Obstacles to parliamentary reform. Bills to amend the representation in Scotland and Ireland, which had been hopelessly awaiting discussion, had already been abandoned.1 Such obstacles as these, however harassing and inconvenient, would have been easily overcome, if the government had been cordially supported by their own party in the House of Commons, and by popular acclamations. But within the walls of the House, parliamentary reform was received with coldness,- if not with ill-disguised repugnance,-even by its professed supporters; and throughout the country, there prevailed the most profound indifference. The cause which had once aroused enthusiasm, now languished from general neglect. The press was silent or discouraging: petitions were not forthcoming: public meetings were not assembled: the people were unmoved. Whence this indifference? Why so marked a change of popular feeling, in less than thirty years? The settlement of 1832 had secured the great object of representation,good government. Wise and beneficent measures had been passed: enlightened public opinion had been satisfied. The representation was theoretically incomplete: but Parliament had been brought into harmony with the interests and sympathies of the people. It had nearly approached Mr. Burke's standard, according to whom, “The virtue, spirit, and essence of a House of Commons, consists in its being the express image of the feelings of a nation."2 The best results of reform had been realised: the country was prosperous and contented. It has ever been the genius of the English people to love freedom: they are roused by injustice : they resent a public or private wrong; but they are 143. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clix. 2 Burke's Works, ii. 288 (Present Discontents). rarely moved by theoretical grievances. Living under a settled form of government, they have cared little for model constitutions; and united in the bonds of a highly civilised society, they have never favoured democracy. Again, since 1832, political power has been vested mainly in the middle classes; and the employers of labour, being masters of the representation, are unwilling to share their power with the working classes, by whom they are outnumbered. Hence the inertness of existing constituencies. They enjoy exclusive political privileges; and desire to maintain them. While these One other cause must not be omitted. moderate measures of reform were being proposed by successive governments, other schemes had been discussed elsewhere,-designed to extend largely the influence of numbers,-and conceived and advocated in the spirit of democracy. Such proposals increased the indisposition of moderate reformers, and of the classes already enfranchised, to forward an extension of the suffrage. At the same time, the advocates of more comprehensive schemes of reform,-while they coldly accepted measures falling far short of their own,-were not unwilling that they should be postponed to some period more promising for the adoption of their advanced principles. And thus, with the tacit acquiescence of all parties, the question of parliamentary reform was again suffered to sleep. CHAP. VII. RELATIONS OF PARLIAMENT TO THE CROWN, THE LAW, AND THE PEOPLE. WE have traced, in the last chapter, the changes which have been successively introduced into the constitution of the House of Commons,-the efforts made to reduce the influence of the crown, the ministers, and the aristocracy over its members,-to restrain corruption, and encourage an honest and independent discharge of its duties to the public. We have now to regard Parliament, and mainly the House of Commons,—under another aspect to observe how it has wielded the great powers entrusted to it,-in what manner it has respected the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of the law, and other jurisdictions, and how far it has acknowledged its own responsibilities to the people. Throughout its history, the House of Commons has had struggles with the crown, the House of Lords, the courts of law, the press, and the people. At one time privilege. straining its own powers, at another resisting encroachments upon its just authority: Contests of the Commons on questions of successful in asserting its rights, but failing in its usurpations; it has gradually assumed its proper position in the state,controlling all other powers, but itself controlled and responsible. The worst period of its dependence and corruption, was also marked by the most flagrant abuses of its power. And the more it has been brought under the control of public opinion, -the greater have been its moderation and forbearance. The reign of George III. witnessed many remarkable changes in the relations of Parliament to the people, which all contributed to increase its responsibility. Moral causes also extended the control of the people over their rulers, even more than amendments of the law, by which constitutional abuses were corrected. Events occurred early in this reign, which brought to a decisive issue, important questions affecting the privileges of Parliament, and the rights of the subject. ings of the Wilkes, The liberty of the subject had already been outraged Proceedby the imprisonment of Wilkes, under a general war- Commons rant, for the publication of the celebrated No. 45 of against the "North Briton; " when Parliament thrust itself 1763. forward, as if to prove how privilege could still be abused, as well as prerogative. Being a member of the House of Commons, Wilkes had been released from his imprisonment, by the Court of Common Pleas, on a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground of his privilege.2 66 99 66 denied his The only exceptions to the privilege of freedom from Wilkes arrest, which had ever been recognised by Parliament, privilege. were treason, felony, and breach of the peace,' or refusing to give surety of the peace." The court properly acknowledged the privilege, as defined by Parliament itself; and discharged Wilkes from his imprison 1 See Vol. II., 255. 2 Wilson's Reports, ii. 150. St. Tr., xix. 539 ment. He was afterwards served with a subpoena, on an information against him in the Court of King's Bench, to which, on the ground of privilege, he had not entered an appearance. On the meeting of Parliament, however, in November, 1763, he lost no time in stating that if his privilege should be affirmed, he was ready to waive it," and to put himself upon a jury of his countrymen." Parliament,-which had ordinarily been too prone to enlarge its privileges - was now the first to abridge and surrender them. Eager to second the vengeance of the king, the Commons commenced by voting that the "North Briton," No. 45, was "a false, scandalous, and malicious libel," and ordering it to be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Then, in defiance of their own previous resolutions, they resolved "that privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of law, in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence." 2 To the principle of the latter part of this resolution there can be little exception; but here it was applied ex post facto to a particular case, and used to justify a judicial decision, contrary to law and usage. Mr. Pitt, while he denounced the libel and the libeller, remonstrated against the abandonment of the privilege. These resolutions being communicated to the Lords, were agreed to; but not without a most able protest, signed by seventeen peers, against the surrender of the privilege of Parliament "to serve a particular purpose, ex post facto, et pendente lite, in the courts below."3 1 Parl. Hist., xv. 1361. 2 Com. Journ., xxix. 689; Parl. Hist., xv. 1362--1378. 3 Parl. Hist., xv. 1371; Ann. Reg., 1763, 135. Horace Walpole says it was drawn up by Chief Jus tice Pratt. |