practicable to ascertain with absolute precision the proportion which their number bore to the other classes immediately before and after the Reform Act of 1832. But there are sufficient data to warrant the conclusion that the distribution of political power among different classes of society was most materially altered by that measure. In the aggregate the working classes were a majority of the voters, though in consequence of the number of nomination boroughs and those in which the right of election was confined to close corporations, a large proportion of the House of Commons was chosen by a very small oligarchy. For the reasons given in the subjoined note it may be inferred that before the Reform Act the working classes constituted a majority of the aggregate number of borough electors; and immediately after that Act was passed were outnumbered in a proportion greater than two to one.* And this disproportion in after times continually increased; for that statute not

The following calculation is submitted as an approximately correct estimate of the effect of the Reform Act of 1832, in adding to the relative power of the middle classes.

At the first registration 1832-3 there were on the borough registers, in round numbers

Ten-pound householders

Freemen, scot and lot voters, and other ancient-right voters

174,000 108,000

55

(See Electoral Returns, 1866, page 8.) The latter number must have nearly represented the borough constituency immediately before the Reform Act. Also it appears by the Electoral Returns of 1866 that in that year per cent. of the freemen belonged to the working classes. We may fairly suppose that the same proportion obtained immediately before 1832. But of the 174,000 added by the Reform Act nearly all were of the middle and higher classes. Probably not more than 15 per cent. belonged to the lower class. (See Mr. Gladstone's speech on the introduction of the Reform Bill, 1866: Hansard, vol. 182, col. 39.)

Hence the number of artisan voters immediately after the Reform Act were 15 per cent. of 174,000 and 55 per cent. of 108,000; the middle and higher class of voters were 85 per cent. of 174,000 and 45 per cent. of 108,000. The result is, that immediately after the Reform Act the borough voters included

Working men.

Middle and higher classes

85,500 193,500

In other words, the working men, instead of being more than one-half the borough constituency, became less than one-third of it; instead of having the majority, they were outnumbered more than two to one.

only created a new property qualification, which by its nature excluded, and was intended to exclude, the poorer inhabitants of towns, but also provided for the gradual extinction of the electoral rights of scot and lot voters, and several other ancient rights which were possessed for the most part by persons in the lowest ranks of life.

In counties, also, the tendency of the Legislation of 1832 was undoubtedly to confer political power upon a class occupying an intermediate position in the social scale. The new qualifications of electors in shires were given almost exclusively to such persons-to the possessors of copyholds of the annual value of ten pounds, various classes of leaseholders, and, above all, to annual tenants occupying lands at a rent of 50l. or upwards.

Several Bills have been introduced into Parliament since 1832, by which it has been proposed to make further changes in the distribution of the franchise of returning members of the House of Commons, and in the qualifications of voters. Lord John Russell's Bill of 1852 proposed to extend the borough franchise to occupiers of houses of 5l. annual value, and the county franchise to tenants rated at 201. The measure introduced by the same statesman in 1854 fixed the borough qualification at 6. rated value. Both Bills introduced various new electoral qualifications. That of 1854 included among them an income of ten pounds annually arising from dividends, the payment of forty shillings annually in direct taxes, and an academical degree of any University. Provision was also made in both Bills for the disfranchisement of some places and the enfranchisement of others.

Both these measures failed. That of 1852 was not pressed, in consequence of the change of Ministry which took place in that year. The Bill brought in two years later by Lord John Russell was withdrawn because the Ministry considered that the attention of Parliament would be so much absorbed by the Russian War then

pending, that sufficient attention could not be given to the subject of the representation of the people.

In 1859 a Ministry, of which the Earl of Derby was chief, was in power, and Mr. Disraeli was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Speech from the Throne, the attention of Parliament was again directed to the defects. of the representative system, and very soon after the commencement of the Session Mr. Disraeli introduced a Bill upon tho subject. Some of the arguments which he used upon this occasion present a remarkable contrast with the doctrines espoused by him a few years later. In 1866 he earnestly supported a motion which involved the fate of the Russell-Gladstone Cabinet, and which recommended a suffrage qualification founded upon the rateable value of the qualifying tenements. In 1859 he insisted with equal earnestness that such a scheme was impracticable and unjust. The following is an extract from his speech of Feb. 28, 1859:

