Part 60 (1/2)
The feeling attending the pa.s.sage of the Reform Bill of 1832 (S582) had pa.s.sed away; but now a popular agitation began which produced even greater excitement. Although the act of 1832 had equalized parliamentary representation and had enlarged the elective franchise to a very considerable degree, yet the great body of workingmen were still shut out from the right to vote. A Radical Party called the ”Chartists” now arose, which undertook to secure further measures of reform.
They embodied their measures in a doc.u.ment called the ”People's Charter,” which demanded:
1. Universal male suffrage.
2. That the voting at elections should be by ballot.
3. Annual Parliaments.
4. The payment of memebers of Parliament.
5. The abolition of the property qualification for parliamentary candidates.[1]
6. The division of the whole country into equal electoral districts.
[1] Property qualification: In 1711 an act was pa.s.sed requiring candidates for election to the House of Commons to have an income of not less than 300 pounds derived from landed property. The object of this law was to secure members who would be comparatively free from the temptation of receiving bribes from the Crown, and also to keep the landed proprietors in power to the exclusion of rich merchants.
This law was repealed in 1858.
The Chartists held public meetings, organized clubs, and published newpapers to disseminate their principles, but for many years made very little progress. The French revolution which dethroned King Louis Philippe (1848) imparted fresh impetus to the Chartist movement. The leader of that movement was Feargus O'Connor. He formed the plan of sending a monster pet.i.tion to Parliament, containing, it was claimed, nearly five million signatures, praying for the pa.s.sage of the People's Charter.
A procession of a million or more signers was to act as an escort to the doc.u.ment, which made a wagonload in itself. The Government became alarmed at the threatened demonstration, forbade it, on the ground that it was an attempt to coerce legislation, and organized a body of 250,000 special policemen to preserve order.
The Duke of Wellington took command of a large body of troops held in reserve to defend the city; and the Bank of England, the Houses of Parliament, the British Museum, and other public buildings were made ready to withstand a siege.
It was now the Chartists' turn to be frightened. When they a.s.sembled (1848) on Kennington Common in south London, they numbered less than thirty thousand, and the procession of a million which was to march across Westminster Bridge, to the Houses of Parliament, dwindled to half a dozen. When the huge pet.i.tion was unrolled it was found to contain only about a third of the boasted number of names. Further examination showed that many of the signatures were spurious, having been put down in jest, or copied from gravestones and old London directories. With that discovery the whole movement collapsed, and the House of Commons rang with ”inextinguishable laughter” over the national scare.
Still the demands of the Chartists had a solid foundation of good sense, which the bl.u.s.tering bravado of the leaders of the movement could not wholly destroy. Most, if not all, of the reforms asked for were needed. Since then, the steady, quiet influence of reason and of time has compelled Parliament to grant the greater part of them.[1]
[1] Sir Thomas Erskine May, in his ”Const.i.tutional History of England,” says: ”Not a measure has been forced upon Parliament which the calm judgment of a later time has not since approved; not an agitation has failed which posterity has not condemned.”
The printed or written ballot has been subst.i.tuted for the old method of electing candidates by a show of hands or by shouting yes or no,-- a method by which it was easy to make blunders, and equally easy to commit frauds. Every voter must now have his name and address registered in a printed list. Every voter, too, casts a secret ballot and so safeguards his political independence (S609). The property qualification has been abolished (S591, note 1), so that the day laborer may now run for Parliament. He is sure, too, of being well paid, for Parliament voted (1911) to give 400 pounds a year to every member of the House of Commons. The right of ”manhood suffrage” has been greatly extended, and before the twentieth century has advanced much farther every man in England will probably have a voice in the elections.
592. The Corn Laws (1841).
At the accession of the Queen protective duties or taxes existed in Great Britain on all imported breadstuffs and on many manufactured articles. Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative Prime Minister (1841), favored a reduction in the last cla.s.s of duties, but believed it necessary to maintain the former in order to keep up the price of grain and thus encourage the English farmers. The result of this policy was great distress among the poorly paid, half-fed workingmen, who could not afford to buy dear bread. A number of philanthropists led by Richard Cobden and John Bright organized an Anti-Corn Law League[1] to obtain the repeal of the grain duties.
[1] Corn is the name given in England to wheat or other grain used for food. Indian corn or maize cannot be grown in that climate, and is seldom eaten there.
At the same time, Ebenezer Elliott, the ”Corn-Law Rhymer,” gave voice to the sufferings of the poor in rude but vigorous verse, which appealed to the excited feelings of thousands in such words as these:
”England! what for mine and me, What hath bread tax done for thee?
Cursed thy harvest, cursed thy land, Hunger-stung thy skill'd right hand.”
When, however, session after session of Parliament pa.s.sed and nothing was done for the relief of the peris.h.i.+ng mult.i.tudes, many began to despair, and great numbers joined in singing Elliott's new national anthem:
”When wilt Thou save the people?
O G.o.d of mercy! when?
Not kings or lords, but nations!
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
Flowers of thy heart, O G.o.d, are they!
Let them not pa.s.s, like weeds, away!
Their heritage a sunless day!