Motions for reform of parliament. House during this and succeeding sessions. Supported by a mass of such petitions, Mr. Lambton moved, on the 17th of April, for a committee of the whole House, to consider the state of the representation of the people in parliament.1 During the debate, which occupied two evenings, the opposite benches were nearly empty; and there was so thin an attendance during both evenings as to show that the House itself was little aware of the growing importance of the question before. it. The division was taken during the absence of the leading members on both sides, and even of Mr. Lambton himself, the numbers being 55 to 43; that is, there was a majority of 12 against Mr. Lambton's motion. Perhaps the leading members on both sides might have been surprised if they could have been told how, on that day eleven years, the country would be awaiting the issue of the struggle, in the certainty of success; and how, on that day twelve years, the reformed parliament would be in full career, at leisure for further improvements, from the great question of the century being disposed of. On the 9th of May, Lord John Russell took up the subject,2 without securing much more attention to what he had to say than Mr. Lambton had enjoyed. Few "leading members" took the trouble, or had the courage, to attend while he recommended his resolutions. These resolutions went merely to declare that the people were dissatisfied with their representation; that means should be taken to effect a representation of wealthy and populous places which had as yet no voice in the legislature; and that boroughs convicted of bribery and corruption should be disfranchised. There was little debate; the first resolution was condemned by a majority of 31 in a House of 279; and the others were negatived without a division.3 Unpromising as all this looked, a real beginning was made, and immediately, to amend the representation. Grampound was disfranchised, to the dismay and grief of the Lord Chancellor, who saw no bounds to the mischief of depriving some possibly innocent electors there of their votes, on account of the corruption of the rest, while he could perceive no reason for giving the franchise to Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and other populous places. As the bill passed the Commons, the Grampound franchise was to be transferred to Leeds; but the Lords decided for two additional members for the county of York,5 instead of giving a representation to Leeds. There was some difficulty as to whether the Commons should put up with such a contravention of their will by the Lords; but Lord John Russell thought it important to take all that could be got on this question; and 1 Hansard, v. p. 359. 2 Ibid. p. 604. 3 Ibid. p. 624. CHAP. III.] PROGRESS OF REFORM. 301 though the bill had ceased to be his charge after sustaining some essential alterations before it went up to the Lords, he secured its final acceptance by the Commons, and it passed on the 30th of May.1 It was on occasion of this bill that Mr. Ward said2 that he did not conceive that by voting for the disfranchisement of Grampound, "he was giving any pledge to what was called parliamentary reform." So he thought, and so thought many who were, like him, unaware that they were now securely involved in a movement against which they had formerly protested. It is instructive to read the records in this case very brief of the gradual enlargement of views which time and thought bring to such men. It is an instructive comment on the past, and a valuable prophecy as to the future. In October, 1819, Mr. Ward writes to the Bishop of Llandaff: "All I am afraid of is, that by having the theoretical defects of the present House of Commons perpetually dinned into their ears, the wellintentioned and well-affected part of the community should at last begin to suppose that some reform is necessary. Now, I can hardly conceive any reform that would not bring us within the draught of the whirlpool of democracy, towards which we should be attracted by an irresistible force, and in an hourly accelerating ratio. But I flatter myself there is wisdom enough in the country to preserve us long from such an innovation." In April, 1820, he writes: "But I confess that when I see the progress that reform seems to be making, not only among the vulgar, but among persons like yourself, of understanding and education, clear of interested motives and party fanaticism. my spirits fail me upon the subject. . . . . I should look forward with much more comfort to what may remain to me of life, if I could persuade myself that the first day of reform was not at hand, and that the first day of reform would not be the first day of the English revolution.” In February, 1821, he tells his correspondent that Sir J. Mackintosh "would keep the nomination boroughs;"adding: "For my part, I am well enough content with the constitution as it is. This much, however, I must confess, that if public opinion the opinion of men of sense and reflection like yourself, unconnected with party once turns against it, there ought to be a change. We anti-reformers stand upon practical benefit now there is no talking about the practical benefit of a discredited constitution." In June, 1822, though still declaring himself "afraid of parliamentary reform," he speaks with satisfaction of the control exercised by public opinion over the votes of the Commons, and bears this remarkable testimony to the 5 1 Hansard, v. p. 1046. 3 Lord Dudley's Letters, p. 226. 2 Ibid. iv. p. 590. 4 Ibid. p. 247. 6 Ibid. p. 320. improvement of the national mind under the agitation of the question. Writing of Byron's prediction of a revolution, he says: “For my part, I cannot help flattering myself, in spite of a great deal of distress, and some discontent, that this event is highly improbable. It appears to me that the people of England are advancing in knowledge and good sense. Party spirit seems to be less blind and furious than it used to be. There is less factious opposition - I am not speaking of the House, but of the country to the ministry, and less factious support of it. People do not abandon themselves so entirely to certain leaders, but exercise a more discriminating judgment upon each question as it arises." In a few years, he became a member of the Canning ministry. Here we have in brief the history of a large class of the minds of the time, which were opening sideways, as one may say, while those of the lowest order of reformers were opening upwards. Catholic The other great feature of the session was the removal of the conflict on the Catholic claims to the floor of the House claims. of Lords. It was evident to all far-seeing men that the time was approaching when it would no longer do for politicians to go on repeating from year to year their own feelings about admitting Catholics to the legislature, and their own opinions about the pernicious character and tendencies of the Catholic faith; but when they would be compelled by circumstances to take a fresh view of the whole