History of the Four Georges, and of William IV, Volume 4 — lxxi. Reform, Part 1

[Sidenote: 1830--Brougham and the ministry] The King had no other course left open to him than to send for Lord Grey and invite him to form an Administration.

Lord Grey was quite ready for the task, and must, for some time back, have had his mind constantly occupied with plans for such an arrangement.

About some of the appointments there was no difficulty whatever.

It was obvious that Lord Melbourne, Lord Althorp, and Lord John Russell would be invited to take office, but there was a certain difficulty about Brougham.

The difficulty, however, was not about offering a place to Brougham; the only trouble was to find the place which would suit him, and his acceptance of which would also suit his leaders and his colleagues.

Nothing could be more certain than the fact that Brougham must be invited to a place in the new Administration.

He was a strong man with the country, and he now had a distinct following of his own.

Among the yet unenfranchised districts, especially in the North of England, Brougham probably counted for more, so far as the question of reform was concerned, than all the other reformers in Parliament put together.

It would be idle to think of creating a Reform Ministry just then without Henry Brougham.

The new Administration could not possibly get on without him.

But then it was by no means certain that the new Administration could get on with him, and no one could understand this difficulty better than the stately and aristocratic Lord Grey.

Grey had simply to choose between encountering an uncertainty or undertaking an impossibility, and of course he chose the former alternative.

He had to invite Brougham to take office, but the question was what office it was {123} most advisable to ask him to take.

Brougham was offered the position of Attorney-General, the acceptance of which allows a man to retain his seat in the House of Commons, while it puts him directly on the way to a high promotion to the judicial bench.

Brougham flatly declined the offer, and seemed to be somewhat offended that it should have been made to him.

Then Lord Grey thought of offering him the dignified position of Master of the Rolls, coupled with the exceptional arrangement that he was still to retain his seat in the House of Commons.

Lord Grey was naturally very anxious to conciliate Brougham, and looked with much dread to the prospect of Brougham breaking off from the negotiations altogether and retaining his seat in the House as an independent critic of the Ministry.

Nothing could well be more alarming to the head of the new Administration than the thought of Brougham thus sitting as an independent critic, prepared at any minute to come down with the force and fury of his eloquence on this or that section of the new Reform Bill, and to denounce it to the country as utterly inadequate to satisfy the just demands of the people.

The King, however, suggested, with some good sense, that Brougham as a dissatisfied Master of the Rolls still sitting in the House of Commons might prove an inconvenient and dangerous colleague.

Lord Grey thought the matter over once more, and began to see another way of getting out of the difficulty.

Why not give to Brougham the highest legal appointment in the service of the Crown, and thus promote him completely out of the House of Commons?

Why not make him Lord Chancellor at once?

This offer could not but satisfy even Brougham's well-known self-conceit, and it would transplant his eloquence to the quieter atmosphere of the House of Lords, where little harm could be done to the surrounding vegetation by its too luxuriant growth.

In plain words, it might be taken for granted that the House of Lords would reject any reform measure, however moderate, when it was first introduced to the notice of the peers, and therefore no particular harm could come from Brougham's presence in the hereditary assembly.

But {124} Brougham in the House of Commons might, at any time, be so far carried away by his own emotions, and his own eloquence, and his own masterful temperament as to bring his colleagues into many a difficulty, and force on them the unpleasant alternative of having to choose between going further than they had intended to go or failing to keep up with Brougham as the accredited and popular promoter of reform.

[Sidenote: 1830--Brougham as Lord Chancellor] When Lord Grey next conferred with the King he was not a little surprised to hear from the sovereign's own lips a suggestion that Brougham might be offered the position of Lord Chancellor.

Grey told the King that he had been almost afraid to start such a proposition, inasmuch as William had discouraged the idea of making Brougham Master of the Rolls; but the King with shrewd good sense directed Grey's attention to the fact, which had been already an operative force in Grey's own mind, that to make Brougham Master of the Rolls, and yet keep him in the House of Commons, might still leave him a very dangerous colleague, while by making him Lord Chancellor the King and his Prime Minister could get him practically out of the way altogether.

So it was agreed between the King and his Prime Minister that Lord Brougham should be made Lord Chancellor, and thus forfeit his right to sit in the House of Commons.

