Northampton and Leicester cases, 1826-27. Feb. 21st. supporters, and were rejected by a majority of seventyfour.1 At the commencement of the next session, Lord Blandford repeated these views, in moving an amendment to the address, representing the necessity of improving the representation. Being seconded by Mr. O'Connell, his anomalous position as a reformer was manifest.2 Soon afterwards he moved for leave to bring in a bill to restore the constitutional influence of the Commons in the Parliament of England, which contained an elaborate machinery of reform, including the restoration of wages to members. His motion served no other purpose, than that of reviving discussions upon the general question of reform. But in the meantime, questions of less general application had been discussed, which eventually produced the most important results. The disclosures which followed the general election of 1826, and the conduct of the government, gave a considerable impulse to the cause of reform. The corporations of Northampton and Leicester were alleged to have applied large sums Mar. 15th. from the corporate funds, for the support of ministerial candidates. In the Northampton case, Sir Robert Peel went so far as to maintain the right of a corporation to apply its funds to election purposes; but the House could not be brought to concur in such a principle; and a committee of inquiry was appointed. In the Leicester case, all inquiry was successfully resisted.5 A bill to restrain such corporate abuses was passed by the Commons in the next session, but Lord Eldon secured its rejection by the Lords on the third reading. 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xxi. 1672. Ayes, 40; Noes, 114. 2 Ibid., xxii. 171. 3 Ibid., xxii. 678. 4 Ibid., xvi. 606. 5 Ibid., 1198. 13th June, 1827; Lords' Journ., lix. 403; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 516 (not reported in Hansard). and East cases, Next came two cases of gross and notorious bribery, Penryn Penryn and East Retford. They were not worse Retford than those of Shoreham and Grampound, and might 1826-27. have been as easily disposed of; but,-treated without they precipitated a contest, which ended in the triumph of reform. judgment by ministers, Penryn had long been notorious for its corruption, which had been already twice exposed1; yet ministers resolved to deal tenderly with it. Instead of disfranchising so corrupt a borough, they followed the precedent of Shoreham; and proposed to embrace the adjacent hundreds, in the privilege of returning members. But true to the principles he had already carried out in the case of Grampound, Lord John Russell succeeded in introducing an amendment in the bill, by which the borough was to be entirely disfranchised.2 In the case of East Retford, a bill was brought in to disfranchise that borough, and to enable the town of Birmingham to return two representatives. And it was intended by the reformers, to transfer the franchise from Penryn to Manchester. The session closed without the accomplishment of either of these objects. The Penryn disfranchisement bill, having passed the Commons, had dropped in the Lords; and the East Retford bill had not yet passed the Commons. and East In the next session, two bills were introduced; one Penryn by Lord John Russell, for transferring the franchise Retford from Penryn to Manchester; and another by Mr. Ten- bills, 1828. nyson, for disfranchising East Retford, and giving representatives to Birmingham.3 The government proposed a compromise. If both boroughs were disfranchised, they offered, in one case to give two members to a Proposal to enfran populous town, and in the other to the adjoining hundreds. When the Penryn bill had already reached the House of Lords,-where its reception was extremely doubtful,-the East Retford bill came on for discussion in the Commons. The government now opposed the transference of the franchise to Birmingham. Mr. Huskisson, however, voted for it; and his proffered resignation being accepted by the Duke of Wellington 2, led to the withdrawal of Lord Palmerston, Lord Dudley, Mr. Lamb, and Mr. Grant, the most liberal members of the government, the friends and colleagues of the late Mr. Canning. The cabinet was now entirely Tory; and less disposed than ever, to make concessions to the reformers. The Penryn bill was soon afterwards thrown out by the Lords on the second reading; and the East Retford bill, having been amended so as to retain the franchise in the hundreds, was abandoned in the Commons.3 It was the opinion of many attentive observers of these chise times, that the concession of demands so reasonable would Leeds, Bir- have arrested, or postponed for many years, the mingham, and Man chester, 1830. progress of reform. They were resisted; and further agitation was encouraged. In 1830, Lord John Russell,—no longer hoping to deal with Penryn and East Retford, -proposed at once to enfranchise Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester; and to provide that the three next places proved guilty of corruption, should be altogether disfranchised. His motion was opposed, mainly on the ground that if the franchise were given to these towns, the claims of other large towns could not afterwards be resisted. Where, then, were such concessions to stop? 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., 1144, 1282. 2 Ibid., xix. 915. See Yonge's Life of the Duke of Wellington, ii. 150-154; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 566. 3 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xix. 1530. 4 Ibid., xxii. 859. It is remarkable that on this occasion, Mr. Huskisson said of Lord Sandon, who had moved an amendment, that he "was young, and would yet live to see the day when the representative franchise must be granted to the great manufacturing districts. He thought such a time fast approaching; and that one day or other, His Majesty's ministers would come down to that House, to propose such a measure, as necessary for the salvation of the country." Within a year, this prediction had been verified; though the unfortunate statesman did not live to see its fulfilment. The motion was negatived by a majority of forty-eight1; and thus another moderate proposal,-free from the objections which had been urged against disfranchisement, and not affecting any existing rights, was sacrificed to a narrow and obstinate dread of innovation. In this same session, other proposals were made of a widely different character. Mr. O'Connell moved resolutions in favour of universal suffrage, triennial Parliaments, and vote by ballot. Lord John Russell moved to substitute other resolutions, providing for the enfranchisement of large towns, and giving additional members to populous counties; while any increase of the numbers of the House of Commons was avoided, by disfranchising some of the smaller boroughs, and restraining others from sending more than one member.2 Sir Robert Peel, in the course of the debate, said: 66 They had to consider whether there was not, on the whole, a general representation of the people in that House; and whether the popular voice was not sufficiently heard. For himself he thought that it was." This opinion was but the prelude to a more memorable 1 1 Ayes, 140; Noes, 188. VOL. I. 2 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xxiv. 1204. A A Other pro posals in 1830. Dissolution in 1830. Duke of Wellington's de declaration, by the Duke of Wellington. Both the motion and the amendment failed; but discussions so frequent served to awaken public sympathy in the cause, which great events were soon to arouse into enthusiasm. At the end of this session, Parliament was dissolved, in consequence of the death of George IV. The government was weak,-parties had been completely disorganised by the passing of the Catholic Relief Act,much discontent prevailed in the country; and the question of parliamentary reform,-which had been so often discussed in the late session,-became a popular topic at the elections. Meanwhile a startling event abroad, added to the usual excitement of a general election. Scarcely had the writs been issued, when Charles X. of France, having attempted a coup d'état, -suddenly lost his crown, and was an exile on his way to England. As he had fallen, in violating the liberty of the press, and subverting the representative constitution of France, this revolution gained the sympathy of the English people, and gave an impulse to liberal opinions. The excitement was further increased by the revolution in Belgium, which immediately followed. The new Parliament, elected under such circumstances, met in October. Being without the restraint of a strong government, acknowledged leaders, and accustomed party connections, it was open to fresh political impressions; and the first night of the session determined their direction. A few words from the Duke of Wellington raised a storm, which swept away his government, and destroyed claration. his party. In the debate on the address, Earl Grey adverted to reform, and expressed a hope that it would 1 Parliament was dissolved July 24th. The "three days" commenced in France, on the 27th. |