Beacon Lights of History, Volume 10 | Page 4

such men as Guizot, Broglie, and Thiers, favorable to
a constitutional monarchy, but by no means radicals and democrats like

Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, and Lamartine. The Whigs, at the best, were
as yet inclined only to such measures as would appease popular tumults,
create an intelligent support to the throne, and favor necessary reform.
It was, with them, a choice between revolution and a fairer
representation of the nation in Parliament. It may be reasonably
doubted whether there were a dozen men in the House of Commons
that assembled at the beginning of the reign of William IV. who were
democrats, or even men of popular sympathies. What the majority
conceded was from fear, rather than from a sense of justice. The great
Whig leaders of the reform movement probably did not fully foresee
the logical consequences of the Reform Bill which was introduced, and
the change which on its enactment would take place in the English
Constitution.
Even as it was, the struggle was tremendous. It was an epoch in English
history. The question absorbed all other interests and filled all men's
minds. It was whether the House of Commons should represent the
privileged and well-to-do middle classes or the nation,--at least a larger
part of the nation; not the people generally, but those who ought to be
represented,--those who paid considerable taxes to support the
government; large towns, as well as obscure hamlets owned by the
aristocracy. The popular agitation was so violent that experienced
statesmen feared a revolution which would endanger the throne itself.
Hence Lord Grey and his associates determined to carry the Reform
Bill at any cost, whatever might be the opposition, as the only thing to
be done if the nation would escape the perils of revolution.
Lord John Russell was selected by the government to introduce the bill
into the House of Commons. He was not regarded as the ablest of the
Whig statesmen who had promised reform. His person was not
commanding, and his voice was thin and feeble; but he was influential
among the aristocracy as being a brother of the Duke of Bedford, head
of a most illustrious house, and he had no enemies among the popular
elements. Russell had not the eloquence and power and learning of
Brougham; but he had great weight of character, tact, moderation, and
parliamentary experience. The great hero of reform, Henry Brougham,
was, as we have said, no longer in the House of Commons; but even

had he been there he was too impetuous, uncertain, and eccentric to be
trusted with the management of the bill. Knowing this, his party had
elevated him to the woolsack. He would have preferred the office of the
Master of the Rolls, a permanent judicial dignity, with a seat in the
House of Commons; but to this the king would not consent. Indeed, it
was the king himself who suggested the lord chancellorship for
Brougham.
Lord Russell was, then, the most prominent advocate of the bill which
marked the administration of Lord Grey. It was a great occasion, March
1, 1831, when he unfolded his plan of reform to a full and anxious
assembly of aristocratic legislators. There was scarcely an unoccupied
seat in the House. At six o'clock he arose, and in a low and humble
manner invoked reason and justice in behalf of an enlarged
representation. He proposed to give the right of franchise to all
householders who paid £10 a year in rates, and who qualified to serve
on juries. He also proposed to disfranchise the numerous "rotten
boroughs" which were in the gift of noblemen and great landed
proprietors,--boroughs which had an insignificant number of voters; by
which measure one hundred and sixty-eight parliamentary vacancies
would occur. These vacancies were to be partially filled by sending two
members each from seven large towns, and one member each from
twenty smaller towns which were not represented in Parliament. Lord
Russell further proposed to send two members each from four districts
of the metropolis, which had a large population, and two additional
members each from twenty-six counties; these together would add
ninety-four members from towns and counties which had a large
population. To obviate the great expenses to which candidates were
exposed in bringing voters to the polls (amounting to £150,000 in
Yorkshire alone), the bill provided that the poll should be taken in
different districts, and should be closed in two days in the towns, and in
three days in the counties. The general result of the bill would be to
increase the number of electors five hundred thousand,--making nine
hundred thousand in all. We see how far this was from universal
suffrage, giving less than a million of voters in a population of
twenty-five millions. Yet even so moderate and reasonable an
enlargement of the