If we speak with literal accuracy it is not quite correct to say that a man by becoming Lord Chancellor becomes necessarily, and at once, a member of the House of Lords.

The Lord Chancellor of course presides over the sittings of the House of Lords, but he is not necessarily, from the first, a member of the hereditary assembly.

He sits on the woolsack, which, though actually in the House of Lords, is not technically to be described as occupying such a position.

If a Lord Chancellor who is actually a peer desires to take part in a debate he has to leave the woolsack and stand on some part of the floor which is technically within the Chamber.

On more than one historic occasion some inconvenience has arisen from the fact that a newly created Lord Chancellor had not yet been {125} made a peer, and therefore was not entitled to take part in a debate, or even to speak for some ceremonial purpose within the Chamber on behalf of the House of Lords.

Brougham as a matter of fact was not made a peer until a little time after he had become Lord Chancellor.

All this, however, is only mentioned here as a matter of curious and technical interest to the reader of Parliamentary history.

Brougham was made a peer soon enough for all purposes, and in the mean time he was removed altogether from the House of Commons.

Brougham did not accept his new position without some grumbling.

Probably he had the idea that Lord Grey and others of his colleagues were glad to have him safely provided for out of the range of the representative assembly, where his eloquence might now and then become an inconvenient influence.

He accepted the position, however, and became a member of the House of Lords.

From that time his real influence over the country may be said to have come to an end.

After he ceased to be Lord Chancellor he remained simply an eloquent, overbearing member of the House of Lords, often delighting the galleries and the public with his meteoric flashes of eloquence; but his power as a reformer was gone, and for the greater part of his remaining career, when one or two important questions to which he was pledged had been disposed of, he took little interest in any movement of reform.

Lord Althorp became Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lord Althorp, who was leader of the House of Commons as well as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was an influential person in those days, but is almost forgotten in our time.

He was a model country gentleman, devoted to the duties and the delights of such a position; had a natural gift for farming and no natural inclination whatever for politics.

Not merely did he make no pretensions to oratory, but, even for a country gentleman, he could not be regarded as a particularly good speaker.

Yet he undoubtedly was a man of much weight in the Parliamentary life of his time.

He was thoroughly straightforward and disinterested; he was absolutely truthful and honorable; his word was his bond, {126} and the House of Commons and the country in general could always feel sure that any advice given by Lord Althorp was guided by the light of his own judgment and his own conscience, and that he was never unduly swayed by fear, favor, or affection, whether towards sovereign or party.

Lord Melbourne was Home Secretary.

[Sidenote: 1830--The Reform Administration] If we glance down the list of this Reform Administration to-day we shall all probably be struck by the fact that the men who were regarded as juniors and something like beginners have come to occupy, in many cases, a higher position in political history than their elders and leaders.

Lord John Russell, for instance, was not a member of Lord Grey's Cabinet; he only held the office of Paymaster of the Forces.

From his first entrance into the House of Commons Lord John Russell had distinguished himself as a reformer.

In 1819 he had brought forward a motion for a reform in the Parliamentary system, and he had renewed the motion in almost every succeeding year.

He had been a steady supporter of the movement for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which imposed an unjust and utterly irrational disqualification on Dissenters, and had been a zealous advocate of the measures for the emancipation of Roman Catholics.

All his early life had been a training for statesmanship.

He had been associated with scholars and thinkers, with poets and historians.

He had gone through Spain while the war with Napoleon was still going on, and had been welcomed by the Duke of Wellington in his camp.

He had visited Napoleon at Elba, and had talked over politics and war with the fallen Emperor.

As Disraeli said of him many years later, he had sat at the feet of Fox and had measured swords with Canning.

Lord Palmerston became for the first time Foreign Secretary in the Grey Administration.

He had been a junior Lord of the Admiralty in a former Government, and he had more lately been Secretary at War; but at the time that he first became Foreign Secretary under Lord Grey few indeed could have anticipated that he was destined to become one of the most powerful English statesmen known to the century.

Sir James Graham became First Lord of the Admiralty, and {127} some of us can still remember him as one of the foremost debaters in the House of Commons.

Lord Durham, Grey's son-in-law, accepted what may almost be called the nominal office of Lord Privy Seal.

