Burt A. The Evolution of the British Empire and Commonwealth From the American Revolution
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Overthrow
of
the
Landed
Oligarchy
175
manufacturers
whose
machinery
they
smashed. The
popular
unrest
was inflamed
by
rabble
rousers
of
all
kinds,
from
dirty
scoundrels
to
simple
cranks,
who
were
all
lumped
together
as
Radicals
a
new name
then
coming
into
common
use.
Though
it
later
gained respectability
as
a
label
for
those
who
sought
radical
reform,
at
this time it
was
synony-
mous
with
rebels.
Sir
Walter
Scott,
for
example, regularly
referred to
rebels
in
arms
as
Radicals.
The
Tories were as
filled
with
alarm as
the
people
were with
misery.
Parliamentary
committees
investigated,
and
they reported
the
existence
of
a
widespread
conspiracy
to
destroy
government
and
to
plunder
property,
with
the
result
that
severe
legislation
was
passed
to crush
the
incipient
revolution,
which
in
those
days
meant
anarchy.
The
Habeas
Corpus
Act
was
suspended,
public
meetings
were
prohibited except
when
called
by
the
authorities,
and the
magistrates
were
given summary
powers.
Still the
disturbances
continued,
rising
and
falling
with
the
fluctuation
of
economic
conditions;
the
panicky
government,
unable
to read
this clear
sign
of
what
was
the root
of
the
trouble,
continued
to
strike at a
phantom
and hit
the
people.
One of
the
most
odious
features of the
odious
system
of
repression
was the
government's
employment
of
stool
pigeons,
at
least one of whom the
infamous
"Oliver
the
Spy"
helped
to
stir
up
popular
risings.
The
only
remedial
measure
adopted
was
the
vote of a
million
pounds
for
new
churches,
in
the
belief that
society
was
breaking
down
for lack
of sufficient
religious
education.
The
worst
incident
in
these
troubled
years
was
Peterloo
in
1819,
and it is
most
interesting
as a
revelation of how
British
tradition was
drawing
the
popular
movement
in the
right
direction
to
get represen-
tation
in
parliament
for the
people.
Manchester,
being
one
of
the
new
industrial
towns,
had not a seat
in the old
unreformed
parliament;
and
to
protest
against
this
injustice
a
crowd of some
fifty
thousand assem-
bled in St. Peter's
Field,
an
open
space
on the
outskirts
of the
town.
The
magistrates,
who
had forbidden
the
meeting,
used
cavalry
to
dis-
perse
it,
with
the result that half a
dozen
people
were
killed
and
half a
hundred wounded. This
"Manchester massacre"
of
Peterloo,
as the
field then
came
to
be called to
bring
out the
shameful
contrast to
glorious
Waterloo,
gave
an immense
stimulus
to
the
cause
of
parlia-
mentary
reform as the
way
to
remedy
the ills
of the
nation.
British
tradition also restrained the
government
from
going
to the
extremes that were
only
too common on the continent.
The
freedom of
public
meeting
might
be
suppressed,
but
only by
temporary legislation.
176
CHAPTER
ELEVEN:
Freedom o
speech
and
freedom
of
the
press
were too sacred
to
be
taken
away,
even
temporarily.
And
no
one
dared
to
question
two
features
of
English
law
that
preserved
the freedom
of
the individual.
One
was
the
principle
that
a
man is
presumed
to be
innocent
until
he
is
proven
guilty
the
very
opposite
of
what
prevailed
on
the
continent.
The
other,
of
course,
was the
right
to
trial
by jury.
Nevertheless,
the
country
was
in a bad
way
as
long
as
the
reactionary
Tories
ruled
parliament.
The
Whigs,
also
an aristocratic
body,
were
in
a
hopeless
position,
being
divided
between
those who favored
repres-
sion,
which discredited
them
with the
masses,
and those
who
openly
sympathized
with
the
masses,
which
discredited them
with
all
others.
Another
tragic
twist
in this twisted
time was the attitude
of
the
new
capitalist
class,
the
industrial
and
commercial leaders.
