A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy

by J. Franck Bright

The Tamworth Manifesto. Jan. 1835.

With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons, for the approach of the Conservatives to power had combined Whigs and Radicals in opposition. The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity of declaring his policy in what is known as the Tamworth Manifesto. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question, and promised to carry out its intentions as far as they consisted in a wise and careful improvement of old institutions. As to the other questions then at issue he would support the inquiry into the state of corporations which the late ministry had set on foot, and wished, as his predecessors had done, to relieve Dissenters from the Church rates and from all restrictions on their marriages; but upon the Irish Church, and upon admission of Dissenters to the universities, his mind was unchanged. He continued to object to the appropriation of Church revenues to secular purposes and to granting degrees to Dissenters. As to whether any reform was required in the organization of the English Church, his mind, he said, was not yet made up. The tone of this Manifesto was very different from that of the old Tory party, and shows that the Reform Bill had really done its work, that the country had entered upon a new era, when the lines between parties would be less coarsely drawn, when obstinate obstruction to all reform would be impossible, and the points at issue confined chiefly to the time, manner, and degree, in which reforms should be carried out. But it is impossible in a country where party government has once taken root that unprejudiced discussion of measures should become prevalent. The general principles of the men by whom the measures are suggested are, and must be, invariably taken into consideration, and the one party will not fail to feel mistrust of the other even though the plans suggested are as good, or better, than their own, and the contest between the rival parties for the Government of the country will not cease. Thus, in spite of Peel's moderation, the whole body of the Liberals were determined to oppose the new Government to the utmost, and not to trust the administration in the hands of one who had always represented the Tories, and who New Parliament. Feb. 19, 1835. still received the support even of the extreme members of that party. The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favourable to the existing Government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.

Overthrow of Peel's ministry. April 8, 1835.

From the very first Peel held office upon suffrance; the only question was how to bring matters to a point, as the minister refused to accept as his dismissal anything but a direct vote of want of confidence. Meanwhile his temper and judgment daily increased the admiration which the public began to feel for him. He took up several of the late ministers' measures, and carried them through where they themselves had failed. A more complete liberty granted to the Dissenters with regard to their marriages won their approbation; and though he could not complete this measure, he was able on going out of office to leave it in the hands of Lord John Russell, by whom it was settled upon the principle that the State was only interested in the civil contract, while churches and sects were at liberty to add what religious ceremonies they liked. He introduced a measure for the voluntary commutation of tithes, which seemed to be successful, re-appointed all the committees of the preceding session for examining abuses, and continued with good effect the ecclesiastical commission for the organization of the arrangements of the Church. The common charge against him was that he was purloining the measures of his adversaries. However, although he had to stand constantly on the defensive, there appeared no sufficient grounds for a vote of want of confidence. At last, on the 30th of March, Lord John Russell brought the matter to a crisis by proposing as a sort of test question that the House should resolve itself into committee to consider the state of the Irish Church, with the intention of applying any surplus revenues which might be found to general education, without distinction of religion. In other words, he reintroduced the old appropriation clause. It is to be borne in mind that the Whigs themselves had abandoned that clause, that they had voted against it in the case of Mr. Ward's measure, and that they afterwards entirely rejected it. But for the time it served the party purpose. Although Peel declared, and declared rightly, that the feeling of England was against it, the votes of the Scotch and Irish members carried the day, and the ministry was beaten on the 3rd of April by a majority of thirty-three. On the 8th Sir Robert Peel announced his resignation.

The Whigs were thus again triumphant. The history of their weakness and their difficulties belong to a period of history which lies beyond the limits of this work. But one measure which they brought to a satisfactory conclusion requires mention as completing in one very important point the work of the Reform Bill. This was the reform of corporations. With this exception it would be impossible to describe the course of their measures without following them so far that they become a part rather of present politics than of past history. But this reform to which they at once pledged themselves was scarcely less important for the purification of local government than the Reform Bill itself had been with regard to the central Legislature.

