boroughs, having a population under six thousand. Eight of the vacant seats were assigned to the great county populations of Yorkshire, South Lancashire, and Middlesex; and seven to new boroughs, which according to this scheme, would complete the representation of the several interests of the country.

The two previous measures of Lord John Russell had contemplated a reduction of the borough franchise. No such reduccion was now proposed: but the franchise in counties was assimilated to that in boroughs. Hitherto the borough franchise had been founded upon occupation; and the county franchise generally upon property. This distinction it was now proposed to abolish; and to substitute an identity of franchise between the county and the town. The 40s. freeholders resident in towns, would be transferred from the constituency of the county, to that of the town, Several new franchises were also to be created, similar to those proposed in 1854, but more comprehensive. Men possessed of 10l. a year arising from dividends: 60l. in a savings bank; or a pension of 20l. a year,-equal to 88. a week: graduates of all universities: ministers of religion of every denomination: members of the legal profession in all its branches: registered medical practitioners and schoolmasters holding a certificate from the Privy Council, were to be entitled to vote, wherever they were resident. And facilities for exercising the franchise were to be afforded by means of voting papers.1

:

I Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clii. 966.

against this

This scheme encountered objections from two different quarters. Two influential members Objections of the government,-Mr. Walpole and Mr. urged Henley, alarmed by the proposed identity measure. of franchise, in counties and boroughs, resigned their seats in the cabinet. The opposition, partly taking up the same ground, were unwilling to deprive the 40s. freeholders resident in boroughs, of their county votes; and insisted upon the lowering of the borough suffrage. The government, weakened by these resignations, had now to meet a formidable amendment, moved by Lord John Russell on the second reading of the bill, which expressed the views of the opposition. The identity of franchise was objected to by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley, on account of the supposed danger of drawing one broad line between the represented, and the unrepresented classes. Lord John Russell concurred in this objection, believing that such a principle would eventually lead to electoral districts. He also opposed the bill on two other grounds: first, that the 408. freeholders, being the most liberal element in the county constituencies, ought not to be disfranchised; and secondly, that their admission to the borough franchise would encourage the manufacture of faggot votes,-like the old burgage-tenure, which had been the means of extending the influence of patrons. He objected to the continuance of the 10l. household suffrage in boroughs, on the ground that considerable classes of people, worthy to be entrusted with votes, had sprung up since that franchise had

Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clii. 1058,

been established. After seven nights' debate, the amendment was carried by a majority of thirty-nine.' Upon the issue raised by this decision, the government determined to dissolve Parliament, and appeal to the people. On the assembling of a new Parliament, ministers having failed to secure a majority at the elections, were at once driven from office by an amendment to the address, declaring that they had not the confidence of the House of Commons.3

Reform

And now the question of reform was resumed, once more, by Lord John Russell, on behalf of Bill of 1860. Lord Palmerston's administration. On the 1st March 1860, he introduced a bill, in accordance with the spirit of the amendment by which he had destroyed the measure of the previous year: but differing materially from the bills of 1852 and 1854. Like the scheme of Lord Derby's government, it spared all the smaller boroughs. None were to be disfranchised: but it deprived twenty-five boroughs, with a population under seven thousand, of one of their members. This disfranchisement fell far short of that proposed in 1854; and it was avowed that if any more places had been condemned, their representatives, combining with the Conservative opposition, would have succeeded in defeating the bill. If such was now the difficulty of contending with these personal and local interests, what must have been the difficulties of Mr. Pitt in 1784, and of Lord Grey in 1832? One minister vainly attempted to buy off his opponents: the other overcame them by strong 'Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cliii. 389-1157. 2 Ibid. 1301.

• Ibid., cliv. 98-297.

popular support.

The first expedient was now wholly out of the question: the latter source of

strength was wanting.

Fifteen of the vacant seats were distributed amongst the counties; and ten given to the larger cities, and some new boroughs. The 50l. occupation franchise in counties, was reduced to a 10l. bona fide holding. The 10l. borough franchise was lowered to 6l., avowedly for the purpose of comprehending many of the working classes. It was calculated that the new franchise would add two hundred thousand electors to the cities and boroughs. None of the varied franchises, which had formed part of the bills of 1854 and 1859, were again proposed. Sneered at as 'fancy franchises,' and distrusted as the means of creating fictitious votes, they were now abandoned; and the more rude, but tangible tests of good citizenship inflexibly maintained.'

delays and

This bill was defeated, neither by adverse majorities, nor by changes in the government: Bill lost by but by delays, and the pressure of other indifference. important measures. It was not until the 3rd of May, after six adjourned debates,—that it was read a second time, without a division. Discussions were renewed on going into committee; and at length, on the 11th June, the bill was withdrawn.' Bills to amend the representation in Scotland and Ireland, which had been hopelessly awaiting discussion, had already been abandoned.3

1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clvi. 2050.

2 Ibid., clix. 226.

Ibid., clix. 143.

Obstacles

to parlia. mentary reform.

Such obstacles as these,―however harassing and inconvenient, would have been easily overcome, if the government had been cordially supported by their own party in the House of Commons, and by popular acclamations. But within the walls of the House, parliamentary reform was received with coldness,-if not with ill-disguised repugnance, even by its professed supporters; and throughout the country, there prevailed the most profound indifference. The cause which had once aroused enthusiasm, now languished from general neglect. The press was silent or discouraging: petitions were not forthcoming: public meetings were not assembled: the people were unmoved. Whence this indifference? Why so marked a change of popular feeling, in less than thirty years? It was generally believed that the settlement of 1832 had secured the great object of representation,-good government. Wise and beneficent ineasures had been passed: enlightened public opinion had been satisfied. The representation was theoretically incomplete: but Parliament had been brought into harmony with the interests and sympathies of the people. It had nearly approached Mr. Burke's standard, according to whom, The virtue, spirit, and essence of a House of Commons, consists in its being the express image of the feelings of a nation." The best results of reform had been realised: the country was prosperous and contented. It has ever been the genius of the English people to love freedom: they are aroused by injustice: they resent a public or private wrong; but they are rarely moved Burke's Works, ii. 288 (Present Discontents).