'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' ' It was one of the most critical days in the Dissolution in 1831. 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. form Bill, The people were now to decide the question;— Second Re- and they decided it. A triumphant body 1831. 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 thirty-six. 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 Rejected by the Lords. 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." Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., iii. 1810. See supra, p. 141. 2 Ibid., iv. 906. Ayes, 367; Noes, 231. 3 Ibid., vii. 464. this bill do pass.' The division was taken on the question 'That The position of the peers at this time has been already noticed, supra, p. 308, et seq. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., viii. 340. This debate I heard myself, form Bill, А The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to think Third Reof resigning; and on the motion of Lord 1831-32. Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons.1 On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence and danger, met again on the 6th December. 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. Here the peril of again rejecting it could not be concealed. The courage of some was Read second shaken, the patriotism of others aroused; time by the and after a debate of four nights, the April, 1832. second reading was affirmed by the 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 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. 'Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., viii. 380. 2 Ibid., ix. 546. ' [bid., xii. 454; and for a spirited sketch of the scene, see Cockburn's Life of Jeffrey, i. 328. 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. Disfran chising clauses The disfranchisement of boroughs formed the basis of the measure; and the first vote of the peers, in committee on the bill, postpostponed. poned the consideration of the disfranchising clauses, by a majority of thirty-five.' 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.' The king, meanwhile, insisted upon one condition, See supra, p. 311. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 677. that any new ministry,-however constituted,-should pledge themselves to an extensive Reform Act measure of reform.1 But, even if the passed. 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 The Reform Act, Eng land, 1832. It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the faults of a system, which had been complained of for 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 fortythree members. The next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented; and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including me 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 783; Ibid., 995; the Duke of Welling. ton's explanation, May 17th; Roebuck's Whig Ministry, ii. 313. 2 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45. tropolitan 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 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 con |