At that time Durham was regarded as a brilliant, eccentric sort of man, a perfervid reformer on whose perseverance or consistency no one could reckon for a moment--perhaps the comet of a season, but if so then surely a comet of a season only.

We now recognize Durham as the man of statesmanlike foresight and genius who converted, at a great crisis, a Canada burning with internal hatred between race and sect, and the one common hatred of Imperial rule, into the Canada which we now know as one of the most peaceful, prosperous, and loyal parts of the British Empire.

Mr. Stanley, afterwards Lord Derby, the famous "Rupert of debate," became Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

Grey appointed Lord Plunket Lord Chancellor for Ireland, and the name of Lord Plunket will always be remembered as that of one of the greatest Parliamentary orators known to modern times.

The new Ministry was, therefore, well prepared to carry on the battle of reform.

Lord Grey had made up his mind that Lord John Russell, although not in the Cabinet, was the most fitting member of the Administration to conduct the Reform Bill through the House of Commons.

As soon as Grey had completed his arrangements for the construction of a Ministry, Lord Durham put himself into communication with Lord John Russell.

Durham told Lord John Russell that Lord Grey wished him to consult with Russell as to the formation of a small private committee whose task should be to create and put into shape some definite scheme as the foundation of the great constitutional change which the new Government had been called into power to establish.

Lord John Russell of course accepted the suggestion, and after some consideration it was agreed by Lord Durham and himself that Sir James Graham and Lord Duncannon, then Commissioner of Woods and Forests, should be invited to join them, and make a committee of four for the purpose of devising a {128} comprehensive and practicable measure of reform.

Durham then asked Lord John to put on paper at once his own idea with regard to the outlines of such a plan, so that it might be taken into consideration by the committee at their earliest meeting.

[Sidenote: 1830--The Reform Bill] Lord John Russell's book, "The English Government and Constitution," tells us all what was the central idea in his mind when he set himself to construct the groundwork of a Reform Bill.

He tells us, alluding to the task assigned to him, "It was not my duty to cut the body of our old parent into pieces, and to throw it into a Medea's caldron, with the hope of reviving the vigor of youth."

He thought it his duty not to turn aside "from the track of the Constitution into the maze of fancy or the wilderness of abstract rights."

"It was desirable, in short, as it appeared to me, while sweeping away gross abuses, to avail ourselves, as far as possible, of the existing frame and body of our Constitution.

Thus, if the due weight and influence of property could be maintained, by preserving the representation of a proportion of the small boroughs with an improved franchise, it was desirable rather to build on the old foundations than to indulge our fancy or our conceit in choosing a new site and erecting on new soil--perhaps on sand--an edifice entirely different from all that had hitherto existed."

No Reformer who understood the general character of the English people, and who had studied the development of political growth in England, could have gone more prudently and wisely about the work of bringing the existing Constitution into harmony with the altering conditions, and removing out of its way all difficulties that might interfere with its gradual and safe development in the future.

But Russell was clearly of opinion, and in this he was entirely in accordance with Lord Grey, that nothing but a large and comprehensive measure would be of any real use, and that "to nibble at disfranchisement and cramp reform by pedantic adherence to existing rights would be to deceive expectation, to whet appetite, and to bring about that revolution which it was our object to {129} avert."

Russell drew up a sketch of his proposed Reform Bill, which he submitted to Lord Durham, and on the draft of the measure thus submitted to him Lord Durham offered some suggestions and alterations of his own.

Russell's speech was written on a single piece of letter-paper, and is reproduced with Lord Durham's notes in Russell's book, "The English Government and Constitution."

The opening paragraph proposes that "the fifty boroughs having the smallest population according to the latest census should be disfranchised altogether."

This proposal had Lord Durham's full approval, and he noted the fact that according to his calculation it would disfranchise all boroughs having a population of not more than 1400. The second paragraph proposed that fifty other boroughs of the least considerable population, above the line already drawn, should be allowed to send only one member each to the House of Commons.

This proposal also had the approval of Lord Durham, and he notes it would apply to boroughs not having more than 3000 inhabitants each.

Then came a paragraph which proposed that all persons qualified to serve on juries should have the right of voting, and to this clause Lord Durham objected, regarding it probably as an embodiment of the principle of what were called in later days "fancy franchises."