Their
economic
power
was
eclipsing
that
of
the
landed
class,
and
yet they
were
excluded
from
political
power by
the
antiquated
representative
system.
Though
this
was a condition
they
could not
long
tolerate,
they
shrank
from
attacking
it
as
long
as the radical movement seemed to threaten
all
property,
for
property
has a
marvelous
way
of
guiding
men's
political
principles.
The nation's
confidence
in
its institutions
was
seriously
shaken,
and
the
spirit
of revolution was in the air. Instead of
being
the
protector
of
the
people,
government
was
appearing
to be the
enemy
of the
people;
and
the
most
ancient
institution of
all,
the
one around
which
all
others
were
gathered,
had ceased to
command
respect.
The
king
who
had
lost
his colonies had
since
lost his
sight,
his
hearing,
and his
mind.
From
1810,
George
III
had
been a
hopeless
lunatic. The
Prince of
Wales,
who
acted as
regent
until
he succeeded to
the throne as
George
IV in
1820,
was
a man
whose character
was as mean as his morals were
notoriously
loose.
His wife had left
him,
and their
only
child,
a
gentle princess
to
whose succession
people
looked forward
with
hope,
died in 1817.
His
six
younger
brothers were such
objectionable
creatures,
none of whom
had
legitimate
issue
until
Princess
Victoria was
born to the
Duke
of
Kent
in
1819,
that
many
thinking
Englishmen
anticipated
the
early
extinction of the
monarchy;
and this
might very
well have
happened
if the
new
princess
had
not
lived to
rehabilitate the
institution.
But the
days
of the
old
Tory
government
were
numbered. It
never
recovered from the
damage
it suffered at
Peterloo in 1819.
It
suffered
more on
the
death
of the
mad
king
in
1820,
for
it
then
became
involved
in
a
mad
scheme
to
satisfy
the
new
king's
demand
for
a
divorce.
The
necessary
act
of
parliament
could
not
be
passed
because
the
majority
Overthrow
of
the
Landed
Oligarchy
177
were
frightened
by
a
tremendous
flame
of
national
anger
against
such
an
unjust
proceeding.
Though
the
evidence
against
the
queen
looked
bad,
everyone
knew
that
her
husband
was much worse. All decent
people
were
disgusted
with
the
king,
who soon
retired from
public
view;
and the
prestige
of
the
government
was
seriously
impaired,
while
that
of the
Whigs,
who
had
stoutly
opposed
the
divorce,
rose consider-
ably.
In the next
year
Napoleon
died,
and with him
the
lingering
fear
that
he
might
again
escape
to
turn
the
Old World
upside
down. Mean-
while trade had
been
picking up
and the
price
of
bread
had been
drop-
ping,
with
the
result
that
the
epidemic
of
popular
disturbances
disappeared.
Reaction
was no
longer
possible.
It ended
in
1822,
with a
reorgani-
zation
of the
government
that
gave
the
upper
hand to
progressive
Tories.
Though
opposed
to
parliamentary
reform,
they
believed
the
only
way
to
preserve
the
political
ascendancy
of the
landed
class was to
follow a
liberal
and
reforming policy.
The new
leaders,
instead
of
belonging
to the
old
aristocracy, represented
the
rising
well-to-do
class.
This was
reflected
in
the fact that
now
nearly
half
the
cabinet,
includ-
ing
its most
influential
members,
sat in the House
of
Commons,
where-
as
in 1815
three
quarters
had been in the
House
of Lords.
It
is
also
interesting
to observe that the
Whig
opposition
was shrewd
enough
not
to
attack
the
new
Tory
program
but to
encourage
it even to the extent
of
offering
really
helpful
suggestions.
One
of
the
first
of
the
Tory
reforms was to
sweep
away
the whole
system
of
government espionage.
This
was followed
by
a
reform of
the
criminal law to
purge
it of its
savage
harshness,
which
had often led
juries
to shut their
eyes
to undoubted evidence of
guilt.
For over
a
hundred crimes
including
picking
a
pocket
of such
a
small
amount as
a
shilling
the death
penalty
was
abolished.