question, modified as it was by the admission of new elements, and bearing a new relation to the history of the time. The occasion was drawing on from year to year. When we see it arrive, we shall take a brief survey of the old view in offering the aspect of the new. Meantime, it must be recorded here that this session of 1821 was marked by the going over of the Commons to the cause of the Catholics, and by the responsiblity of their exclusion from political life being thrown upon the Lords. It was in March of this year that Mr. Ward wrote: "Well! what say you at Oxford to the progress the Roman Catholics are so evidently making towards an equal participation of all privileges? Is it borne patiently, or will a great cry be raised? Not that I think the bill will 1 but the pass this year; intellectual preponderance in its favor is so great in parliament, that one can hardly conceive either that or some such measure being very long delayed. The tone of opposition to it is lowered to the utmost point." It was not by "intellectual preponderance that Mr. Plunket's bill was thrown out in the Lords, after having been passed in the Commons by a majority of 19 on the third reading. "The Duke of York," says Lord Eldon," "has done more to quiet this matter than everything else put together. It has had a great effect." If “ If "everything else" on that side 1 Lord Dudley's Letters, p. 279. 2 Life of Lord Eldon, ii. p. 416. CHAP. III.] THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION. 303 delayed the resistance to the Commons less than the Duke of York, the resistance was obviously in a desperate state. If the Duke had had anything to claim on the ground of “intellectual preponderance," he was mortal, and he was not young. So the issue was not doubtful, and probably not distant. The Catholics rejoiced with the quietness politic under their still depressed condition. The lovers of civil and religious liberty rejoiced more loudly and openly. The Lords rejoiced also. In their blindness to what was coming, they thought all was well when they had thrown out the bill of this session by a majority of 39. Lord Eldon writes: 1 "I have nothing further to delay your drinking to the thirty-nine who saved the thirty-nine articles -a very fashionable toast." Their rejoicing might be allowed ungrudg ingly not only because it was short-lived, but because it was merely a veil shrouding terrors, not the less pitiable for being visionary. The spirit of fear is as much an object of compassion to the spirit of faith in politics as in any other department of life; and, till those who suffer under it can be disabused of their terrors, any snatches of relief and mirth that they can enjoy may be regarded with forbearance, and even sympathy, by those, among others, whom they are oppressing for yet a little while. So the Catholics could smile at the echoes of the toast of the thirty-nine, while diligently preparing for a reurging of their claims. ciation. This year is remarkable for an organized attack upon the freedom of the press. It was so soon baffled and so Constitueffectually resisted, that a mere notification of the fact tional Assowould serve, were it not that the promptitude and fidelity shown in the defence of liberty of printing are themselves a feature of the times which ought to be prominently brought forward. Seasons of harsh rule are invariably those of license of speech. Men under torment or in bonds groan or curse; and a people under stringent misrule will rail; and their baser part may be expected to mock and blaspheme. Thus it was while Lord Sidmouth was in power. Libels, caricatures, irreligious scoffs, abounded; and the more they were noticed, the more they abounded. It is observable that these libels were not the weapon of any one party. While the lowest venders of printed trash were lampooning the rulers of the country, the government press was libelling the leaders of the popular party; and, indeed, pouring out slanders against every man of liberal politics whom it could find means to attack. Evil-speaking seemed to have sprung up like a curse all over the land. Statesmen, and private gentlemen, and literary men, were fighting duels; and the 1 Life of Lord Eldon, ii. p. 416. prisons and police-offices were crowded with bold ruffians or tattered ballad-venders, who dealt in railing for bread. Women were shamed in newspapers a thing not much to be wondered at, at a time when the highest woman in the realm was pilloried in the House of Lords for a succession of weeks; the King was caricatured the ministers were nicknamed - every public man was slandered — and the diseased appetite for mockery and vituperation seized upon sacred things; and there was nothing so high or holy, but that it was laid hold of for purposes of malice or low wit. The evil was undeniable. The only questions were how it arose, and how it was to be dealt with. The great practical mistake was in the conclusion that it arose, unprovoked, from the natural wickedness of men, and that it must be put down by the strong hand, this strong hand being by no means impartial in its pressure.1 Forty peers and bishops, a large number of the clergy of the Established Church, and of Tory leaders, in and out of Parliament, formed themselves into a company which they called the Constitutional Association, but which was soon better known through the country by the name of the Bridge-Street Gang. They invited subscriptions and coöperation from all who were well-disposed towards piety, peace, and order; and their appeal to the religious world, and on behalf of morals, taste, and quietude, was extensively responded to. It took some time to show well-meaning and apprehensive people the tyranny and vice of a system of party superintendence of the press. But this tyranny and the vicious principle of the society were apparent soon enough to secure the speedy insignificance and decay of the enterprise. Englishmen soon began to see that the forty peers and bishops who undertook the control of the press could be no proper members of a court of final appeal. As censors of the press, they could not properly sit as judges in the House of Lords. Englishmen soon began to inquire what was to become of their liberties if a rich association of great men was to spread its police of spies and informers over the land, and prosecute every poor tradesman who might offer to sell what they considered blasphemous and seditious works. It was evident that by a mere threat of prosecution they might deter any tradesman, but a stout-hearted one here and there, from selling any book or paper which they did not approve. Englishmen soon began to cry "Shame!" when they saw members of this association taking their places in the jury-box in trials for libel; and the fate of the enterprise was sealed when the judges adopted the practice of compelling jurymen to declare upon oath whether they were members of the Constitutional Association, before permitting them to enter upon their function.2 The 1 Edinburgh Review, xxxvii. p. 120. 2 Hansard, v. p. 1487. |