bills for land; members given to been incorporated with that of England, and as their repre- Reform sentative systems were subject even in greater degree than Scotland the English to prevailing infirmities, it was absolutely neces- and Iresary that Earl Grey should extend his reform by two separate bills to those kingdoms. By the Act of Union (6 Anne, c. 7), the English house of commons, which then contained 513 members, was increased by the addition of 45 Scotch representatives; and by the Act of Union with Ireland (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 67), the 100 new Irish members raised the total to 658. By the Scotch Reform Act of 1832, the 45 members eight new assigned to Scotland at the union were increased to 53,1 of whom 31 were allotted to the counties, and 23 to the cities the former; and boroughs. The main task, however, was to regulate the franchise which, in the Scotch boroughs, was vested in selfelected corporations, and in the counties, in the owners of feudal "superiorities," who were not necessarily either landowners or residents in their counties. In order to correct that Scotch condition of things, the borough franchise was extended to all franchise £10 householders, while the county franchise was extended to all owners of "lands, houses, feu duties, or other heritable subjects" of the yearly value of £10, and to certain classes of leaseholders.2 Disfranchisement in Irish boroughs formed no part of the Irish Reform Act of 1832,8 for the reason that several rotten and nomination boroughs had been disfranchised at the time of the union. The new act, after adding five to five new the representation as fixed at that time, dealt only with the given to franchise which, in the boroughs, was taken away from the Ireland, corporations and vested in £10 householders, while great franchise additions were made to the county constituencies by the inclusion of certain classes of leaseholders and of £10 copyholders. By extensions of the franchise it has been estimated that the total number of electors, reckoned at the passing of total numthe Reform Bill of 1832 at 400,000, was about doubled; and electors down to 1868, prior to the operation of the Reform Acts of about 1867-68, that total, for all the counties and boroughs of the United Kingdom, had not, according to the parliamentary 1 In 1867 seven members more were added for Scotland. No further changes were made until 1885. 2 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 65. 82 & 3 Will. IV. c. 88. 4 See the estimate of Dr. Gneist, Hist. of the Eng. Constitution, p. 722. members and extended; ber of doubled. All acts upon the subject for the next thirty-five years of minor im of 1843; returns, grown beyond 1,370,793. To that extent, and only to that extent, did the reform measures of 1832 rescue the representation from an oligarchy of peers and landowners and vest it in the hands of the middle classes. The result thus attained by the old Whigs in their constitutional charter of 1832 was looked on for a long time as a finality. Despite several efforts made by Lord John Russell himself, and also by the earl of Derby, to further revise the portance; representative system, all such efforts failed to pass into law down to the time when the conservative ministry of the latter, mainly through the energy and tact of Mr. Disraeli, succeeded in passing the Representation of the People Act of 1867.2 During the intervening period of thirty-five years several acts were passed, however, developing and perfecting the original Parliamen- measure, which are worthy of special mention. By the Parliatary Registration Act mentary Registration Act of 18433 the incomplete provisions of the act of 1832 upon that subject were perfected in many particulars, it being provided among other things that the register should be conclusive against the claim of any person acts for the to vote who was not registered. More important still were prevention of bribery; the acts passed for the prevention of bribery at elections, for which the Reform Act of 1832 had made no direct provision, and which continued to a disgraceful extent after its passage. The first effort to protect the new electorate against the tendency of the rich to traffic within its tempting ranks was embodied in Lord John Russell's Bribery Act of 1841; and when that proved insufficient, other acts of the same character were passed in 1842 and 1852,5 which were consolidated in the more comprehensive measure known as the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854, a temporary law continued from time to time, and so amended in 1858 as to render legal the payment of a voter's travelling expenses." The policy of excluding from the lower house all except the proprietors of land, adopted in Lord Act of 1854; 6 the reign of Anne,1 was continued down to 1838, when a new qualification of the same amount was substituted which could be made up either in real or personal property, or in both.2 In land qualifi1858 such property qualification was entirely abolished by a members statute3 repealing all acts upon the subject from 9 Anne, c. 5, to 41 Geo. III. c. IOI. cation for abolished. bill of 1867-68: Russell in 1852 and 2. Just as the revolution that occurred in France in July, Reform 1830, revived the agitation that precipitated the enactment of the first reform bill of 1832, so that which occurred in Paris in 1848 seems to have rekindled the drooping interest in the subject that brought about the enactment of the second of 1867. The support given to the efforts made by Locke King and Mr. Baines in 1851 to lower both the county and borough franchises was sufficient to make Lord John Russell admit that his original scheme was neither perfect nor final; and measures proposed in the next year he brought in a new reform bill, designed to by Lord cure defects in that measure which had been emphasized by the great increase that had taken place in twenty years in the 1854; wealth, population, and industry of the country. And yet, so absorbed was the nation at that time in more pressing events that the measure of 1852, designed not only to extend existing franchises but to create a new one, together with another more comprehensive still introduced by Lord John in 1854, was postponed without action. When in 1859 the earl of Derby as Lord the leader of the conservative party made the next move by proposal in bringing forward a bill whose central idea was not to reduce 1859 to the borough franchise but to establish an identity of franchise identity of between county and town, he was met with opposition not only in his own ranks but by Lord John himself, whose main objection rested upon the apprehension that such a principle would lead in the end to electoral districts. That objection, together with two others, he embodied in an amendment, which after a long debate was carried by a majority of thirty-nine, a result that led at once to a dissolution of parliament and an appeal to the people. By the hostile verdict then rendered Lord Palmerston was inducted into office, and on March 1, 1860, Lord John as a member of his administration brought forward a 1 9 Anne, c. 5; 33 Geo. II. c. 15. 