'Thus,' at the time of the proposing the Reform Bill of 1831, 'we found,' said Lord John Russell, long afterwards, in the year 1849,* 'in the counties a forty shilling franchise, and in the towns the ancient household franchise, in existence. The former, we thought, secured as much independence as it was possible to secure, and retained.' As to the latter, it had become anything but an improvement upon the class of ancient burgesses-the men of property and intelligence who formerly composed this class; and we thought that this kind of franchise required to be modified, in order to enable us to obtain the object we had in view. Much of the corruption which prevailed in the constituent body, in the time of the unreformed parliament, arose from the want of intelligence which is necessary in a constituent body.' Lord John Russell, in introducing the Bill of 1831, declared the intention to be, to put an end to the 'practice of boroughs being in the hands of select corporations,-that is to say, in the possession of a small number of persons, to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants, who have property and interest in the place represented. The differences between the various boroughs, with reference to the liberal or restricted admission of freemen, had led to those complicated questions of right which the House was every week called upon to decide, -election committees being thus obliged to settle questions which were at once the most vexatious, the most difficult, and the most useless.' The general scope of the provisions designed by the Reform Bill of 1831 to meet the exigency of the case with reference to the franchise in ENGLAND, and substantially carried in the ensuing year, may be thus generally stated. First, as to COUNTIES. The ancient FREEHOLD† franchise, in fee, and for life, and for lives, was to be retained, with superadded conditions and limitations, principally consisting of value in the case of freeholds for life, actual occupation, and possession for certain specified periods. But the distinguishing feature of the proposed county franchise, was the introduction of three great classes of voters, consisting of COPYHOLDERS, customary * Hansard, vol. cv. (3rd Series), p. 1213. + Post, stat. 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 18, post, p. 237, a. Id. s. 19, post, p. 237, a. tenants, tenants in ancient demesne, &c. of inheritance, or for life or lives; LEASEHOLDERS,* lessees, or assignees of leases of a term of sixty years, of 107. yearly value; twenty years, if of 501. yearly value; and the sublessees or assignees of underleases respectively of the yearly value of 107. and 507.: subject, as in the freehold franchise, to conditions as to length of possession; finally, OCCUPYING TENANTS, † without reference to the length of time, at a yearly rent of 50l., subject to a condition as to the length of time during which the occupation has continued. This was undoubtedly a large, liberal, prudent, and wellconsidered alteration and extension of the franchise. Secondly, as to CITIES and BOROUGHS. The ancient rights were to be reserved, some of them in perpetuity, and others for a time only; but both under strict conditions. Those to be reserved in perpetuity were freeholders and burgage tenants, under certain conditions as to the length of possession, and of residence; burgesses and freemen, and the freemen and liverymen of the city of London: § but this class of reservations was to be subject to important restrictions, the chief relating to residence, and limiting the rights of burgesses and freemen to those derived from birth or servitude, excluding all honorary freemen or burgesses created subsequently to the 1st March, 1831. Those rights to be reserved for a time only, were, inhabitant householders, inhabitants paying scot and lot, potwallers, &c.: subject to conditions as to residence, and a liability to total loss of the right in the event of two successive years' omission from the register. The new borough franchise, ¶ and which constitutes one of the main distinguishing features of the Reform Act, was to be acquired by the OCCUPATION, within a borough, of a house and premises of the annual value of ten pounds, for twelve months, with conditions as to residence, being rated, and having paid the rate; and finally, the receipt of parochial relief, or disqualifying alms, within a twelvemonth, was to disentitle all borough voters to be placed upon the register for the time being.** ** Id. s. 36. This disqualification does not extend to English or Scotch counties, but does to Irish counties, equally with cities and boroughs, stat. 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, s. 111, post, p. 142, a. Concurrently with these great changes and extensions of the parliamentary franchise, was to be effected another, of such a bold and sweeping character, that, on its being proposed, the House of Commons remained for a while astounded; and a memorable scene of excitement occurred, followed by many similar ones in both Houses, during the eventful years 1831 and 1832-this was, the total disfranchisement of no fewer than sixty boroughs, and the partial disfranchisement of forty-seven more, by limiting each to one member. When Lord John Russell was required, upon the spot, to name them, he was, on complying, met with frequent bursts of laughter, and expressions of incredulous amazement. *-He proceeded to announce, with reference to the constituency to be created, that to seven large towns were to be given the right of returning two members each; four metropolitan districts were also to return two each, in addition to the four members already returned for the city of London, and twenty other towns one member each; whilst twenty-seven counties were also to have two additional members each, and the Isle of Wight one. The test of disfranchisement, as Lord John Russell recently