much more room for difference of opinion. They consisted chiefly of an increase in the duties on wine, colonial timber, raw cottons, steam-boat passengers, and half a per cent on the transfers of funded property.* These taxes were considerable in point of amount, but they were far more so in point of principle, for they indicated in an unmistakable manner the new interests which were rising to the government of the State, and the old ones whose influence was declining, and which were in consequence to be subjected to taxation. For the first time in English history, a duty was to be imposed on funded property; and by the equalisation of the duties on Baltic and Canadian timber, and on Cape and foreign wines, the chief colonies of the empire would lose the benefit of protection on the staple article of their industry. These projects might be agreeable to some classes of the community, but they were eminently distasteful to others; and the latter were those who, by the possession of the close boroughs, had hitherto ruled the State. From the very first, accordingly, a violent clamour was raised against the proposed new taxes; and so vehement did it soon become, that two days afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to declare in Parliament, that the proposed tax on funded transfers was abandoned, and that, in consequence, he could not remit the duties on tobacco and glass. The proposed duty on steam-boat passengers was *The budget proposed stood as follows: CHAP. 1831. -Ann. Reg. 128, 129; Parl. Deb. (new series), ii. 411, 414. Though this tax produced only £500,000 a-year, it was stated by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer that the loss it inflicted on the community was £2,500,000.-Parl. Deb. ii. 414. XXIII. 1831. CHAP. also abandoned, and that of 1d. a pound on raw cottons reduced to ths of 1d. The timber duties also were given up, by not being pressed to a division. In a word, the proposed budget was entirely abandoned, and the defeat 1 Ann. Reg. of Ministers was so obvious that they must have gone out 140; Parl. had they not trusted to the sheet-anchor of the Reform Bill, which was essentially modified by this calamitous issue of their first financial measures.1 1831, 139, Deb. ii. 526, 530. 30. on the Re Meanwhile a committee of the Cabinet was sitting, and Committee actively engaged with the formation of the projected. form Bill. Reform Bill. The committee consisted of Lord Durham, (Earl Grey's son-in-law, and who was perfectly acquainted with his views on the subject), Lord Duncannon, Sir James Graham, and Lord John Russell. The instructions of the Cabinet to this committee were quite general, but they amounted to this, "that the measure should be large enough to satisfy at once the public opinion, and prevent any further change; but which, while thus extensive, should be based on and connected with existing territorial divisions and rights. The constitution was not to be trenched upon, but the House of Commons was really to represent the intelligence, property, and feeling of the Roebuck, people."2 The principles were first discussed, and the ii. 29. first draft submitted to the Cabinet proposed to make the * Earl Grey said in the House of Lords, on 28th March, "The first disposition of my mind was, to limit the reform within a much narrower compass; but after full consideration, and after having discussed the subject with my colleagues, I was convinced that nothing short of the present measure was likely to lead to the satisfactory result of fulfilling the wishes of all classes, and of giving to the Government security and respect;" and Sir R. Peel said in the House of Commons, on 19th April 1831, "I well know, for I heard it from the noble Earl himself, that at the close of last year the measure of reform contemplated by Earl Grey was of a more moderate nature-far more moderate than that which is now proposed. The present Lord-Chancellor, too, said the same thing."-Parl. Deb. (new series), ii. 1082. ballot. XXIII. 1831. No one thought of introducing a suffrage depend- CHAP. ing on a different kind of qualification, or was aware of the effect of making it depend on one alone. The principle being agreed on, the details of the measure were next considered, and the boroughs to be wholly or partially disfranchised. Lord John Russell furnished the materials for this important part of the measure, proceeding, of course, on the information furnished by others; and the principle adopted was, that all boroughs having together two thousand inhabitants should be wholly, between two thousand and four thousand inhabitants partially, disfranchised. At length the selection was made, not, however, without vehement charges of favouritism from the other side" not wholly," says the Whig historian, "if my information be correct, without reason. Certainly some of the results did look exceedingly suspicious. Tavistock was the common subject of hostile sarcasm, and always, by some peculiar and happy fatality, escaped the drag-net i. 30, note. of the dreaded schedules." 