Sir Robert
Peel,
who
as
home
secretary
was
responsible
for this
doubly
welcome
change,
also
inaugurated
the
modern
police
system.
This civilian
force,
armed with
only
batons,
soon became so
popular
that
its
members
were
endearingly
called
after the statesman who founded
it,
and to
this
day
a
policeman
in Britain is known
as
a
"bobby."
Other memorable
reforms
of the
Tory ministry
included the
repeal
of the
unjust
combination
laws,
and
a
number of enactments
that
gave
new
liberty
to
trade. Some
of the
worst
rigidities
of
the
navigation
laws
disappeared,
and
the
old colonial
system
was
liberalized,
as
we
shall see
in a later
chapter.
Greater
still
was
the
overhauling
of
the
fiscal
system,
which was
distinctly
in
the
direction
of
free trade. Duties on
raw
178
CHAPTER
ELEVEN:
materials,
which
had
been
burdensome
to
industry,
were
nearly
elimi-
nated;
and
the
new
scale
on
other
articles
ran
from
1
5
to
30
per
cent,
in
place
of
the
old
one
that
ran
from
40
to
180
per
cent,
and
with
a
duty
of
20
per
cent
on
nonenumerated
articles
in
place
of
the
old 50
per
cent.
This
reform
was
helped
through
the
House
of
Commons
by
an
anecdote
of
a
gentleman
who
imported
a
mummy
from
Egypt
and
had
to
pay
200
on it
because
the
customs
officers,
after
long
deliberation,
found
that
such
"remains
of
mortality,
muscles
and
sinews,
pickled
and
preserved
three
thousand
years
ago,
could
not
be
deemed
a
raw
mate-
rial/'
The
reforming
Tories
even
tried
to
amend
the
Corn
Law
when
it
again
pinched
the
people,
but
this
was
going
too far
and
they
failed.
Instead
of
saving
the
Tory party,
reform
wrecked
it.
The
decisive
issue
was
Catholic
Emancipation.
Back
in
the
sixteenth
and seven-
teenth
centurieTa
whol?
train
of
tragic
circumstances
had
taught
the
English
public
to
identify
Roman
Catholicism
with
tyranny
and
the
foreign
foe,
with
the
result
that
parliament
then
passed
severe
legisla-
tion
against
all
members
of
that
faith.
The
worst
disabilities
imposed
by
these
old
penal
laws
had
gone,
but
Roman
Catholics
were still dis-
qualified
by
law
from
sitting
in
parliament,
from
holding
any
office,
and
even
from
voting,
with
the
single
exception
that
in
Ireland
they
had
been
allowed
to vote
since
1793.
The
most
progressive
Tories
wanted
to end
this
hoary
injustice
but
found
the
great
majority
of the
party
hysterically
opposed
to
any
such
change;
and
a
reactionary Tory
ministry
was
organized
under
the
Duke
of
Wellington,
whose
great
military
reputation
had
thrust
him
into
a
political
position
for which
he
was
quite
unfitted.
Then
a sudden
Irish
crisis,
to be
noted
in a
later
chapter,
convinced
him
that there
would
be
civil
war
in
Ireland unless
Roman
Catholics
got
political
equality
at
once,
and
he
jammed
through
parliament
the
very
measure
that
his
government
was formed
to
pre-
vent.
His
followers
never
forgave
him,
and
their
fury
finished the old
party.
Their
thirst
for
revenge
was
not slaked
until
the
following
year,
1830,
when
they
helped
to
turn him
out of
office
and
to
bring
their old
political
foes,
the
Whigs,
into
power.
But
their
spiteful
votes
only
hastened
a
change
of
government
that a much
greater
question
was
making
inevitable.
The
question
of
the reform of
parliament
itself
was
throwing
the
country
into
a
political
convulsion,
the like of
which it never
experi-
enced
again
and
had not
seen
since
the
days
of Oliver
Cromwell,
when
Royalists
and
Roundheads
fought
their civil
wars.
A
glance
at the
representative
system,
which had
long
ceased
to
represent,
will
suffice
to show
the
need for drastic
reform.
