Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/330

308 tracts and newspapers during this period have been pre served. Petitions to parliament were multiplied in order to strengthen the hands of the popular leaders. Clamorous meetings were held to stimulate or overawe parliament. Such methods, restrained after the Restoration, have been revived in later times, and now form part of the acknow ledged system of parliamentary government. Parliament after the Restoration. On the restoration of Charles II. parliament was at once restored to its old constitution, and its sittings were revived as if they had suffered no interruption. No outward change had been effected by the late revolution ; but that a stronger spirit of resistance to abuses of prerogative had been aroused was soon to be disclosed in the deposition of James II. and the "glorious revolution " of 1688. At this time the full rights of parliament were explicitly declared, and securities taken for the maintenance of public liberties. The theory of a constitutional monarchy and a free parliament was established ; but after two revolutions it is curious to observe the indirect methods by which the commons were henceforth kept in subjection to the crown and the terri torial aristocracy. The representation had long become ! an illusion. The knights of the shire were the nominees of nobles and great landowners ; the borough members were returned by the crown, by noble patrons, or close corporations ; even the representation of cities, with greater pretensions to independence, was controlled by bribery. Nor were rulers content with their control of the repre sentation, but, after the Restoration, the infamous system of bribing the members themselves became a recognized instrument of administration. The country gentlemen were not less attached to the principles of rational liberty than their fathers, and would have resisted further encroachments of prerogative ; but they were satisfied with the Revolution settlement and the remedial laws of William III., and no new issue had yet arisen to awaken opposi tion. Accordingly, they ranged themselves with one or other of the political parties into which parliament was now beginning to be divided, and bore their part in the more measured strifes of the 18th century. From the Revolution till the reign of George III. the effective power of the state was wielded by the crown, the church, and the territorial aristocracy ; but the influence of public opinion since the stirring events of the 17th century had greatly increased. Both parties were constrained to defer to it ; and, notwithstanding the flagrant defects in the representation, parliament generally kept itself in accord with the general sentiments of the country. Union of Scotland. On the union of Scotland in 1707, important changes were made in the constitution of parlia ment. The House of Lords was reinforced by the addition of sixteen peers, representing the peerage of Scotland, and elected every parliament ; and the Scottish peers, as a body, were admitted to all the privileges of peerage, except the right of sitting in parliament, or upon the trial of peers. No prerogative, however, was given to the crown to create new peerages after the Union ; and, while they are distinguished by their antiquity, their number is consequently decreasing. To the House of Commons were assigned forty-five members, representing the shires and burghs of Scotland. Parliament under George III. With the reign of George III. there opened a new period in the history of parliament. Agitation in its various forms, an active and aggressive press, public meetings and political associations, the free use of the right of petition, and a turbulent spirit among the people seriously changed the relations of parliament to the country. And the publication of debates, which was fully established in 1771, at once increased the direct responsibility of parliament to the people, and ultimately brought about other results, to which we shall presently advert. Union of Ireland. In this reign another important change was effected in the constitution of parliament. Upon the union with Ireland, in 1801, four Irish bishops were added to the lords spiritual, who sat by rotation of sessions, and represented the episcopal body of the Church of Ireland. But those bishops were deprived of their seats in parliament in 1869, on the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Twenty-eight representative peers, elected for life by the peerage of Ireland, were admitted to the House of Lords. All the Irish peers were al-o entitled to the privilege of peerage. In two particulars the Irish peerage was treated in a different manner from the peerage of Scotland. The crown was empowered to create a new Irish peerage whenever three Irish peerages in existence at the time of the L T nion have become extinct, or when the number of Irish peers, exclusive of those holding peerages of the United Kingdom, has been reduced to one hundred. And, further, Irish peers were permitted to sit in the House of Commons for any place in Great Britain, forfeiting, however, the privilege of peerage while sitting in the Lower House. The exped iency of both these provisions has often been called in question. At the same time one hundred representatives of Ireland were added to the House of Commons. This addition raised the number of members to six hundred and fifty-eight. Parliament now became the parliament of the United Kingdom, and high hopes were entertained of a salutary fusion of diverse nationalities into a single assembly ; but these hopes have scarcely been realized, and the relations of the Irish people to Great Britain and the imperial government continue to be a source of the gravest embarrassment and danger. Schemes for Improving the Representation. By the union of Scotland and Ireland, the electoral abuses of those countries were combined with those of England. Notwith standing a defective representation, however, parliament generally sustained its position as fairly embodying the political sentiments of its time. Public opinion had been awakened, and could not safely be ignored by any party in the state. Under a narrow and corrupt electoral system, the ablest men in the country found an entrance into the House of Commons ; and their rivalry and ambition ensured the acceptance of popular principles and the pass ing of many remedial measures. As society expanded, and new classes were called into existence, the pressure of public opinion upon the legislature was assuming a more decisive character. The grave defects of the representation were notorious, and some minor electoral abuses had been from time to time corrected. But the fundamental evils, nomination boroughs, limited rights of election, the sale of seats in parliament, the prevalence of bribery, and the enormous expense of elections, though constantly exposed, long held their ground against all assailants. So far back as 1770 Lord Chatham had denounced these flagrant abuses. " Before the end of this century," he said, " either the parliament will reform itself from within, or be reformed with a vengeance from without." In 1782, and again in 1783 and 1785, his distinguished son, William Pitt, condemned the abuses of the representation, and proposed schemes of parliamentary reform. In 1793 Mr Grey (afterwards Earl Grey) submitted a motion on the same subject ; but the excesses of the French Revolution, political troubles at home, and exhausting wars abroad discouraged the supporters of reform for many years. Under more favourable conditions the question assumed greater proportions. Lord John Russell especially distin guished himself in 1820, and in several succeeding years,