21 & 2 Vict. c. 48. 3 21 & 22 Vict. c. 26. 252, 971; Ibid., vol. cxxx. p. 49; Ibid., 5 Hans. Deb., 3d ser. vol. cliii. pp. Hans. Deb., 3d ser. vol. cxix. pp. 389-1157, 1301. Derby's establish an franchise; Lord Russell's 1860 to lower both reform measure which proposed to lower both the county and proposal in borough franchises, avowedly in the latter case for the benefit of the working classes, and to increase the representation of county and the counties and large cities without entirely disfranchising borough franchise; any of the smaller boroughs. But the measure failed to excite either enthusiasm or interest in or out of parliament, and under the pressure of more urgent affairs the bill was withdrawn,1 and thus further action was postponed until the death of Lord Palmerston in October, 1865, cast the premiership upon Earl Russell as the leader of the whigs and the champion of reform. Thus circumstanced, Lord John, with Mr. Gladstone at his side, resumed the task imposed both by honor and conscience; and in order to satisfy the long-deferred hopes of the more advanced members of the liberal party, he introduced early in the session of 1866 a reform bill, which contemplated only a reduction of the franchise, so designed as to add at least 400,000 voters to the registers, one half of whom were to be workingmen. The failure of the measure to embrace any provision for the redistribution of seats provoked, however, serious opposition, and upon an amendment designed to cure that defect the government escaped defeat by only five votes.2 In the face of an opposition made up not only of conservatives but of a strong body of the liberals themselves, who pretended to regard even this moderate measure as revolutionary, Earl Russell, with his party broken and disorganized, was forced to resign office, in order to make way for superseded the opponents of further reform under the lead of the earl of as premier Derby, whose government found itself in a minority of seventy of Derby; in the house of commons. Not until that anomalous condition his more limited proposal of 1866; by the earl of things had been reached did the awakened spirit of democracy resolve through public agitation to force its opponents to grant what it had refused to aid its friends to secure. The Hyde Park Hyde Park riot of July 23, 1866, consequent upon the meet23, 1866; ing organized by the Reform League as a demonstration in riot of July favor of an extension of the suffrage, clearly indicated the presence of the new impulse in favor of reform, and in response thereto the Derby ministry promptly indicated its pur 1 Hans. Deb., 3d ser. vol. clix. p. 226. 2 On May 7 a bill for the redistribution of seats and reform bills for Scot land and Ireland were introduced, but even that expedient did not save the original measure from defeat. pose to offer a satisfactory scheme not as a party measure, but as a compromise that could be accepted by all. That dexterous expedient, first outlined in vague resolutions introduced by Mr. Disraeli, was on March 18 introduced in the Disraeli's concrete form of a bill that finally passed into law, with the tation of Represenaid of liberal votes, as the Representation of the People Act, the People 1867.1 Act, 1867. one against in the favor of classes county and In borough While parties were thus being played off one against the Parties other, the advanced reformers, who gave fresh emphasis to their played off demands by a second memorable meeting held in Hyde Park the other in May during the discussion upon the bill in question, were interest of reform; able to press upon the more conservative element claims that could not otherwise have been enforced. Thus it was that by concessions the Representation of the People Act the electoral basis was made in greatly widened by an extension of the franchise to a large working section of the working classes. In the counties, while no both as to existing qualification was abolished, the qualification for a vote of owners for a life and of leaseholders was cut down from £10 to £5, and a £12 occupation qualification added. the boroughs two most important qualifications were intro- franchises; duced by extending (1) what is commonly called "household suffrage" to the occupier of a dwelling-house of any value; (2) to the occupier of lodgings of £10 yearly value (unfurnished). A's the dwelling-house qualification in boroughs and the £12 occupation qualification in counties were both made strictly dependent upon rating and the payment of rates, it was provided that the habit of permitting owners to be rated owners not instead of occupiers, which had grown up under the Small to be rated; Tenements Act and other acts, should cease. That part of the bill relating to electoral areas was less important. Al- change in though no borough was deprived altogether of direct represen- areas less tation, from thirty-eight, having less than 10,000 population, important; one member each was taken. The seats thus gained were redistributed by giving an additional member to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, a member each to ten new boroughs including Chelsea, that gained two, and the an experiremainder to thirteen counties that were further divided. A favor of novel and peculiar feature was then introduced, providing that elections; 1 For a more complete statement of Hist., vol. i. pp. 450, 452, 456; vol. iii. the political history see May, Const. pp. 431-440. electoral ment in minority |