Overthrow
of
the
Landed
Oligarchy
1 79
Of
658
members of
the
House of
Commons,
little more
than a
quar-
ter
were
elected
by
independent
constituencies
the
counties and
some
old
towns
and
even
there
the
electorate
was
usually very
restricted,
The
other
members,
the
great
majority,
held
borough
seats that in
by-
gone
centuries
had
been
created
by
the
Crown,
a
practice
that had been
dead
for a
century
and a
half.
By
one
means
or
another,
the
filling
of
these seats had
fallen
into
the
hands
of
wealthy
landowners.
One
great
nobleman,
for
example,
now
had
eleven
seats
at
his
disposal.
This
system explains
why
ambitious
young
men
of
good
connection,
such
as
the
younger
Pitt,
could
enter
Parliament
when
they
turned
twenty-one;
and
why
certain
wealthy
interests,
such as
the
West
Indian
planters,
could
buy
their
way
in.
Meanwhile
the new
industrial
population,
centered
chiefly
in
the
Midlands
and
the
North,
the new
England
that
had
arisen
and was
rapidly
growing,
had no
representation
at
all.
The
difficulty
in
the
way
of
parliamentary
reform was
that
this
anti-
quated
system
would have
to be
abolished
by
the
very
men to
whom
it
gave
control of the
sovereign
parliament.
In other
words,
the
ruling
oligarchy
would have
to
vote
for their
own overthrow.
Impossible
as
this
might
seem,
it was
precisely
what
they
did.
But
why
did
they
do
it? The answer
lies
in
a
shifting
of fears.
In
place
of the
old fear that
had
blocked
reform because
it meant
revolution,
a
new fear
had
arisen,
a
fear that
urged
reform
as
the
only
alternative to revolution.
The
reason
for this
was the
state of
the
coun-
try.
Trade was
again
bad,
and there
was a
crop
failure in 1829.
Un-
employment
was
up,
wages
were
down,
and bread was
dear.
Once
more
the
popular misery
burst forth
in
popular
disturbances.
Revolu-
tion was in the air.
Radical
leaders
were
shouting
for all
sorts of
reforms to cure the
distress of the
nation from
free trade
and
factory
acts
to
playing
with the
currency
and
abolishing
capitalism.
But
how-
ever
much
they
differed
on
these
things, they
all
agreed
that
nothing
effective could
be done
without a reform
of
parliament.
Therefore the
national discontent was focused
upon
this as its own
immediate
object.
Startling
news
from across the
Channel
in
the
summer of
1830
.greatly
stimulated
the
seething
unrest. In
July
a
revolution
broke
out
in the
French
capital,
and the
reactionary
government
of
the
restored
Bourbons
fell like a house of
cards,
blown
down
by
the
workmen
of
Paris
in
only
two
days
of
street
fighting.
This
was
a
powerful
demon-
stration
of how futile
it
was to resist
a
determined
people.
It
gave
vast
encouragement
to workmen
in
England
and
a
solemn
warning
to
other
classes. With
the
warning
also
came
comforting
reassurance,
for this
new French
revolution
was
quite
different
from
the
old
one.
It
quickly
180
CHAPTER
ELEVEN:
ended with the
substitution of
a
popular
king
for an
unpopular
one,
and the
rule
of
the
bourgeoisie
for
that of
the
old
aristocracy.
Such
was
the
background
that
explains
why
one
section
of the British
ruling
class
espoused
the
popular
cause
and
made
it
triumph
over
the
other
section.
The
final and decisive
struggle,
therefore,
was not between
the
govern-
ment
and
the
people,
nor between
classes.
It was between
members
of
the same
class,
the
class that
enjoyed
a
monopoly
of
political
power.
The
struggle
began
in
the
summer
of
1830,
when a
general
election
was
held under the influence
of
the
July
revolution
in
France.
The
Whigs,
who
had
long
flirted
with
parliamentary
reform,
were
at
last
definitely
pledged
to it.
