most true. But after every allowance is made for their faults, follies, and errors, they are still entitled to the warmest gratitude and respect, not merely of Englishmen, but of the whole human race. They successfully vindicated the supremacy of the nation, and the right of resistance to unconstitutional power. And they displayed in the hour of their triumph, a degree of moderation and of practical good sense, that does them the highest honour. Their example has had a powerful influence in all civilized countries, and the form of polity that they established has been introduced into the United States, France, and other nations. Its influence in England has been beneficial beyond all that could have been reasonably anticipated; and we are indebted for by far the larger part of our superior comforts and wealth, and for the distinguished place we occupy among the nations of the earth, to the triumph of those free principles of government that were consolidated by the Revolution. From this period, English history assumes a new aspect: the conflict of parties succeeds to that of principles. It is true that, for some time after the Revolution, speculative opinions respecting the royal prerogative continued to vary; and the adherence of a large body of the people to the exiled family, placed the constitution in considerable danger: but the fundamental doctrines of the inviolability of the sovereign, the responsibility of ministers, and the supremacy of parliament, were never afterwards practically contested. Force was abandoned; and government, maintained in ordinary times by influence, was controlled in crises of importance by public opinion.

III. We come now to the consideration of the third period, which brings us down to the present time. After the Conquest, we saw a people deeply imbued with ideas, if not of civil liberty, at least of freedom and independence: emerging from a rude and barbarous polity, we saw the constitution growing up, and assuming a form impressed by circumstances, rather than moulded on any preconcerted plan: we saw that constitution, after being repeatedly strengthened and confirmed by charters of the sovereigns, and by solemn acts of the legislature, settled nearly on its present basis. When the civil commotions which distracted England during the lengthened period from the accession of Richard II. to the defeat and death of Richard III. at the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, had subsided, and a new and more powerful dynasty had succeeded to the throne, the circumstances which led to the establishment of the constitution, and which had previously supported it, either did not exist, or were materially impaired. Hence we saw the constitution begin to degenerate from a limited towards an absolute monarchy. But as society advanced, and the numbers, wealth, and intelligence of the people increased, they reasserted their rights, and happily succeeded, after a lengthened contest, in establishing them on a secure basis. Although, however, the ancient form of government was preserved, the Revolution effected a prodigious change in its spirit and character. No longer a powerful lord at the head of his vassals, as in the first period; nor an all but absolute monarch, feebly controlled by an inefficient parliament, as in the greater part of the second; the King is now a constitutional sovereign acting by responsible ministers. Since the Revolution, the Crown has been

dependent for its ordinary revenues on the House of Commons, and has been unable to carry any measures, except by the aid of a majority in parliament. The management of political affairs has consequently been left, without any ostensible interference on the part of the sovereign, to ministers selected from among the individuals who have enjoyed the confidence or support of the houses of Lords and Commons, or, at all events, of the latter. The ministers have naturally endeavoured to strengthen their party and preserve their ascendancy by the judicious distribution of the vast patronage in their possession. And when they have really possessed the confidence of the sovereign, been for a considerable time in power, and acted with due discretion and ability, the government has frequently acquired a strength and vigour greater even than in the palmy days of prerogative. At least, such was the case previously to the passing of the Reform Act.

Among the constitutional changes to be noticed in this period are the Unions with Scotland and Ireland; the former of which took place in 1707, the latter in 1800. A statute was also passed in the 9th of Anne, which made a qualification of landed property necessary both for knights of the shire, and for borough members. The Triennial Act (6th of William and Mary, c. 2, 1694) limited the duration of each parliament to three years, before which period the duration of parliament was not restricted to any specified term, but might have been indefinitely extended by prorogations. This Act was not, however, long in existence, having been set aside in 1717, by the 1 Geo. I. st. 2, c. 38, commonly called the Septennial Act, from its prolonging the statutory duration of the parliament then sitting, and of all subsequent parliaments, to seven years. Notwithstanding what Mr. Hallam has alleged to the contrary (Const. History, iii. 316), we are inclined to think that the constitutionality of this measure was not a little questionable. But of its expediency at the time when it was passed there can be no reasonable doubt; and we agree with those who think that in its practical working it has turned out advantageously; and that seven years is on the whole a better term to which to limit the duration of parliament than three years.

