Part 67 (2/2)
When, in 1265, the Commons were first admitted to Parliament (see p. 480), members were called only from those cities and boroughs whose wealth and population fairly ent.i.tled them to representation. In the course of time some of these places dwindled in population, and new towns sprang up: yet the decayed boroughs retained their ancient privilege of sending members to Parliament, while the new towns were left entirely without representation. Thus Old Sarum, an ancient town now utterly decayed and without a single inhabitant, was represented in the Commons by two members. Furthermore, the sovereign, for the purpose of gaining influence in the Commons, had, from time to time, given unimportant places the right of returning members to the Lower House. In 1793 less than 200 electors, or voters, sent to the Commons 197 members. Of course, elections in these small or ”pocket boroughs,” as they were called, were almost always determined by the corrupt influence of the crown or of the resident lords.
The Lower House of Parliament was thus filled with the nominees of the king, or of some great lord, or with persons who had bought the office, often with little effort at concealment. At the same time, such large, recently grown manufacturing towns as Birmingham and Manchester had no representation at all in the Commons.
Agitation was begun for the reform of this corrupt and farcical system of representation. The contest between the Whigs and the Tories, or Liberals and Conservatives, was long and bitter. The Conservatives of course opposed all reform. Bill after bill was introduced into Parliament to correct the evil, but most of these, after having pa.s.sed the Commons, were lost in the House of Lords. At last the public feeling became so strong and violent that the lords were forced to yield, and the Reform Bill of 1832 became a law. [Footnote: The popularizing of the House of Commons led to a series of acts of a popular character. Among them was an act (in 1833) for the abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies.
780,993 slaves in the British West Indies were freed at a cost to the English nation of L20,000,000.]
By this act the electoral system of the kingdom was radically changed.
Fifty-six of the ”rotten boroughs” were disfranchised, and the 143 seats in the Lower House which they had filled were given to different counties and large towns. The bill also greatly increased the number of electors by extending the right of voting to all persons owning or leasing property of a certain value. We can scarcely exaggerate the importance of this Reform Bill.
CHARTISM: THE REVOLUTIONARY YEAR OF 1848.--But while the Reform bill of 1832 was almost revolutionary in the principle it established, it went only a little way in the application of the principle. It admitted to the franchise the middle cla.s.ses only. The great laboring cla.s.s were given no part in the government. They now began an agitation,--characterized by much bitterness,--known as Chartism, from a doc.u.ment called the ”People's Charter,” which embodied the reforms they desired. These were ”universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, the division of the country into equal electoral districts, the abolition of the property qualifications of members, and payment for their services.”
The agitation for these changes in the const.i.tution went on with more or less violence until 1848. That year the Chartists, encouraged by the revolutions then shaking almost every throne on the European continent, indulged in riotous demonstrations which frightened the law-abiding citizens, and brought discredit upon themselves. Their organization now fell to pieces. The reforms, however, which they had labored to secure, were, in the main, desirable and just, and the most important of them have since been adopted and made a part of the English Const.i.tution.
THE REFORM BILL OF 1867.--The Reform Bill of 1867 was simply another step taken by the English government in the direction of the Reform Bill of 1832. Like that measure, it was pa.s.sed only after long and violent agitation and discussion both without and within the walls of Parliament.
Its main effect was the extension of the right of voting,--the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the great ”fourth estate, or the ma.s.ses.” By it also a few small boroughs in England--for the bill did not concern either Ireland or Scotland, separate bills of somewhat similar provisions being framed for them--were disfranchised, and several new ones created.
THE REFORM BILL OF 1884.--One of the conservative leaders, the Earl of Derby, in the discussions upon the Reform Bill of 1867, said, ”No doubt we are making a great experiment, and taking a leap in the dark.” Just seventeen years after the pa.s.sage of that bill, the English people were ready to take another leap. But they were not now leaping in the dark. The wisdom and safety of admitting the lower cla.s.ses to a partic.i.p.ation in the government had been demonstrated.
In 1884 Mr. Gladstone, then prime minister, introduced and pushed to a successful vote a new reform bill, more radical and sweeping in its provisions than any preceding one. It increased the number of voters from about 3,000,000 to about 5,000,000. The qualification of voters in the counties was made the same as that required of voters in the boroughs.
Hence its effect was to enfranchise the great agricultural cla.s.ses.
ONLY THE FORMS OF MONARCHY REMAIN.--The English government is now in reality as democratic as our own. Only the forms of monarchy remain. It does not seem probable, that these can long withstand the encroachments of democracy. Hereditary privilege, as represented by the House of Lords and the Crown, is likely soon to be abolished.
HOME RULE FOR IRELAND.--In connection with the above outline of the democratic movement in England, a word must be said about the so-called Home Rule movement in Ireland.