Notwithstanding the Parochial Assessment Act, the rating of this country is most unequal; and it is only those whose business it has been to examine into this subject in its minute. details who can be aware of the preposterous consequences which would arise from a rating instead of a value qualification. Take the present qualification of 107. value, which it is very generally and popularly supposed might be supplied by an 81. rating. Now let us see what would be the consequence upon the present constituency of adopting an 87. rating instead of a 107. rental. I will take the instance of Boston, represented by my hon. and learned friend behind me (Mr. Adams). The borough of Boston consists of two parishes; the rating of one of them is upon half the value, and of the other upon two-thirds of the value. The practical consequence of having an 87. rating in Boston would be to disfranchise 400 of the electors of that borough. The House will see that the idea of establishing a franchise based upon rating instead of value is by no means the simple process it is by some persons supposed to be. The great objection to such a measure, which led us to relinquish all idea of adopting it, is its tendency to disfranchise many of the constituencies.* Hansard, vol. 152, col. 983.

*

It is worthy of note that at this time Mr. Disraeli's views on the subject of a rating franchise were in complete accord with those of Lord John Russell, who had adopted such a franchise in his Bills of 1852 and 1854; but now, in the debates of 1859, acknowledged his error. He said, 'I doubt whether the propositions I formerly made, founded upon rating, were based upon a very sound foundation, for I have certainly found that rating varies very much. I believe that any change you may make in the 107. franchise should be of the same nature as the franchise established by the Reform Act-namely, based upon annual value.' *

In 1866 the very question here considered was raised by Lord Dunkellin's amendment to the Reform Bill, introduced in that year by Mr. Gladstone. Lord Dunkellin proposed that the 'rateable' value of property should be made the basis of occupiers' qualification in boroughs. This proposal, which involved, as was well understood, the fate of the Whig Ministry, was supported by all the influence of Mr. Disraeli and the Conservative party. The very arguments which Mr. Disraeli had used in 1859 respecting the variable character of 'rateable' value were repeated in various forms in this great party debate. In 1859 he strenuously opposed the idea of establishing a franchise based upon rating.' In 1866, the temptation to adopt that idea as a means of ousting his political opponents was irresistible.

The chief characteristic of the Reform Bill of 1859 was the establishment of an identity between the borough and county suffrage. Various qualifications were defined, which were to give titles to vote in boroughs or counties, according as the elector or his property were within the limits of the one or the other, and the occupier's qualification in shires was brought to the same level as in towns-ten pounds clear yearly value.

* March 21, 1859. Hansard, vol. 153, col. 399.

Among other qualifications which were to have a similar effect was the possession of an estate of inheritance in copyholds worth five pounds per annum, the qualification. of lodgers paying eight shillings weekly rent, of graduates in the Universities, and members of various professions.* In his exposition of this scheme, Mr. Disraeli admitted that there were many persons capable of exercising the suffrage who do not live in 10/. houses; but expressed himself adverse to the admission of them by the coarse and common expedient which is recommended, of what is called "lowering the franchise in towns." Some of the arguments which he used upon this subject afford a ludicrous contrast to his later concessions in favour of household suffrage. For instance

I beg the House to consider for a moment what must be the effect of lowering the franchise in towns. Suppose that instead of a 101. borough qualification you had a 51. borough qualification. Well, the moment you had a 57. borough qualification, you would realise all those inconvenient results which are erroneously ascribed to the 107. qualification. You would then have a monotonous constituency. You would then have a constituency whose predominant opinions would be identical. You would then have a constituency who would return to Parliament members holding the same ideas, the same opinions, the same sentiments. . . It certainly would be most injudicious, not to say intolerable, when we are guarding ourselves against the predominance of a territorial aristocracy, that we should reform Parliament by securing the predominance of a household democracy.

'Household democracy' was an object of very safe invective eight years ago, and within a much more recent period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer perfectly understood his audience when he denounced household democracy' and the 'coarse and common expedient' of lowering the suffrage in towns. His plan of extension of the suffrage in boroughs, as at a subsequent date, contemplated lateral extension only; for instance, it

* A copy of the Bill of 1859 is given as an appendix to vol. 153 of IIansard's Debates.