explained to the House of Commons,+ was, 'the number of the houses, and the assessments to the assessed taxes; and the basis on which it was proposed to proceed was, the smallness of the boroughs, on the ground that many of them were places without any inhabitants at all, while in others they were very few, and never had any right of voting. The burgage tenure was in the hands of the proprietors, and therefore nomination, strictly and properly so called, existed in those boroughs: and the declared intention was, that those which were conceived to be nomination boroughs should cease to return members. A large and wide disfranchisement was proposed, on the ground that there were certain boroughs that did not, and could not, represent the opinions of the inhabitants, and therefore were unfitted for admission to the representation. We did it likewise on the ground, that there were many great towns and places of manufacturing industry which could not otherwise return members, as it was desirable not to increase the members in the House.' The only alteration proposed with regard to WALES was, to introduce the same right of fran * Hansard, vol. ii. (3rd Series), 1077. + Hansard, vol. cxix. 256, 9th February, 1852. chise into all the boroughs there which was proposed in England; and to add to the towns there, already returning members, the neighbouring unrepresented towns, so as to give them a share in the representation: while a new district of boroughs was to be created, having the privilege of returning one member to parliament. As to SCOTLAND, the representation was alleged to stand more in want of reform than England; for if England had close boroughs, it had also popular elections and popular representation in many of those boroughs; but in Scotland there was not a vestige of popular representation.* Indeed there was no such thing known there as a popular election; consequently the wealth, the respectability, and the intelligence of the inhabitants, were virtually unrepresented. On a very recent occasion the Lord Advocate of Scotland thus strongly stated the alleged condition of the electoral system prevailing in Scotland before the introduction of the Reform of 1832. The electoral system of England, though overlaid by antiquated abuses, yet preserved in its form, and to a certain extent in its substance, something of popular representation. Scotland, at that time, had not even its shadow. The state of the representation there before the Reform Bill would, when a few years had passed away, be entitled to a place among the fabulous parts of Scottish history. The county representation was vested in a small knot of landholders, called the Court of Freeholders: not freeholders in the English acceptation of the word, but persons holding, directly of the crown, property valued according to certain ancient valuations at a certain amount, and this body was diversified only by the introduction, when political animosity ran high, of certain very expensive but altogether fictitious tenures. As for the borough representation, it was still more unpopular: for the town councils were the only constituencies, and they not only elected their representatives, but also elected themselves. The house might well conceive to what extent representatives so elected, and constituencies so constituted, were calculated to reflect the opinions of the people. That, notwithstanding such a system of representation, Scotland should have flourished as it did, did not prove that popular representation was of no value, but simply what the energy of Hansard, vol. ii. (3rd Series), p. 1078. a nation might do, notwithstanding the greatest political disadvantages."* The whole number of county electors did not exceed 2,340 persons. It was proposed, therefore, that in the counties of Scotland, every one possessing a beneficial interest in lands or houses to the amount of 107., in the nature of a freehold or copyhold, should be entitled to vote; and that leaseholders, in possession, with a written lease for nineteen or any greater number of years to the value of 507. should be also entitled to vote-nineteen years being the usual time for which leases are granted in Scotland. Various changes were also proposed in the arrangement and distribution of the county and borough representation, generally analogous to those for England. The right of voting in the boroughs and towns was to be founded on the principle of property, arising from the occupation of houses rented, or rated to taxes, at not less than 107. a year. The forty-five members given by the Act of Union were to be increased to fifty, and the election for the burghs was to be taken out of the hands of delegates appointed by self-elected corporations, and vested formally in the possessors of houses rated at ten pounds. There can be no doubt of the truth of the observation made by the Duke of Wellington on the discussion of the measure," that the proposed measure proceeded upon a total and complete revolution of the state of representation in that country." As to IRELAND, the changes proposed in the representation were to be much simpler than those proposed for England and Scotland. The representation had been entirely remodelled at the time of the Union; and that country, consequently, did not exhibit those instances of small decayed boroughs returning members, which disfigured the English representation. In many of the boroughs, however, the franchise was held by only a small number of persons, not entitled by either property, or situation, to return the representatives; and it was proposed that the inhabitants should have the same right of electing as in England, though to be differently ascertained. That right was to be derived from property or occupancy to the value of 107. per annum; and it was considered that this enlargement of the franchise would confer a great boon on Ireland. The only |