The confidence of the country in the construction and constitution of the House of Commons is gone. It would be easier to transfer the flourishing manufactures of Leeds and Manchester to Gatton and Old Sarum, than re-establish confidence and sympathy between this House and those whom it calls its constituents. If, therefore, the question is one of right, right is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of reason, reason is in favour of Reform; if it be a question of policy and expediency, policy and expediency are in favour of Reform.

I come now to the explanation of the measure which, representing the ministers of the king, I am about to propose to the House. Those ministers have thought, and in my opinion justly thought, that no half measures would be sufficient; that no trifling or paltering with Reform could give stability to the Crown, strength to Parliament, or satisfaction to the country. The chief grievances of which the people complain are these. First, the nomination of members by individuals; second, the election by close corporations; third, the expense of elections. With regard to the first, it may be exercised in two ways, either over a place containing scarcely any inhabitants, and with a very extensive right of election; or over a place of wide extent and numerous population, but where the franchise is confined to very few persons. Gatton is an example of the first, and Bath of the second. At Gatton, where the right of voting is by scot and lot, all householders have a vote, but there are only five persons to exercise the right. At Bath the inhabitants are numerous, but very few of them have any concern in the election. In the former case, we propose to deprive the borough of the franchise altogether. In doing so, we have taken for our guide the population returns of 1821; and we propose that every borough which in that year had less than 2,000 inhabitants, should altogether lose the right of sending members to Parliament, the effect of which will be to disfranchise sixty-two boroughs. But we do not stop here. As the honourable member for Boroughbridge [Sir C. Wetherell] would say, we go plus ultra; we find that there are forty-seven boroughs of only 4,000 inhabitants, and these we shall deprive of the right of sending more than one member to Parliament. We likewise intend that Weymouth, which at present sends four members to Parliament, should in the future send only two. The total reduction thus effected in the number of the members of this House will be 168. This is the whole ex

tent to which we are prepared to go in the way of disfranchisement.

We do not, however, mean to allow that the remaining boroughs should be in the hands of a small number of persons to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants who have property and interest in the place. It is a point of great difficulty to decide to whom the franchise should be extended. Though it is a point much disputed, I believe it will be found that in ancient times every inhabitant householder resident in a borough was competent to vote for members of Parliament. As, however, this arrangement excluded villeins and strangers, the franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town; - that the voters were persons of property is obvious, from the fact that they are called upon to pay subsidies and taxes. Two different courses seem to prevail in different places. In some, every person having a house, and being free, was admitted to a general participation in the privileges formerly possessed by burgesses: in others, the burgesses became a select body, and were converted into a kind of corporation, more or less exclusive. These differences, the House will be aware, lead to the most difficult, and at the same time the most useless questions that men can be called upon to decide. I contend that it is proper to get rid of these complicated rights, of these vexatious questions, and to give the real property and real respectability of the different cities and towns, the right of voting for members of Parliament. Finding that a qualification of a house rated at £20 a year, would confine the elective franchise, instead of enlarging it, we propose that the right of voting should be given to the householders paying rates for houses of the yearly value of £10 and upwards, upon certain conditions hereafter to be stated. At the same time it is not intended to deprive the present electors of their privilege of voting, provided they are resident. With regard to non-residence, we are of opinion that it produces much expense, is the cause of a great deal of bribery, and occasions such manifest and manifold evils, that electors who do not live in a place ought not be permitted to retain their votes. With regard to resident voters, we propose that they should retain their right during life, but that no vote should be allowed hereafter, except to £10 householders.

I shall now proceed to the manner in which we propose to extend the franchise in counties. The bill I wish to introduce will give all copyholders to the value of £10 a year,

qualified to serve on juries, under the right hon. gentlemen's [Sir R. Peel] bill, a right to vote for the return of knights of the shire; also, that leaseholders, for not less than twentyone years, whose annual rent is not less than £50, and whose leases have not been renewed within two years, shall enjoy the same privilege.

(History of the Reform Bill, Molesworthy, Lond., 1866, 103.) 219. The Prorogation of the Anti-Reform Parliament

The First Reform Bill had passed two readings when the ministry, concluded after an adverse vote upon a motion, introduced by General Gascoyne, in opposition to their policy, that it was useless to continue the struggle in Parliament. Confident of the support of the electors, they resolved to appeal to the country. To do this a dissolution of Parliament was necessary, and against this the anti-reformers were firmly arrayed. The ministry appealed to the king. In the selection which follows, this appeal is vividly described, and the action of the king in dissolving Parliament is clearly portrayed.