1 1 Roebuck, and peti While these important discussions were going on in 31. the Cabinet, and in the committee to which the prepara- Feeling, tion of the measure had been intrusted, the country was tions of the agitated from one end to the other with anxiety regard- country. ing it, and the agitation increased as the time for announcing it approached, until it became almost unbearable. Vast numbers of petitions were presented to the House of Commons on the subject, which gave a curious and instructive picture of the state of public opinion on the subject, and evinced beyond all question the deep-rooted desire for change which pervaded the middle and inferior classes of society. The great object of all seemed to be to secure "a real, not nominal, representation of the people, and put an end to the influence of the aristocracy in returning members of the House of Commons." As to the meaus for effecting these objects, in which all concurred, there was a great diversity of opinion, but the majority of the petitions recommended the shortening the XXIII. 1831. CHAP. duration of Parliament, extending and equalising the elective franchise, and the use of the ballot in elections. The evils which these changes were designed to remove were, the existing commercial and manufacturing distress, the frequency of unjust and unnecessary wars, the profligate expenditure of the public money, and the amount of taxes kept up to impoverish the country by squandering its resources on placemen and pensioners. In addition to these petitions, which were extremely numerous, associations were formed in all the great towns under the name of POLITICAL UNIONS, the object of which, like that of the Catholic Association, was to provide the means of permanent agitation, by raising funds, providing a staff of itinerant orators, calling public meetings, influencing the press, and instilling by all possible means into the minds of the people the belief that all their sufferings were owing to 1831, 4, 5. the want of reform, and would be at once removed by its adoption.1 1 Ann. Reg. 32. Introduc tion of the by Lord sell. At length the momentous day arrived, big with the future destinies of England and the whole civilised world. Reform Bill To Lord John Russell, out of compliment to the illustriJohn Rus- ous house from which he sprang, was assigned the honour of introducing the measure in the House of Commons. The House was crowded to excess in every part; all the avenues to it were choked with anxious and agitated crowds panting to get the first intelligence of the eventful measure, and messengers mounted on fleet horses to convey to the newspaper offices, and through them to the country, the earliest reports of the debate. When the doors of the gallery opened, the rush was tremendous, like that which had been witnessed at the theatres when Mrs Siddons was to fascinate the world by her mimic powers. The House of Commons had become the stage, the world * Ann. Reg. composed the audience. So well had the secret been pre1831, 5,6 served by the Cabinet, though so deeply interesting to so many, that not the slightest surmise had gone abroad of the intentions of Government; 2 and when Lord John 2 Roebuck, ii. 65. XXIII. Russell rose amidst profound silence to state their designs, CHAP. they came as much by surprise on the whole House as on the most distant parts of the country. 1831. 33. of the Mi favour of On the one hand, it was urged by Lord John Russell, Mr Macaulay, and Lord-Advocate Jeffrey: "The mea- Argument sure now to be brought forward, though moved by one nisters in who is not a member of the Cabinet, is the result of the the bill. united opinions of the whole Cabinet, and especially of the noble Lord at its head. The object of the Government has been to frame a measure which, without going the length of the extreme partisans of either side, shall amend all existing imperfections, and satisfy all the reasonable demands of the country. We desire to stand between two hostile parties, neither agreeing with the bigoted, on the one hand, that no reform is necessary, nor with the fanatics on the other, that nothing but the most extreme measures will satisfy the people. To attempt to satisfy the public mind will not endanger the institutions of the country; to refuse to do so might have that effect. We hope to take a firm and steadfast ground between the abuses we wish to amend and the convulsions we hope to avert. 34. "Our ancient statutes of Edward I. contain the vital principles of our constitution. The 25th of that monarch, Continued. Cap. 6, declares, 'that for no business from henceforth we should take such manner of aids, tasks, nor prizes, but by the common consent of the realm, and for the common profit thereof, saving the ancient aids and prizes due and accustomed.' The 34th Edward I., commonly called De Tallagio non concedendo, expressly provides, that no tallage or aid shall be taken or levied by us or our heirs in our realm without the good-will and assent of archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of the land. Although historical doubts have been thrown on this statute, its validity cannot be contested, for it is asserted in the Petition of Right that it was allowed by the judges in the case of Hampden, and is, in VOL. IV. U |