either in real or personal property, or in both com· bined. In 1858, the law of property qualification was abandoned altogether. In its original form, it had been invidious and unjust; and, from its beginning to its end, it had been systematically evaded. It would probably not have survived so long the jealousies from which it had sprung, had it not been invested with undue importance, by radical reformers. But when the repeal of this insignificant law was proclaimed as one of the five points of the 'Charter, it is not surprising that more moderate politicians should have regarded it as one of the safeguards of the constitution.

elections

After the passing of the reform act, of 1832, various minor amendments were made in Proceedthe electoral laws. The registration of ingat electors was improved and simplified,3 improved. the number of polling-places was increased, and the polling reduced, in counties as well as in boroughs, to a single day. Even the Universities, which had retained their fifteen days of polling, were glad to accept five days, in 1853.

5

Promptitude in election proceedings was further ensured by the change of some ancient customs. The prescriptive period of forty days between the summons of a new Parliament and its meeting,enlarged by custom to fifty days since the union with Scotland, having become an anomaly in an age of railways and telegraphs, was reduced to thirty-five."

1 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48.

6 & 7 Vict. c. 18.

2 21 & 22 Vict. c. 26.

4 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 102.

5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 15. • By Lord Brougham's Act, 1852; 15 Vict. c. 23 VOL. I.

G G

Later measures of reform.

Another ancient custom also gave way to a more simple procedure; the writs for an election are addressed direct to the several returning officers, instead of passing through the sheriff of the county.' A more general revision of the representative system, as settled by the reform acts of 1832, was also the aim of several administrations, and Parliaments. For some years, there had been a natural reluctance to disturb the settlement which those important measures had recently effected. The old Whig party had regarded it as a constitutional charter, and contended for its finality.' But their advanced Liberal supporters, -after many discussions in Parliament, and much agitation and pressure from without,'-at length prevailed over the more cautious policy of their leaders; and a promise was given, in 1851, that the consideration of the representative system should, at a fitting opportunity, be resumed.2

In fulfilment of this promise, Lord John Russell,

Reform Bill of 1852.

-twenty years after the settlement of 1832, proposed its further revision. That measure had not proposed to redistribute the franchise, in precise correspondence with the population of different parts of the country. Not founded upon theoretical views of equal representation, it had not assumed to frame a new constitution; but had provided a remedy for the worst evils of a faulty and corrupt electoral system. It had rescued the repre

116 & 17 Vict. c. 78.

Speech of Lord John Russell, 20th Feb. 1851; Hans. Deb., 8rd Ser., cxiv. 863. See also Speech 20th June, 1848: Ibid., xcix.

sentation from a small oligarchy of peers and landowners; and had vested it in the hands of the middle classes. But it had spared many boroughs, which were perhaps too small to exercise their suffrage independently: it had overlooked the claims of some considerable places; and had not embraced the working classes within its scheme of enfranchisement. Lord John Russell now sought to correct these partial defects, which time had disclosed in the original

measure.

He proposed that every existing borough, having less than five hundred electors, should be associated with adjacent places, in the right of returning members; and that Birkenhead and Burnley should be enfranchised. In twenty years there had been a vast increase of population, wealth, and industry, throughout the country. The spread of education and political enlightenment had been rapid: a more instructed generation had grown up; and a marked improvement had arisen, in the social condition of the working classes. It was, therefore, thought right and safe to lower the franchise so far as to embrace classes not hitherto included, and particularly the most skilled artisans,—men who had given proof of their intelligence and good conduct, by large earnings, and a high position among their fellow workmen. With this view, it was proposed to extend the borough franchise to the occupiers of houses of 5l. rated value; and the county franchise to tenants-atwill rated at 20l., and copyholders and leaseholders rated at 51. It was also intended to create a new franchise, arising out of the annual payment of 408.

G G

Reform Bill of 1854.

2

in direct taxes to the state. Lord John Russell's administration soon afterwards resigned; and this measure was withdrawn before the second reading.' In 1854, Lord John Russell, as a member of Lord Aberdeen's government, proposed another measure, more comprehensive than the last. It comprised the disfranchisement of nineteen small boroughs, returning twenty-nine members; the deprivation of thirty-three other boroughs of one of their members; and the redistribution of the vacant seats, sixty-six in number, amongst the counties and larger boroughs, the Inns of Court, and the University of London. It proposed to reduce the franchise in counties to 10l.; and in boroughs to the municipal rating franchise of 61. Several new franchises were also to be added, in order to modify the hard uniformity of the household franchise. A salary of 100l. a year: an income of 10l. from dividends: the payment of 408. in direct taxes: a degree at any of the universities; and 50l. in a savings bank, were accounted sufficient securities for the proper exercise of the suffrage. In the distribution of seats, a novel principle was to be established, with a view to ensure the representation of minorities. Some counties and other large places were to return three members each; but no elector would be entitled to vote for more than two candidates out of three. This theory of representation,-though very ably advocated by some speculative writers,3-found little

Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxix. 252, 971: Bill, No. 48, of 1852. 2 Including the vacant seats of Sudbury and St. Albans. Minorities and Majorities; their relative Rights, by James Garth

favour in Parliament, at that time, with men accustomed to determine every disputed question among themselves, by the votes of the majority. The consideration of this measure was postponed, by the outbreak of the war with Russia.1

The next measure of parliamentary reform was proposed in 1859, by the government of the The Reform Earl of Derby. That statesman,—having Bill of 1859. been one of the most eloquent, spirited, and courageous of Earl Grey's colleagues in 1832,—was now the leader of the great Conservative party, which had opposed the first reform act. But his party,

It

deferring to the judgment of Parliament, had since honourably acquiesced in that settlement. Meanwhile, the revision of that measure had been thrice recommended from the throne; and three successive administrations had been pledged to undertake the task. Some scheme of reform had thus become a political necessity. The measure agreed upon by ministers, and the principles upon which it was founded, were ably explained by Mr. Disraeli. was not sought to reconstruct the representation of the country, solely on the basis of population and property but having reference to those material elements, as well as to the representation of various interests, and classes of the community,—this measure comprehended some considerable changes. It was not proposed wholly to disfranchise any borough: but one member was to be taken from fifteen

Marshall, 1853; Edinb. Rev., July 1854, Art. vii.; and more lately Hare on the Election of Representatives, 1859.

Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxxx. 491; Ibid., cxxxi. 277.