Under these circumstances, ministers acted with promptitude and decision. Their defeat had occurred on the morning of the 22nd of April; on the same day summonses were issued, calling a Cabinet council at St. James's Palace. So short was the notice, that the ministers were unable to attend, as was customary on such occasions, in their court dresses. At this council it was unanimously resolved that the Parliament should be prorogued the same day, with a view to its speedy dissolution, and the royal speech, which had been prepared for the occasion, was considered and adopted. All necessary arrangements having been made, in order to take away from the king all pretext for delay, Earl Grey and Lord Brougham were deputed to wait on the king, and communicate to him the advice of the Cabinet. From what has been already said, the reader will be prepared to anticipate that this advice was far from palatable. The unusual haste with which it was proposed to carry out that measure, naturally increased the king's known objections to the proposed step, and furnished him with a good excuse for refusing his assent to it. Earl Grey, the pink and pattern of loyalty and chivalrous courtesy, shrunk from the disagreeable errand, and requested his bolder and less courtly colleague to introduce the subject, begging him at the same time to manage the susceptibility of the king as much as possible.

The Chancellor accordingly approached the subject very carefully, prefacing the disagreeable message with which he

was charged, with a compliment on the king's desire to promote the welfare of his people. He then proceeded to communicate the advice of the Cabinet, adding, that they were unanimous in offering it.

"What!" exclaimed the king, "would you have me dismiss in this summary manner a Parliament which has granted me so splendid a civil list, and given my queen so liberal an annuity in case she survives me?"

"No doubt, sire," Lord Brougham replied, "in these respects they have acted wisely and honourably, but your Majesty's advisers are all of opinion, that in the present state of affairs, every hour that this Parliament continues to sit is pregnant with danger to the peace and security of your kingdom, and they humbly beseech your Majesty to go down this very day and prorogue it. If you do not, they cannot be answerable for the consequences."

The king was greatly embarrassed; he evidently entertained the strongest objection to the proposed measure, but he also felt the danger which would result from the resignation of his ministers at the present crisis. He therefore shifted his ground, and asked — "Who is to carry the sword of state and the cap of maintenance?"

"Sire, knowing the urgency of the crisis and the imminent peril in which the country at this moment stands, we have ventured to tell those whose duty it is to perform these and other similar offices, to hold themselves in readiness."

"But the troops, the life guards, I have given no orders for them to be called out, and now it is too late.”

This was indeed a serious objection, for to call out the guards was the special prerogative of the monarch himself, and no minister had any right to order their attendance without his express command.

"Sire," replied the Chancellor, with some hesitation, “we must throw ourselves on your indulgence. Deeply feeling the gravity of the crisis, and knowing your love for your people, we have taken a liberty which nothing but the most imperious neccessity could warrant; we have ordered out the troops, and we humbly throw ourselves on your Majesty's indulgence."

The king's eye flashed and his cheek became crimson. He was evidently on the point of dismissing the ministry in an explosion of anger. "Why, my lords," he exclaimed, "this is treason! high treason, and you, my Lord Chancellor, ought to know that it is."

"Yes, sire, I do know it, and nothing but the strongest conviction that your Majesty's crown and the interests of the nation are at stake, could have induced us to take such a step, or to tender the advice we are now giving."

This submissive reply had the desired effect, the king cooled, his prudence and better genius prevailed, and having once made up his mind to yield, he yielded with a good grace. He accepted, without any objection, the speech which had been prepared for him, and which the two ministers had brought with them, he gave orders respecting the details of the approaching ceremonial, and having completely recovered his habitual serenity and good humour, he dismissed the two lords with a jocose threat of impeachment.

At half-past two o'clock the king entered his state carriage. It was remarked that the guards on this occasion rode wide of it, as if they attended as a matter of state and ceremony, and not as being needed for the king's protection. Persons wishing to make a more open demonstration of their feelings, were allowed to pass between the soldiers and approach the royal carriage. One of these, a rough sailorlike person, pulled off his hat, and waving it around his head, shouted lustily, "Turn out the rogues, your Majesty." Notwithstanding the suddenness with which the resolution to dissolve had been taken, the news had already spread through the metropolis, an immense crowd was assembled, and the king was greeted throughout his whole progress with the most enthusiastic shouts. He was exceedingly fond of popularity, and these acclamations helped to reconcile him to the step he had been compelled to take, and to efface the unpleasant impression which the scene which had so recently occurred could not fail to leave behind it.

Meanwhile, another scene of a far more violent kind was taking place in the House of Lords. The Chancellor on leaving the king went down to the House to hear appeals. Having gone through the cause list he retired, in the hope that he should thereby prevent Lord Wharncliffe from bringing forward his motion. But the opposition lords had mustered in great force, and the House was full in all parts. It is usual on the occasion of a prorogation by the sovereign, for the peers to appear in their robes, and most of those present wore theirs, but owing to the precipitation with which the dissolution had been decided on, several peers, especially on the opposition side of the House, were without