There
were
doubts of
how far
they
were
willing
to
go
with
it,
for
they
were no
less
aristocratic
than
the
Tories,
being
likewise
great
landowners
and
possessors
of
boroughs.
There were
also
doubts
if
they
would
be able
to
do
anything
with
it,
for
the
House
of
Lords
was
strongly against
them,
and in
the new
House
of
Commons,
where
there
were
quite
a
number of
independent
members,
they
could
not count on a
majority.
When
parliament
met in the
autumn,
the
balance in
the
lower
chamber was soon
upset
by
a few
words
spoken
in the
upper.
Replying
to Earl
Grey,
who
pled
for
reform,
the Duke
of
Wellington
roundly
denounced
it
in
any shape
or
form,
to
the
amazement of
his
listeners.
On
resuming
his
seat,
he
asked
a
neighboring
peer,
"I
have
not
said
too
much,
have I?" and
got
the
reply,
"You have
announced
the
fall
of
your
own
government,
that is
all."
In
a
few
days
an
adverse
vote
in
the Commons
forced
his
resignation,
and
Grey
succeeded him.
In
forming
his
government,
the
new
prime
minister
had as
his
main
object
the
passage
of a reform
bill
that
would
restore
peace
to the
land,
and he
was
joined
by
a
number of
liberal
Tories.
This
new
combina-
tion,
which was
the
beginning
of
the
transformation
of
the
Whig
into
the Liberal
party,
assured the
support
of
a
majority
in
the
Commons
and a
large
minority
in
the
Lords.
1
Grey's
cabinet,
which
included
four
future
prime
ministers,
was
actually
more aristocratic
than
any
Tory
cabinet
before
or after.
With
only
two
exceptions,
the members
were all
peers
or sons
of
peers.
They
1
"The
old
aristocracy
still
produced
very
able
men,
and
most
of the able
aristocrats
were reformers.
It
is
remarkable
that
the
peers
of
old
creation were about
equally
divided
on the Reform
Bill;
and
the
dissentient
majority
of
the
Upper
House was
due
to the
bishops
and
to
Pitt's,
lavish creations
of
Tory
partisans
and
borough-owners."
G.
M.
Trevelyan,
British
History
in
the
Nineteenth
Century
(2nd
ed.;
New
York,
1937),
p.
232.
Overthrow
of
the
Landed
Oligarchy
181
were
an
unusually
able
and
public-spirited
lot
of
men,
the
best avail-
able;
their
blue
blood
was
of
great
advantage
in
the
performance
of the
task
ahead.
They
could
go
further
along
the
path
of reform
than
could
a less aristocratic
body,
which
would have
encountered more
difficulty
in
persuading
parliament
and
the
king,
whose
support
was
still
recog-
nized
as
necessary.
As
it
was,
the
famous
bill that
revolutionized
the
constitution was
barely
able
to
squeeze
through.
The
Reform
Bill was
drafted
by
a
cabinet
committee
of
which
the
chairman
was
Grey's
son-in-law,
the
Earl of
Durham,
one
of
the wealth-
iest men
in
England,
about
the
ablest in
public
life,
and
notoriously
one of the
most
radical.
He
was the
principal
author of the
measure.
When
it
was
introduced in
the
House
of
Commons in
March
183
1,
by
Lord
John
Russell,
a
younger
son
of the
Duke
of
Bedford,
it
astounded
parliament
and
delighted
the
people.
It was
much
more
drastic
than
had
been
expected.
In
addition
to
providing
for
a
sweeping
redistri-
bution of
seats to fit
the
distribution
of
population,
it
extended the
franchise,
and
what
caused
the
greatest
furore it
abolished all
"nomination"
boroughs
without
any
compensation.
The
Tory
opposi-
tion was
struck
dumb,
and
this
was
fortunate.
Many
government
supporters
were
hesitant
or
hostile,
but before
the
Tories
could
confirm
their
doubts
and
fears,
they
were
converted
by
the
explosion
of
national
enthusiasm.
