The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III

The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III. - From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which, as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people, which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly, against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement, in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part, their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true, said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded, according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone, were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new constitution was as follows:The cities, boroughs, and counties which were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns; and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders. The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections, as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn, and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise, which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced, both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole, Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens: Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each, thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about 110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland, perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said, that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage. There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against himnamely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballothis lordship concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales. This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium, and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question. Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures, he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The baronets speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed the bill Russells purge! which afforded much amusement to honourable and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly quoting Humes History of England for illustrations of his arguments. This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord Palmerston, who, in a most statesmanlike oration, reviewed the whole question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood, Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel, who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr. OConnell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not brought in till the 14tha delay which gave occasion to some members of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the bill, in | which one or two alterations and corrections had been made, was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition reserved themselves for the second readinga stage at which, according to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is usually decided. ......Buy Now (To Read More)

Product details

Ebook Number: 19218
Author: Farr, Edward
Release Date: Sep 8, 2006
Format: eBook
Language: English

Contributors

Contributor (Author): Nolan, E. H. (Edward Henry)