On the extension of the franchise on the passing of the Reform Bill, attention had been drawn to the fact that in a great number of corporate towns many of the electors who had the right to join in Condition of municipal corporations. choosing members for Parliament had no voice at all in the management of their own local affairs. It was clearly for the interest of the reform party to remove this abuse, and to secure still stronger support from the middle class of citizens among whom their strength already lay. In 1833 a commission of ten members had been issued to inquire into the condition of the corporations of England and Wales. Nominated during the first days of the popular triumph, and with a party object, it was natural that the commissioners should be drawn entirely from the ranks of the reformers. Their report was therefore open to the charge of onesidedness, but it brought a state of things to light which thoroughly justified the Government in introducing a great measure of reform. The constitution, originally popular, of the English boroughs had in lapse of time been completely altered. The rights of citizenship, originally belonging to all fully qualified freemen residing within the borough, had been gradually confined to a small class technically spoken of as the Freemen, many of whom were so decayed as not only to pay no rates, but in some cases to be themselves dependent on the poor rates. The government of the town and administration of the corporate property, and, before the Reform Bill, the election of parliamentary representatives, had in some instances fallen into the hands of an exclusive council, who had the right of filling up the vacancies in its own numbers. A variety of circumstances had contributed to these changes. Birth, marriage, apprenticeship, or membership of some guild, originally tests of residence, had after a time acted so as to exclude large numbers of residents from the ranks of the freemen. Wealth introduced a division of classes, and unchecked encroachment on the part of the wealthy had gone still further to exclude many from their rights. Political reasons had induced the Crown to seek the support of the boroughs in Parliament, and, especially in the time of the Tudors, new charters had been granted which placed the local government entirely in the hands of self-elected councils, much more easily handled for political purposes than widespread constituencies. The same process had been continued by the Stuarts. James II. even went further, and his attempt to nominate corporations of boroughs was not the least of the causes of the Revolution. Though the project failed, the close corporation system was continued both by Whigs and Tories, who found their political advantage in it. This perversion of municipal arrangements for political purposes had been attended with many practical abuses. In the first place, the corporations, which had in their hands the government of large and important towns, by no means represented the property, intelligence, or population of those towns. Thus in Ipswich, of 2000 ratepayers only 287 belonged to the corporation. At Cambridge, out of 20,000 inhabitants, only 118 were freemen, while of the property, which was valued at £25,000, only £2100 was the property of freemen. In Norwich, £25,500 was the value of the rated property, £18,200 of this belonged to those who were not freemen. Again, these self-elected governors constantly misappropriated the corporate funds, which, as the gross income of the corporations was £366,000, was a matter of considerable importance; the corporate offices were filled by favour, the charities employed for the purchase of votes, and large sums spent upon feasting and other useless shows, while the townsmen at large were rated for all local purposes. The distribution of these rates again was in the hands of the same people who exacted them, and no account of how they were employed could be obtained. To cure this general state of corruption was the intention of the new measure.

The Municipal Reform Bill. Sept. 7, 1835.

The measure included 178 boroughs. It began by marking out their boundaries, where possible in accordance with the boundaries of the electoral borough. The object of the Bill was not to centralize, but on the contrary to improve local administration; it was not therefore proposed to withdraw business from the hands of the corporation, with the exception of the administration of charities and church funds, which were respectively placed in the hands of trustees named by the Lord Chancellor and of the ecclesiastical commissioners. It was the nature of the corporation itself which was to be improved. In accordance with the principle of the Whig party, the new governing bodies were to be elected by constituencies of considerable breadth, but confined to the middle classes. A three years' residence and payment of the poor and borough rates was to be the qualification of an elector. By them the new governing body, called the town council, was chosen, which together with the constituency formed the corporation. To committees of the town council were intrusted the administration of the various branches of local government. To the whole body collectively was given the management of the borough funds, the proper expenditure of which was to be guaranteed by a publication of the accounts, properly audited by auditors not themselves town councillors. The Government reserved in its own hand the right of appointing justices of the peace and paid magistrates when required. Though the change was sweeping, and seemed somewhat to affect the rights of property, the abuses were so glaring that the Bill easily passed the Lower House. In the Lords several amendments were passed against the Government, especially one retaining their old privilege to existing freemen, but somewhat to the disappointment of the Tories, the Commons accepted the amendment, and the Bill was passed on the 7th of September.

Foreign diplomacy of Palmerston.

So absorbing had been the interest of domestic questions that foreign affairs had been somewhat disregarded. Yet from time to time they had come before the public attention, and were in themselves of considerable importance. They had fallen chiefly into the hands of Lord Palmerston, a disciple of Canning's, and therefore by principle an upholder of peace and of the doctrine of non-intervention, but inspired also as his master had been with an admiration and love for the institutions of constitutional monarchy, which led him into a line of conduct which it is difficult to harmonize with his professed principles. The most striking characteristic of our foreign policy in his hands was the close apparent union with France in opposition to the three Eastern powers, which Palmerston still regarded as tainted with the old principle of the Holy Alliance, and of one of which, namely Russia, he was sensitively mistrustful on all points connected with the policy of the East of Europe. The sympathy between England and France was inevitable. In some sense the kings of the two countries were both citizen kings, the great change which had taken place in England was the counterpart of the Revolution of July. In both countries it was the middle class which had just obtained the predominance. In both countries there was the same character of government, and both expressed the same desire for peace. At the same time the questions which agitated Western Europe were all more or less connected with the establishment of that form of government which both countries admired.