The
second
reading
was
carried,
amidst
tremendous ex-
citement,
by
a
majority
of
only
one vote in a
House
of
603,
the
largest
number that
had
ever
taken
part
in a
division. A
defeat
in
the
com-
mittee
stage
followed,
and
the fate
of reform
hung
in the
balance.
The
prime
minister
had
to
resign
unless he
could
persuade
the
king
to
grant
him
a
dissolution;
and William
IV,
who
had
succeeded
his
brother in the
previous year,
now
wavered.
Grey
had
convinced him
that the
bill was
aristocratic,
its
purpose
being
to
prevent
more
revolu-
tionary
changes;
but the
rage
of the
Tories and the
rejoicing
of the
Radicals
had shaken this
conviction. What
saved the
bill,
the
govern-
ment,
and
perhaps
the
throne,
was the
majority
of
one
vote that
had
carried
the
second
reading.
It
decided the
king
to
dissolve
parliament
as
Grey
desired.
Throughout
the
land there
was one
unanimous
cry:
'The
Bill,
the whole
Bill,
and
nothing
but the
Bill!"
The
government
won almost
every
open constituency,
and in
September
the
new
House
passed
the
bill
by
a
majority
of over a hundred.
In
October,
on
the
second
reading,
the
House
of Lords
threw it out.
The
leading
newspapers appeared
with
black
borders
in
mourning
for
the bill
that
the Lords had
killed;
and well
might
they
mourn,
for
182
CHAPTER ELEVEN:
the national
anger
was
roused
to
a
dangerous
pitch.
All over the
coun-
try,
riots
broke
out.
The
worst
disturbance
was
in
Bristol,
the
center
of
which
was
destroyed
by
a
mob
that
ran
wild
for
two
days.
In
the
in-
dustrial
north,
workmen
were
arming
and
drilling,
and
through
the
agricultural
south
the
night
sky
was
again
lurid
with
burning
stacks.
A
false
step
on
the
part
of
the
government
might
easily
have
plunged
England
into
anarchy,
but
the
government
picked
its
way carefully.
The
bill
was
modified,
but
not
weakened,
to
meet
certain
criticisms;
and
in
December
183
1
it
was
again
introduced
into
the Commons.
By
March
1832
it
was
ready
for
the
Lords,
where
many opponents
of re-
form
were
by
this
time
less
courageous
in their
defiance
of
the
nation.
The
bill
passed
the
second
reading
with
a small
majority,
but on 7
May
1832
it
was
mutilated
in
committee.
Grey
asked
the
king
to
create
enough
new
peers
at least
fifty,
he
calculated,
were
necessary
to
bring
the
upper
chamber
in
line
with
the
lower.
Only
once
had
this
been
done,
and
that
was
a hundred
and
twenty
years
before.
The
king
refused,
for
he
had
grown
hostile,
and
the
prime
minister
had
to
resign.
The
whole
country
was now
in
an
uproar,
and
a
grave
crisis
was
at hand.
It
was
over
in
a
week.
Welling-
ton
tried
to
form
a
government
but
could
not
get
the
necessary
support
in
the
Commons,
where
no
government
could
carry
on
except
that of
Grey;
therefore
the
king
was
compelled
to
capitulate
by recalling
Grey
and
promising
to
create
the
necessary
number
of
peers.
The
royal
surrender
forced
the Lords'
surrender
without
the
king's
having
to
carry
out
his
promise,
and
the bill
became
law
in
June
1832.
Two
months
later
the last
unreformed
House
of Commons
separated
never
to
meet
again;
for
in December
a
general
election
was
held,
the
third
in three
years,
under
the new
system.
The least
satisfactory part
of
this
great
Reform
Bill
was
the extension
of
the
franchise.
In
the
county
constituencies,
where
only
freeholders
had
been
allowed
to
vote,
copyholders
and
leaseholders
were
added;
but
until
the new voters
gained
the
protection
of
the secret
ballot,
which
was
yet
a
long
way
off,
they
could
be
influenced
by
their land-
lords,
whose
hold
on
the
country
seats was thus
strengthened.