The continued and rapid extension of manufactures and commerce since the peace of Paris in 1763, has, by giving birth to new and powerful classes, materially changed the former distribution of political power, and has already produced, and, no doubt, will continue to produce, great changes in the constitution. After the epoch referred to, large manufacturing and commercial towns grew up in all parts of the country, the inhabitants of which were but little influenced by those powerful ties which generally connect an agricultural population with the superior landowners. Education was more generally diffused; and a desire for political information increased with the increase of opulence and population. In consequence, political journals were established in every considerable town, in which the speeches made in parliament were fully reported; and the conduct of public men, and the measures of government, freely canvassed. The improved facilities of internal communication afforded the means of conveying intelligence with astonishing rapidity from one part of the country to another; so that most persons began to take an interest, not only in what was going

on around them, but in public affairs, and in the concerns of the remotest parts of the empire. Prejudices and established opinions of all sorts were openly attacked. The structure of the political fabric, and the rights and privileges of the different ranks and orders of society, were subjected to a searching investigation; and their claim to respect began to be tried by reference to their usefulness rather than to their antiquity. Under such circumstances, we need not be surprised that the expediency of making some change in the constitution of the House of Commons became gradually more and more obvious. The parliamentary boroughs had all been specified previously to the Revolution; and no provision was made for admitting representatives for such new boroughs as might afterwards attain to importance, or for the disfranchisement of such of the parliamentary boroughs as might happen to fall into insignificance. Hence it came to pass that many commercial and manufacturing towns, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, Bolton, &c., which had attained to vast wealth and importance since the parliamentary boroughs were selected, were excluded from all share in the representation, while, on the other hand, many boroughs that had become quite unimportant continued to enjoy this valuable privilege. A distinction of this sort could not be long endured. During the American war, the great manufacturing towns began publicly to manifest their impatience at being deprived of representatives; and deriving confidence from their numbers, their wealth, and their intelligence, they prosecuted their claims to participate directly in the privileges of the constitution with a boldness which would probably have been long ago successful, had the progress of constitutional reform not been arrested by the violence of the French revolution. The alarms occasioned by that event, and by the war that grew out of it, suspended for a while the demand for an improved representative system. But after the peace of 1815, this demand was renewed; and its reasonableness, the immense addition that had been made to popular influence, and the excitement occasioned by the movements on the Continent in 1830, made it imprudent, or rather

impossible, longer to disregard it. A free government, to be secure, must possess the confidence of the people; and to enjoy this it must, how reluctantly soever, conform to their reasonable wishes. It is idle to suppose that any constitutional system can be absolutely perfect, or that it may be always maintained without variation. Human institutions are not destined to be immortal; and unless they be voluntarily modified and accommodated to the varying exigencies of society, the probability is they will be violently overturned. Impressed with this conviction, a reconstruction of the representative system on a more liberal basis was resolved upon by parliament, and was at length carried into effect by the Reform Act. This important statute, which will immortalize the names of its authors, the late Earl Grey and Lord John Russell, by disfranchising a good many decayed and trifling boroughs, and enfranchising the greater ones, and giving the right of voting at the election of members for towns to the holders of 107. houses, has rendered the House of Commons a good deal more democratical than formerly, and has, consequently, made it correspond better with the theory of the constitution. This tendency

has, perhaps, also been strengthened by the changes that were at the same time made in the county representation, though that is more doubtful.

