increase of the great manufacturing towns, which were unrepresented; and the corruption of the smaller boroughs, which sold their franchise. He concluded by moving resolutions: 1. That boroughs in which notorious bribery and corruption should be proved to prevail, should cease to return members, -the electors not proved guilty, being allowed to vote for the county: 2. That the right thus taken from corrupt boroughs, should be given to great towns with a population of not less than 15,000, or to some of the largest counties: 3. That further means should be taken to detect corruption; and lastly, that the borough of Grampound should cease to send members. Grampound ment Bill. As the motion was met by the government in a conciliatory manner; and as Lord Castlereagh was ready Disfranchise- to concur in the disfranchisement of Grampound; Lord John Russell consented to withdraw his resolutions, and gave notice of a bill for disfranchising Grampound.2 The progress of this bill was interrupted by the death of the king; but it was renewed in the following session, and reached the House of Lords, where after evidence being taken at the bar, it dropped by reason of the prorogation. Again it was passed by the Commons, in 1821. That House had given the two vacant seats to the great town of 1 Notwithstanding the small encouragement given at this time to the cause of reform, it was making much progress in public opinion. Sydney Smith, writing in 1809, said: "I think all wise men should begin to turn their minds reform wards. We shall do it better than Mr. Hunt or Mr Cobbett. Done it must, and will be."- Mem. ii. 191. 2 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser, xli. 1091-1122. Leeds; but the Lords still avoided the recognition of such a principle, by assigning two additional members to the county of York in which form the bill was at length agreed to.1 In 1821, two motions were made relating to Parliamen sal, 1821. tary reform, the one by Mr. Lambton, and the Mr. Lambother by Lord John Russell. On the 17th April, ton's propothe former explained his scheme. In lieu of the borough representation, he proposed to divide counties into districts containing twenty-five thousand inhabitants, each re turning a member, to extend the franchise for such districts, to all householders paying taxes,— to facilitate polling by means of numerous polling-booths, and by enabling overseers to receive votes, and to charge the necessary expenses of every election upon the poor-rates. To the county constituencies he proposed to add copyholders, and leaseholders for terms of years. After a debate of two days, his motion was negatived by a majority of twelve. On the 9th of May, Lord John Russell moved resolutions with a Lord J. Rusview to the discovery of bribery, the disfranchise- sell's plan, ment of corrupt boroughs, and the transfer of the right of returning members, to places which had increased in wealth and population. His resolutions were superseded by the previous question, which was carried by a majority of thirty-one.3 1821. In 1822, Lord John Russell having, as he said, "served an apprenticeship in the cause of reform," again And in 1822. pressed the matter upon the notice of the House. The cry for universal suffrage had now subsided, tranquillity prevailed throughout the country, - and no circumstance could be urged as unfavorable to its fair consideration. After showing the great increase of the wealth and intelligence of 11 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 47. Mr. 2 Ayes 43, Noes 55. Hansard's Debates, 2d Series, v. 359-453. Lambton had prepared a bill, which is printed in the Appendix to that vol ume of Debates. 8 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., v. 603. |