Dissolution in 1831. Second Reform Bill, 1831. Rejected by the Lords. This last vote was decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, " with a view to its immediate dissolution." 1 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 ; — and they 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 thirtysix.2 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.3 That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture 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.5 The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., iii. 1810. Ayes, 367; 3 Ibid., vii. 464. The division was taken on the question, "That this bill do pass." The position of the peers at this time has been already noticed, supra, p. 260, et seq. 5 Hans. Deb., 3rd 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. form Bill, 1831-32. too far pledged to the people to think of resigning; Third Reand on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. 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 18th of December, by a majority of one hundred and sixty two. On the 23rd March, it was passed by the House of Commons, and once more was before the House of Lords. second Here the peril of again rejecting it could not be Read concealed. The courage of some was shaken,-the time by patriotism of others aroused; and after a debate of the Lords, 13th April, four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the 1832. 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 excited meetings assumed an attitude of intimidation. A crisis was approaching,-fatal, perhaps, to the peace of the country: violence, if not revolution, seemed impending. The disfranchisement of boroughs formed the basis Disfranof the measure; and the first vote of the peers, 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., viii. 380. 2 Ibid., ix. 546. 3 Ibid., xii. 454; and for a spirited peers, in sketch of the scene, see Cockburn's chising clauses committee on the bill, postponed the consideration of postponed. the disfranchising clauses, by a majority of thirty-five.1 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 honour to the people and the Commons, not to assent. The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced, or 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 all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House." Reform The king, meanwhile, insisted upon one condition,— that any new ministry, however constituted,-should pledge themselves to an extensive measure of reform.3 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 a bloody collision, when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The bill was now secure. 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 677. 3 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 783; The peers averted the Ibid., 995; the Duke of Wellington's explanation, May 17th; Roebuck's Whig Ministry, ii. 313. threatened addition to their numbers, by abstaining from further opposition; and the bill, - the Great Charter of 1832, at length received the Royal Assent.1 form Act, It is now time to advert to the provisions of this The Refamous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the England, faults of a system, which had been complained of for 1832. 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 being increased from ninety-four to one hundred and fifty-nine. The larger counties were divided; and the number of members adjusted with reference to the importance of the constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of election were set aside in boroughs; and a 107. household franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved: but residence within the borough 1 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45. was attached as a condition to their right of voting. Those freemen, however, who had been created since March 1831, were excepted from the electoral privilege. Crowds had received their freedom, in order to vote against the reform candidates at the general election they had served their purpose, and were now disfranchised. Birth or servitude were henceforth to be the sole claims to the freedom of any city, entitling freemen to vote. The county constituency was enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of 50l. a year. The latter class had been added in the Commons, on the motion of the Marquess of Chandos, in opposition to the government. The object of this addition was to strengthen the interests of the landlords, which it undoubtedly effected: but as it extended the franchise to a considerable class of persons, it was at least consistent with the liberal design of the reform act. Another evil of the representative system had been the excessive expenses at elections. This too was sought to be mitigated by the registration of electors, the division of counties and boroughs into convenient polling districts, and the reduction of the days of polling. It was a measure, at once bold, comprehensive, moderate, and constitutional. Popular, but not democratic it extended liberty, without hazarding revolution. Two years before, Parliament had refused to enfranchise a single unrepresented town; and now this wide redistribution of the franchise had been accomplished! That it was theoretically complete, and left nothing for future statesmen to effect, its authors never affirmed: but it was a masterly settlement of a |