The period that has elapsed since the passing of the Reform Act is too short to enable any one to estimate with much confidence the real influence of the changes it effected. On the whole, however, they certainly have hitherto been, and will most likely continue to be, highly beneficial. It is obvious that such a modification of our institutions as should admit the great towns, that had grown up since the parliamentary boroughs were selected, to a direct participation in the privileges of the constitution, was alike just and indispensable. It was an insult to common sense that Gatton and Old Sarum should be represented, and that Manchester and Birmingham should not; and the wonder is, that so revolting an anomaly should have been so long maintained. The only question now is, has the franchise been placed in proper hands? Time only can resolve this; but there are, perhaps, some grounds for apprehension. It appears to us that, in a country like Great Britain, with so great a public debt, and where so much depends on the security of property in opinion, as well as in fact, the power to send representatives to the House of Commons should not have been conceded, except to those who, from their position in society, might be presumed to have a substantial interest in the support of the existing order of things. But the occupier of a 101. house, or of a 50l. farm, may be, and in fact not unfrequently is, little better than a beggar. And we are not of the number of those who believe, or affect to believe, that a person with only 20s., or without anything, will feel himself as much interested in good government, and in the maintenance of that security so essential to all great undertakings, as the owner of an estate or of a cotton-mill. That such person has a real interest in the well-being and tranquillity of the empire, is most true; but it is absurd to suppose that he will be so likely to be influenced by a wish for its promotion, or that he will be so little disposed to lend a willing ear to the harangues of demagogues, or to withhold his sanction, in periods of distress or excitement, from dangerous projects, as a person with some considerable amount of property.

Much stress has been laid on the difficulties in the way of the establishment of a bona fide property qualification; but though formidable, these are not insuperable; and provided the qualification were of a reasonable amount, it appears to be the most likely means of providing for the respectability and independence of the constituency, and consequently, of ensuring the election of representatives to whom the affairs of the country might be safely entrusted.

We believe, however, that the objectionable class of electors alluded to above forms in most, if not in all, instances a minority; and that the good sense and obvious interest of the bulk of the people will be sufficient to hinder any rash or dangerous tampering with our institutions. It were well, however, that steps were taken to give the Reform Act fair play, by putting a stop, if that be practicable, to the manufacture of fictitious votes. In many instances this practice has been carried to a very great height, and threatens, unless put an end to, to subvert every sound principle of representation.

VOL. II.

H

CHAPTER II.—PARLIAMENT, ITS CONSTITUTION,

PROCEDURE, Etc.

SECT. 1. House of Lords.

HAVING made these preliminary remarks, we proceed to notice the different parts of the constitution, beginning with the legislative body or parliament.

In treating of parliament, we shall first exhibit its constituent parts; secondly, its method of transacting business; and, thirdly, the mode in which it is adjourned, prorogued, and dissolved.

The constituent parts of parliament are the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons.

The consideration of the KING and his office comes more properly under that part of the present inquiry which treats of the executive department of government; to which, therefore, we defer it.

The HOUSE OF PEERS, the next in dignity, consists of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom. The feudal origin

of the peerage has been already noticed; it is now, however, a mere titular dignity conferred by the Crown at pleasure. At present [1846] the House of Lords is composed nearly as follows, but the number, of course, varies from time to time, according to the creation and extinction of peerages:—

The judges, attorney and solicitor-general, the King's serjeants (unless they are members of the Commons, in which case their attendance is dispensed with), the master of the Rolls and masters of Chancery, are summoned, at the commencement of every session, to attend on the peers for the purpose of giving their opinion and advice when required, or of performing certain ministerial offices. They are not, however, admitted to vote; and, in practice, the judges only are required to assist the Lords with their opinion.

The Lords Spiritual, who sit in the Upper House, are the 2 archbishops and 24 bishops of England, and 1 archbishop and 3 bishops from Ireland, who succeed in rotation, and sit for a session only, agreeably to the Act of Union with that country. There being no episcopal establishment in Scotland, no Spiritual Lords are sent from that part of the United Kingdom.

Considerable difference of opinion prevails in regard to the origin of the right of the bishops to sit in parliament. Some have contended that they sit there solely as barons by tenure upon feudal principles; while others contend that their seat in the parliamentary assemblies of this and other countries is ascribable to the powerful influence they early acquired in the various nations that rose upon the ruins of the Roman empire, and that it had no reference to their temporal posses