The fourth paragraph recommended that no person should be entitled to vote in cities or boroughs, except in the City of London, in Westminster, and in Southwark, unless he were a householder rated at ten pounds a year, and unless, moreover, he had paid his parochial taxes for three years, within three months after they became due, and had lived in the constituency for six months previous to the election at which he claimed to vote.

The fifth clause proposed that the unrepresented parts of London should have among them four or six additional members, that eighteen large towns should have representation--and let the reader try to realize for himself what the supposed representation of the country could have been when at least eighteen large towns were, up to that time, wholly unrepresented--and that twenty counties should send two additional members {130} each to the House of Commons.

Another paragraph limited the right of voting in the newly enfranchised towns to householders rated at ten pounds a year or persons qualified to serve on juries.

Lord Durham approved of the rating qualification, but, consistently with his objection already mentioned, struck out the words which connected the right to vote with the right to serve on a jury.

It is not necessary to go through the whole list of the proposals set out in the sketch drawn up by Lord John Russell.

Those which we have already mentioned possess a peculiar historical interest and illustrate in the most precise and effective manner the whole nature of the system which, up to that time, had passed off as constitutional government.

[Sidenote: 1831--Vote by ballot] It will be seen that, on the whole, Lord Durham was a more advanced reformer than even Lord John Russell.

The entire scheme, as drawn out by Russell, consisted of ten paragraphs or clauses, and it was at once submitted to the consideration of the four men who formed the committee.

There was much discussion as to the borough qualification for voters, and the committee finally agreed to recommend that it should be uniform, and thus get rid of what were called the freemen and the scot-and-lot voters, a class of persons endowed with antiquated and eccentric qualifications which possibly might have had some meaning in them and some justification under the conditions of a much earlier day, but which had since grown into a system enabling wealthier men to create in constituencies a body of thoroughly dependent or positively corrupt voters.

The desire of the committee was to extend the voting privilege as far as possible consistently with due regard for the principle that the voters ought to be men of substance enough to insure their independence.

This security they believed they could attain by establishing the ten-pound franchise.

This seems, no doubt, to modern eyes a somewhat eccentric and haphazard line of demarkation; but it must be remembered that even until much later days the ten pounds rating principle in boroughs held its own, and was believed to be absolutely essential to the {131} maintenance of an independent and upright body of voters, and to the securing of such a body against the danger of being "swamped," according to the once familiar word, by the votes of the dependent and the corrupt.

There were some slight differences of opinion between Lord John Russell and Lord Durham as to the extent to which the total or partial disfranchisement of the small boroughs ought to go, but the scheme, as finally shaped, had on the whole the thorough approval of the committee.

One important proposal, brought forward, it was understood, by Lord Durham, was agreed to and formally adopted by the committee, but not without strong opposition on the part of Lord John Russell.

This was the proposal for the introduction of the vote by ballot.

When Lord Grey's Cabinet came to consider the draft scheme the proposal for the introduction of the vote by ballot was struck out altogether.

The time, in fact, had not come for the adoption of so great a reform.

Forty years had to pass before the mind of the English public could be brought to recognize the necessity for such a change.

Statesmanship had still to learn how much the value of a popular suffrage was diminished or disparaged by the system which left the voter at the absolute mercy of some landlord or some patron who desired that the vote should be given for the candidate whom he favored.

The ballot even then was demanded by the whole body of the Chartists.

Orator Hunt, one of the most popular heroes of the Chartist agitation, had only just defeated Mr. Stanley at Preston.

Daniel O'Connell was in favor of the ballot, because he saw that without its protection the Irish tenant farmer would have to vote for his landlord's candidate or would be turned out of his farm.

But the general feeling among statesmen, as well as among the outer public, was that there was something un-English about the ballot system, and it was contended that the true Englishman ought to have the courage of his opinion and to vote as his conscience told him, without caring whom he offended.

Edmund Burke in one of his speeches tells us that the system which is founded on the heroic virtues is sure to have its {132} superstructure in failure and disappointment, meaning thereby that every system is doomed to failure which assumes as its principle the idea that all men can at all times be up to the level of the heroic mood.

Some of us can well remember the days when English statesmen still declared that the compulsion of education was un-English, and that it ought to be left to the free choice of the English parent whether he would have his children taught or leave them untaught.