On one side were the intemperate advocates of universal suffrage on the other the stubborn opponents of all change in the representation. But such was the moderation of Lord John's scheme of reform, that it might have claimed the support of the wiser men of all parties. He showed, in a most promising speech, that in former times decayed boroughs had been discharged from sending members, and populous places summoned by writ to return them; he described the wonderful increase of the great manufacturing towns, which were unrepresented; and the corruption of the smaller boroughs, which sold their franchise. He concluded by moving resolutions : 1. That boroughs in which notorious bribery and corruption should be proved to prevail, should cease to return members, the electors not proved guilty being allowed to vote for the county: 2. That the right thus taken from corrupt boroughs, should be given to great towns with a population of not less than 15,000, or to some of the largest counties: 3. That further means should be taken to detect corruption; and lastly, that the borough of Grampound should cease to send members.

ment Bill.

As the motion was met by the government in a conciliatory manner; and as Lord Castlereagh was ready Grampound Disfranchise- to concur in the disfranchisement of Grampound; Lord John Russell consented to withdraw his resolutions, and gave notice of a bill for disfranchising Grampound.2 The progress of this bill was interrupted by the death of the king; but it was renewed in the following session, and reached the House of Lords, where after evidence being taken at the bar, it dropped by reason of the prorogation. Again it was passed by the Commons, in 1821. That House had given the two vacant seats to the great town of

1 Notwithstanding the small encouragement given at this time to the cause of reform, it was making much progress in public opinion. Sydney Smith, writing in 1809, said: "I think all wise men should begin to turn their minds reformwards. We shall do it better than Mr. Hunt or Mr. Cobbett. Done it must, and will be.”— Mem. ii. 191.

2 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xli. 1091–1122.

Leeds; but the Lords still avoided the recognition of such a principle, by assigning two additional members to the county of York in which form the bill was at length agreed to.1

sal, 1821.

In 1821, two motions were made relating to Parliamentary reform, the one by Mr. Lambton, and the Mr. Lambother by Lord John Russell. On the 17th April, ton's propothe former explained his scheme. In lieu of the borough representation, he proposed to divide counties into districts containing twenty-five thousand inhabitants, each returning a member, to extend the franchise for such districts, to all householders paying taxes, to facilitate polling by means of numerous polling-booths, and by enabling overseers to receive votes, and to charge the necessary expenses of every election upon the poor-rates. To the county constituencies he proposed to add copyholders, and leaseholders for terms of years. After a debate of two days, his motion was negatived by a majority of twelve.2 On the 9th of May, Lord John Russell moved resolutions with a view to the discovery of bribery, the disfranchise- sell's plan, ment of corrupt boroughs, and the transfer of the right of returning members, to places which had increased in wealth and population. His resolutions were superseded by the previous question, which was carried by a majority of thirty-one.

Lord J. Rus

1821.

In 1822, Lord John Russell having, as he said, “served an apprenticeship in the cause of reform," again And in 1822. pressed the matter upon the notice of the House. The cry for universal suffrage had now subsided, tranquillity prevailed throughout the country, and no circumstance could be urged as unfavorable to its fair consideration. After showing the great increase of the wealth and intelligence of

11 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 47.

2 Ayes 43, Noes 55. Hansard's Debates, 2d Series, v. 359-453. Mr. Lambton had prepared a bill, which is printed in the Appendix to that volume of Debates.

8 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., v. 603.

not to in

he

the country, he proposed the addition of sixty members to the counties, and forty to the great towns; and, crease the total number of the House of Commons, suggested that one hundred of the smallest boroughs should each lose one of their two members. His motion, reduced to a modest resolution, "that the present state of representation required serious consideration," was rejected by a majority of one hundred and five.1

Lord J. Rus

In 1823, Lord John renewed his motion in the same terms. In 1823. He was now supported by numerous petitions, and amongst the number by one from seventeen thousand freeholders of the county of York; but after a short debate, was defeated by a majority of one hundred and eleven.2 Again, in 1826, Lord John proposed the same resolution to the House; and pointed out forcibly, that the sell's motion, increasing wealth and intelligence of the people, 1826. were daily aggravating the inequality of the representation. Nomination boroughs continued to return a large proportion of the members of the House of Commons, while places of enormous population and commercial prosperity were without representatives. After an interesting debate, his resolution was negatived by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four.

Lord Bland

In 1829, a proposal for reform proceeded from an unexpected quarter, and was based upon principles enford's views, tirely novel. The measure of Catholic Emancipa1829-30. tion had recently been carried; and many of its opponents, of the old Tory party, -disgusted with their own leaders, by whom it had been forwarded, were suddenly converted to the cause of parliamentary reform. Representing their opinions, Lord Blandford, on the 2d June, submitted a motion on the subject. He apprehended that the Roman Catholics would now enter the borough-market, and purchase

-

1 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., vii. 51-139. Ayes 164, Noes 269.

2 Ibid. viii. 1260. Ayes 169, Noes 280.

seats for their representatives, in such numbers as to endanger our Protestant constitution. His resolutions condemning close and corrupt boroughs, found only forty supporters, and were rejected by a majority of seventy-four. At the com

mencement 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

and Leicester cases, 1826-27.

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 mean time, questions of less general application had been discussed, which eventually produced Northampton 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 from the corporate funds, for the support of ministerial can- Feb. 21st. didates. In the Northampton case, Sir Robert Mar. 15th. 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."

Next came two cases of gross and notorious bribery, — Penryn and East Retford. They were not worse Penryn and than those of Shoreham and Grampound, and East Retford might have been as easily disposed of; but, 1826-27.

cases,

1 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., xxi. 1672. Ayes 40, Noes 114.

2 Ibid. xxii. 171.

8 Ibid. 678.

4 lbid. xvi. 606.

5 lbid. 1198.

treated without judgment by the ministers, they precipitated a contest, which ended in the triumph of reform.

Penryn had long been notorious for its corruption, which had been already twice exposed; yet the 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.

Penryn and

In the next session, two bills were introduced; one by Lord John Russell, for transferring the franchise East Retford from Penryn to Manchester; and another by Mr. bills, 1828. Tennyson, for disfranchising East Retford, and giving representatives to Birmingham. The government proposed a compromise. If both boroughs were disfranchised, they offered, in one case to give two members to a 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 transferrence of the franchise to Birmingham. Mr. Huskisson, however, voted for

1 In 1807 and 1819.

2 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., xvii. 682, 1855.

8 lbid. xviii. 83.

4 Ibid. 1144, 1282.