In
the
towns,
the
vote
was
given
to
every
occupant
of
a house or
shop
worth
10 a
year
if
he
paid
certain
rates,
or local
taxes. All
this meant
that
about
half
the
middle
class
and,
with
rare
exceptions,
the whole of
the
working
class,
in
town and
country
alike,
were still
unenfranchised.
Nevertheless,
the mere fact
that
the
franchise,
which had not been
changed
for
centuries,
was
now widened
by
the action
of
parliament
Overthrow
of
the Landed
Oligarchy
183
under
popular pressure
established
a
precedent
that
was to lead
pro-
gressively
to further
widening
until
it
was
completely
democratic;
and
the
fact that half
the
middle
class were left
without
votes was
to
lead
them
to
combine with
the
working
class in
demanding
further reform.
In
short,
the act
of
1832
made
the achievement
of
democracy
possible,
though
this was
only
dimly
perceived
at the time.
The
great
achievement
of this
great
act
was deliberate and
immedi-
ate. It lifted
parliament
from
its
old
and
rotten
foundation
and
set
it
down
on a new
and
solid
foundation. The distribution
of
seats,
which
had
long
since
ceased
to
have
any
relation to the distribution
of
popula-
tion,
was
at last
made
representative.
The
crying
injustice
of
leaving
such
important
places
as
Manchester
and
Birmingham
without
any
members in
parliament
was
now ended. Industrial
England
was
ad-
mitted
to the
national
legislature.
More
revolutionary
was
the
change
the act made
in
the
method
by
which
the
great majority
of the House of Commons
were
elected.
It
had been
a shameful farce. Now it was
a
genuine
reality.
Not
a
borough
survived
that
did not
have,
or
was
not
given
a
fairly
numerous
electorate.
Now
every constituency
was
open,
not
just
one
in about
four;
and this
made
a
world of
difference,
not
in
the
type
of
man
who
sat
in the House of
Commons,
but in the
political
control
of
that
House,
in
the
ultimate seat
of
power.
Instead
of
some
485
out
of
658 members
of
the
House
being
put
there
by
270
wealthy
landlords,
all
the
members
were now
chosen
by
popular
election.
The
power
that had
been
mon-
opolized
by
a little
oligarchy
within the landed
class
was transferred
to
the
whole landed
class
and half
the
middle class.
In
practice,
this
meant
that
the control
of the
House
of
Commons,
though
it was still
largely
composed
of
country gentlemen,
passed
into the
hands
of
mid-
dle
class
voters
of
quite
moderate
means,
for
they
were
now the
great
majority
of
the
electorate.
Most
revolutionary,
also,
were
certain
implications
in the act
and in
the
circumstances
of
its
passage.
The
king
then lost
the
power
to
in-
fluence
the
composition
and the
policy
of
the
government,
a
power
that
he
had
exercised
through
the
members
of
the
fallen
oligarchy.
The
House
of Lords
lost
power
too.
Not
only
were
some
145
peers deprived
of
the
right
to
nominate
a
much
larger
number
of
the House of Com-
mons,
but
the manner
in
which
the
act
was
passed permanently
shifted
the balance
between
the
two
chambers.
Thenceforth
the
upper
house
was
definitely
subordinate
to the
lower,
and
this
subordination
became
more
pronounced
as
the
lower
house
became
more
representative.
184
CHAPTER
ELEVEN
Moreover,
the
whole
concept
of
government
and its
functions
was
profoundly
changed.
The
representative
principle
took a
great
leap
forward in
1832,
and
this
upset
the
prevailing
notion of
what
was
the
purpose
of
government.
From
being
merely
the
preservation
of
law
and
order,
a
negative
concept
that
kept government
activities
down
to
a
bare
minimum,
it
gradually
became
social
justice,
a
positive
concept
that
has
progressively
extended and
intensified the
functions
of
government.
Nor
should we
forget
that
the act
was
not
an
end
in
itself.
It
was
a
revolutionary change
designed
to clear the
way
for
further
revolution-
ary
changes,
and this is
precisely
what
it
did.
TJie
reform
of
parliament
burst the
dikes
and let loose
a
spate
of reforms
such
as
the
country
had
never
seen.