The legislative independence secured by Ireland in 1782 (see p. 632), was maintained only a short time. In 1798, England being then engaged in war with the revolutionists of France, the Irish rose in revolt, with the purpose of setting up an Irish republic. The uprising was quelled, and then as a measure of security the Irish Parliament was abolished (1801) and Ireland given representation in the English Parliament, just as had been done in the case of Scotland at the time of the legislative union of England and Scotland (see p. 629).
The Irish patriots bitterly resented this extinction of the legislative independence of Ireland, and denounced as traitors those members of the last Irish Parliament who, corrupted by the English minister, William Pitt (the younger), had voted away Irish liberties. Consequently from the day of the Union to the present, there has been more or less agitation for its repeal and the re-establishment of the old Irish Parliament. In 1841, under the inspiration of the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, Ireland was brought to the verge of insurrection, but the movement was suppressed. In 1886 Mr. Gladstone, then prime minister, introduced a bill in Parliament, granting a separate legislation to Ireland. This led to bitter debate both within and without the walls of Parliament, and at the present time (1889), the question of Home Rule for Ireland is the leading issue in English politics.[Footnote: Closely connected with this political question of Home Rule for Ireland, is the agrarian, or land trouble. At bottom, this is a matter that involves the right of private property in land, and touches questions that belong to the Industrial Age (see p. 729) rather than to that of the Political Revolution.]
2. EXPANSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.--Alongside the political movement traced in the preceding section has run a similar one in the religious realm. This is a growing recognition by the English people of the true principle of religious toleration.
At the opening of the nineteenth century there was in England religious freedom, but no religious equality. That is to say, one might be a Catholic or a dissenter, if he chose to be, without fear of persecution.
Dissent from the Established Church was not unlawful. But one's being a dissenter disqualified him from holding certain public offices. Where there exists such discrimination against any religious sect, or where any one sect is favored or sustained by the government, there of course is no religious equality, although there may be religious freedom. Progress in this direction, then, has consisted in the growth of a really tolerant spirit, which has led to the removal from Catholics, Protestant dissenters, and Jews all civil disabilities, and the placing of all sects on an absolute equality before the law. This is but a completion of the work of the Protestant Reformation.
METHODISM AND ITS EFFECTS UPON TOLERATION.--One thing that helped to bring prominently forward the question of emanc.i.p.ating non-conformists from the civil disabilities under which they were placed, was the great religious movement known as Methodism, which during the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century revolutionized the religious life of England. [Footnote: The leaders of the movement were George Whitefield (1714-1770) and John Wesley (1703-1791). Whitefield became the leader of the _Calvinistic_ Methodists, and Wesley the founder of the sect known as _Wesleyans_. The Methodists at first had no thought of establis.h.i.+ng a church distinct from the Anglican, but simply aimed to form within the Established Church a society of earnest, devout laymen, somewhat like that of the Young Men's Christian a.s.sociation in our present churches. Petty persecution, however, eventually constrained them to go out from the established organization and form a Church of their own. This of course const.i.tuted them dissenters.] By vastly increasing the body of Protestant dissenters, Methodism gave new strength to the agitation for the repeal of the laws which bore so heavily upon them.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM PROTESTANT DISSENTERS (1828).--One of the earliest and most important of the acts of Parliament in this century in recognition of the principle of religious equality, was the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, in so far as they bore upon Protestant dissenters. These were acts pa.s.sed in the reign of Charles II., which required every officer of a corporation, and all persons holding civil and military positions, to take certain oaths, and partake of the communion according to the rites of the Anglican Church. It is true that these laws were not now strictly enforced; nevertheless, the laws were invidious and vexatious, and the Protestant dissenters demanded their repeal. The result of the debate in Parliament was the repeal of such parts of the ancient acts as it was necessary to rescind in order to relieve Protestant dissenters,--that is, the provision requiring persons holding office to be communicants of the Anglican Church.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM THE CATHOLICS (1829).--The bill of 1828 gave no relief to Catholics. They were still excluded from Parliament and various civil offices by the declarations of belief and the oaths required of office-holders,--declarations and oaths which no good Catholic could conscientiously make. They now demanded that the same concessions be made them that had been granted Protestant dissenters. The ablest champion of Catholic emanc.i.p.ation was the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, an Irish patriot.
A threatened revolt on the part of the Irish Catholics hurried the progress of what was known as the _Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation Act_ through Parliament. This law opened all the offices of the kingdom, below the crown,--save that of Lord Chancellor of England and Ireland, the Viceroyalty of Ireland, and a few others,--to the Catholic subjects of the realm.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM THE JEWS.--The Jews were still laboring under all the disabilities which had now been removed from Protestant dissenters and Catholics. In 1845 an act was pa.s.sed by Parliament which so changed the oath required for admission to corporate offices--the oath contained the words ”on the faith of a Christian”--as to open them to Jews.
<script>