1 Mr. Grote having retired from Parliament, the question was not allowed to be forgotten. In 1842 Mr. Ward adopted it; and since 1848, Mr. Henry Berkeley has made it his own.2 With ample stores of fact and anecdote, and with varied resources of humor, he has continued to urge on the question, year after year; but without increased support. In 1848 his motion was carried by a majority of five. In 1849, it was defeated by a majority of fifty-one: in 1852, by a majority of one hundred and two; and in 1860, by a ma jority of one hundred and seven. Such reaction of opinion, upon a popular measure, is more significant of ultimate failure, than a steady position, without progress indeed, yet without reverses. Acts. Since the reform act, the qualification laws, which in Qualification different forms had existed for one hundred and fifty years, have passed away. It was ostensibly to correct the evils of bribery at elections, that property in land was first proposed as a qualification for a member of Parliament. The corruption of boroughs being mainly due to the intrusion of rich commercial men, without local connection, the natural jealousy of the landowners suggested this restraint upon their rivals. In 1696, the first measure to establish a qualification in land, was received with so much favor, that it passed both Houses; but the king, leaning rather to the commercial interests, withheld his assent. In the following year, a similar bill was passed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords; who had now begun to think that a small landed qualification would increase the influence of the squires, but diminished the authority of the great nobles, who filled the smaller boroughs with members of their own family, and dependents. The policy of excluding all but the proprietors of land, 1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., Ixiv. 348. 2 Ibid. c. 1225. 8 Ayes 86, Noes 81. 8 trom the right of sitting in the House of Commons, was at length adopted in the reign of Queen Anne,1 and was maintained until 1838. In that year this exclusive principle was surrendered; and a new qualification substituted, of the same amount, either in real or personal property, or in both combined. 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. Proceedings improved. Since the passing of the reform act, various minor amendments have been made in the electoral laws. The registration of electors has been improved and at elections simplified, the number of polling-places has been increased, and the polling reduced, in counties as well as in boroughs, a single day. Even the Universities, which had retained their fifteen days of polling, were glad to accept five days, in 1853. Promptitude in election proceedings has further been insured 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, has been reduced to thirty-five." Another ancient custom has also 19 Anne, c. 5; 33 Geo. II. c. 15. 21 & 2 Vict. c. 48. 8 21 & 22 Vict. c. 26. 46 & 7 Vict. c. 18. 56 & 7 Will. IV. c. 102. 65 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 15. By Lord Brougham's Act, 1852; 15 Vict. c. 23. given way to a more simple procedure. By a recent act the writs for an election are addressed direct to the several returning officers, instead of passing through the sheriff of the county.1 A more general revision of the representative system, as Later meas. ures of reform. settled by the reform acts of 1832, has also been 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 Reform Bill of 1852. In fulfilment of this promise, Lord John Russell, — 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 representation 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 1 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78. 2 Speech of Lord John Russell, 20th Feb. 1851; Hansard's Deb 3d Ser., cxiv. 863. See also Speech 20th June, 1848: Ibid. xcix. 929. 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 Birken head 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 in structed 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 artificers, 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-at-will rated at 201., and copyholders and lease-holders rated at 5l. It was also intended to create a new franchise, arising out of the annual payment of 40s. in direct taxes to the state. Lord John Russell's administration soon afterwards resigned; and this measure was withdrawn before the second reading.1 of 1854. In 1854, Lord John Russell, as a member of Lord Aberdeen's government, proposed another measure, Reform Bill 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,2 amongst the counties and larger boroughs, the Inns of Court, and the University of London. It proposed to reduce the franchise in counties to 107.; and in boroughs to the municipal rating 1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., cxix. 252, 971; Bill, No. 48, of 1852. franchise of Gl. 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 107. from dividends: the payment of 40s. in direct taxes: a degree at any of the universities; and 50%. 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 insure the repre sentation 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,1 found little favor in Parliament, 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.2 The Reform The next measure of parliamentary reform was proposed in 1859, by the government of Lord Derby. Bill of 1859. Lord Derby, - having been one of the most eloquent, spirited, and courageous of Lord Grey's colleagues in 1832, was now the leader of the great Conservative party, which had opposed the first reform act. But his party, deferring to the judgment of Parliament, had since honorably 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 the ministers, and the principles upon which it was founded, were ably explained by Mr. Disraeli. It was not sought to reconstruct the representation of the country solely 1 Minorities and Majorities; their relative Rights, by James Garth Mar shall, 1853; Edinb. Rev., July 1854, Art. vii.; and more lately Hare on the Election of Representatives, 1859. Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., cxxx.. 491; Ibid. cxxxi. 277. |