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." The king, meanwhile, insisted upon one condition, Reform Act passed. that any new ministry,-however constituted,-should pledge themselves to an extensive measure of reform.1 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. 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 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 1 Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 783; Ibid., 995, the Duke of Wellington's explanation, May 17th; Roebuck's Whig Ministry, ii. 313. 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 10. household franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but residence within the borough 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, which should confer a 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 perilous question. Its defects will be noticed hereafter, in recounting the efforts which have since been made to correct them; but whatever they were, no law since the Bill of Rights, is to be compared with it in importance. Worthy of the struggles it occasioned, -it conferred immortal honour on the statesmen who had the wisdom to conceive it-and the courage to command its success. The defects of the Scotch representation, being even more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. On the 9th March, 1831, The Re form Act, Scotland. The Reform a bill was brought in to amend the representation of Scotland; but the discussions on the English bill, and the sudden dissolution of Parliament, interrupted its further progress. The same lot awaited it, in the short session of 1831; but in 1832, its success was assured in the general triumph of the cause.1 The entire representation was remodelled. Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union: this number was now increased to fifty-three, of whom thirty were allotted to counties, and twenty-three to cities and burghs. The county franchise was extended to all owners of property of 10l. a year, and to certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to all 107. householders. The representation of land, 1832. of the English system. boroughs, however, had Further ex tension of the Irish 1850. Ireland had many of the defects Several rotten and nomination. already been disfranchised on the union with England; and disfranchisement, therefore, did not form any part of the Irish Reform Act. But the right of election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in 107. householders; and large additions were made to the county constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act of Union had settled at one hundred, was now increased to one hundred and five.2 This measure was the least successful of the three great reform acts of 1832. Complaints were immefranchise, diately made of the restricted franchise which it had created; and the number of electors registered, proved much less than had been anticipated. After repeated discussions, a measure was passed in 1850, by which the borough franchise was extended to householders 1 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 65. sard's Deb., 3rd Ser., iii. 862; Ibid., Han- ix. 595; Ibid., xiii. 119. rated at 81.; and further additions were made to the county franchise.1 results of The representation of the country had now been re- Political constructed on a wider basis. Large classes had been the Reform admitted to the franchise; and the House of Commons Acts. represented more freely the interests and political sentiments of the people. The reformed Parliament, accordingly, has been more liberal and progressive in its policy than the Parliaments of old; more vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people. But in its constitution, grave defects still remained to be considered. since the Act. Prominent among the evils of the electoral system Bribery which have been noticed, was that of bribery at elec- Reform tions. For the correction of this evil, the reform acts made no direct provision. Having increased the number of electors, the legislature trusted to their independence and public spirit in the exercise of the franchise; and to the existing laws against bribery. But bribery is the scandal of free institutions in a rich country; and it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold. It was not in nomination boroughs, or in boroughs sold in gross, that bribery had flourished: but it had been the vice of places where a small body of electors, exercising the same privilege as proprietors,-sold the seats which by their individual votes they had the power of conferring. The reform act had suppressed the very boroughs which had been free from bribery: it had preserved boroughs, and classes of voters, familiarised with corrupt practices; and had created new boroughs, exposed 1 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69. |