for the safety of their institutions. At such a time, the most moderate proposals were discountenanced; and after two nights' debate, Mr. Grey's motion found only forty-one supporters.1 Mr. Grey's motion, After such discouragement, and under circumstances so adverse, Mr. Grey did not at1797. tempt to renew the discussion of parliamentary reform, until 1797. He now had a definite plan; and on the 26th May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill for carrying it into effect. He proposed to increase the county members from ninetytwo to one hundred and thirteen, by giving two members to each of the three ridings of the county of York, instead of two for the whole county, and by similar additions to other large counties; and to admit copyholders and leaseholders for terms of years, as well as freeholders, to the county franchise. As regards the boroughs, he proposed to substitute for the numerous rights of election, one uniform household franchise. And in order to diminish the expense of elections, he suggested that the poll should be taken, throughout the whole kingdom, at one time. His scheme comprised, in fact, an outline of the great measure, which this eminent statesman was ultimately destined to mature, as the consummnation of his labours during half a century. His motion was seconded by Mr. Erskine, in a speech which went far to contradict the assertion, so often made, that in the House of Commons this great forensic orator was wholly unequal to his reputation. 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 787-925; Ayes, 41; Noes, 232; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 281-283, 349. At once eloquent, impassioned, and argumentative, it displayed those rare qualities, which have never been equalled at the British bar, and not often in the senate. The motion was also supported, in an admirable speech, by Mr. Fox. But vain were moderate and well-considered plans,-vain were eloquence and argument. The feelings, fears, and prejudices of the people were adverse to the cause: reform being now confounded with revolution, and reformers with Jacobins. Whatever was proposed, -more was said to be intended; and Paine and the 'Rights of Man' were perversely held up, as the true exponents of the reformer's creed. The motion was rejected by a large majority.' The agement of Again the question slept for many years. early part of the present century was a Further period scarcely more favourable for the dis- discour cussion of parliamentary reform, than the reform. first years of the French revolution. The prodigious efforts of the country in carrying on the war,victories and disasters,-loans, taxes, and subsidies, -engrossed the attention of Parliament, and the thoughts of the people. The restoration of peace was succeeded by other circumstances, almost equally unpropitious. The extreme pressure of the war upon the industrial resources of the country, had occasioned suffering and discontent amongst the working classes. The government were busy in repressing sedition; and the governing classes, trained under a succession of Tory administrations, had learned to scout every popular principle. Under 1 Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 644. Ayes, 91; Noes 256. such discouragements, many of the old supporters of reform, either deserted the cause, or shrank from its assertion; while demagogues, of dubious character, and dangerous principles, espoused it. 'Hampden Clubs,' and other democratic associations, -chiefly composed of working men,—were demanding universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, which found as little favour with the advocates of reform, as with its opponents; and every moderate scheme was received with scorn, by ultra-reformers.1 dett's plan, 1809. But notwithstanding these adverse conditions, the Sir F. Bur question of reform was occasionally discussed in Parliament. In 1809, it was revived, after the lapse of thirteen years. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,-who had first fought together in support of the same principles, and afterwards on opposite sides, were both no more: Mr. Grey and Mr. Erskine had been called to the House of Peers; and the cause was in other hands. Sir Francis Burdett was now its advocate,-less able and influential than his predecessors, and an eccentric politician, but a thorough-bred English gentleman. His scheme, however, was such as to repel the support of the few remaining reformers. He proposed that every county should be divided into electoral districts; that each district should return one member; and that the franchise should be vested in the taxed male population. So startling a project found no more than fifteen supporters.2 1 Com. Journ., lxv. 360, &c. Reports of Secret Committees of Lords and Commons, 1817; Wilberforce's Life, iv. 315; Bamford's Life of a Radical, i. 162–165. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xiv. 1041. Ayes, 15; Noes, 74. motion, May 21st, 1810. 13th June, 1810. In the following year, several petitions were presented, praying for a reform of Parliament; Mr. and on the 21st May, Mr. Brand moved for Brand's a committee of inquiry, which was refused by a large majority. On the 13th June, Earl Grey, in moving an address on the state of the nation, renewed his public connection with the cause of reform,-avowed his adherence to the sentiments he had always expressed,—and promised his future support to any temperate and judicious plan for the correction of abuses in the representation. He was followed by Lord Erskine, in the same honourable avowal.2 dett, In 1818, Sir F. Burdett, now the chairman of the Hampden Club of London, proposed reso- sir F. Burlutions in favour of universal male suf- 1818-19. frage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, and annual Parliaments. His motion was seconded by Lord Cochrane: but found not another supporter in the House of Commons. At this time, there were numerous public meetings in favour of universal suffrage; and reform associations,-not only of men but of women,—were engaged in advancing the same cause. And as many of these were advocating female suffrage, Sir F. Burdett, to avoid misconstruction, referred to male suffrage only.3 In 1819, Sir F. Burdett again brought forward a motion on the subject. He proposed that the House Ayes, 115; Noes, 234. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xvii. 123. 2 Ibid., xvii. 559, 590. 3 See a learned and ingenious article in the Edin. Rev., January, 1819, by Sir J. Mackintosh, on Universal Suffrage, Art. vIII.; Bam ford's Life of a Radical, i. 164. should, early in the next session, take into its consideration the state of the representation. In the debate, Lord John Russell, who had recently been admitted to Parliament, expressed his opinion in favour of disfranchising such boroughs as were notoriously corrupt. The motion was superseded by reading the orders of the day.' Lord J. Russell, 1820. At the commencement of the following session, Lord John Russell,-whose name has ever since been honourably associated with the cause of reform,-proposed his first motion on the subject. In the preceding session, he had brought under the notice of the House the scandalous proceedings at Grampound. He now took broader ground, and embraced the general evils of the electoral system. The time was not favourable to moderate counsels. On one side were the intemperate advocates of universal suffrage: on the other the stubborn opponents of all change in the representation. But such was the moderation of Lord John's scheme of reform, that it might have claimed the support of the wiser men of all parties. He showed, in a most promising speech, that in former times decayed boroughs had been discharged from sending members, and populous places summoned by writ to return them; he described the wonderful increase of the great manu 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1440. 2 Ibid., xli. 302, 1091. Notwithstanding the small encouragement given at this time to the cause of reform, it was making much progress in public opinion. Sydney Smith, writing in 1819, said, 'I think all wise men should begin to turn their minds reform wards. We shall do it better than Mr. Hunt or Mr. Cobbett. Done it must, and will be.'-Mem., ii. 191. |