Reform Movement

The war at first was popular ; prosecutions for sedition fol lowed, and the judiciary, especially in Scotland, where a great awakening of political activity had followed the French Revolu tion, were ready to strain the law of treason and to lay it down from the Bench that all criticism of existing institutions was cal culated to bring the Government into contempt, and was, there fore, seditious treason. The proposal to hold at Edinburgh a Brit ish convention for the discussion of reform whetted the panic of the Government and the convention was dissolved. The trials and condemnation of "the Scottish martyrs," such as Tytler, Stewart, Callender, Muir, Palmer, Margarot, Gerrald, Watt and Downie, and, in England, of Frend, Frost, Eaton and Winter botbam, make a soiled page in the history of British law. Thanks to Erskine's splendid advocacy, the acquittal of Hardy and Horne Tooke brought some sanity into the supercharged atmosphere of indiscriminate terror and proscription. But until 1799 liberty of opinion ceased to exist in Great Britain, and in this valley of black shadows the numerous political societies, the chief of which were The London Corresponding Society and the Society of United Scotsmen, withered at the roots and were easily and finally sup pressed by governmental action (1794-98). There would have been general and resentful astonishment could the memorial to "the Scottish Martyrs," on the Calton hill, at Edinburgh, erected by public subscription have been foreseen in 180o. Muir's "blas phemous" prediction that "the cause would ultimately prevail" was accepted as a platitude by a reformed and grateful Great Britain in It "prevailed" for three reasons. First, the existing system of parliamentary representation provided its own condemnation when men could once more use their eyes, unblurred by panic and war f ever. Secondly, every five years of the changes made by "the Industrial Revolution" threw up a new and unrepresented popu lation, creating a new wealth which paid three-fourths of the taxes but, under the old system, was not "property" with any political rights. Thirdly, the real Reformers retained their faith, and the new and abhorred creed of "democracy" was being hammered out by powerful minds, and could be proved to have a better scien tific basis for the theory of a reborn, civilized and progressive society than the philosophy of Burke. To the England of 1807 and onwards the old Whig creed of 1688 was not to be regarded as a climax and a terminus, but simply a stage in an inexhaustible development.

The Fifth Phase (1807-1815).

A new point of departure was made in 1807. The Westminster election of that year brought Sir Francis Burdett, a wealthy and ardent Reformer, into the House of Commons to be the fearless and effective champion of the new Radicalism. The indefatigable Cartwright, who lived until 1824 and saw the dawn of the new day, was ready to join with Cob bett, "orator Hunt," Bentham, the stubborn and aristocratic Whig, Coke of Holkam, the "King of Norfolk," of whose respect ability and place in the great gentry there could be no doubt. Reform had, in fact, its increasing adherents alike in the peerage, the intelligentsia and "the people." It only needed now two fur ther acquisitions—the conversion of the official Whig Opposition and a first-rate organizer. The latter was found in Francis Place, the tailor of Charing Cross, whose career and gifts make a fasci nating chapter in the history of British politics. Place, if any man, was the "organizer of victory." The conversion of the Whigs, led by Grey (who had succeeded to the earldom in 1807) was ac complished in 1820, when Lord Russell definitely associated the Whig party with the cause. Russell was ably supported by

Brougham, and even more effectively by the aristocratic Radical, Lambton (later Lord Durham of the "Durham report"). Cart wright, in 1823, predicted that reform would "come suddenly." He did not live to see the passing of the Nonconformist Eman cipation Act in 1828, of Roman Catholic emancipation by a Tory minister in 1829, or the triumphant passage of the Reform Act of 1832, nine years after his prediction. It was, indeed, in the irony of history that the French Revolution of 1789 should have shattered "the cause," and that a second revolution in France in 1830 should convert Great Britain to enthusiastic support of the Whig Reform bill of 1831.

If the political history of France be compared with that of Eng land, it will be seen that the political system of both countries underwent similar changes, and arrived at approximately the same result—the main features of which were a responsible ministry and popular suffrage.

The political organization which was created both in France and in England was based on three essential elements: (I) an elected assembly capable of imposing an effective limitation on the power of the monarch; (2) a council of ministers subject to the control of the assembly; (3) an electorate capable of main taining the control of the nation over the assembly. Three things were thus necessary in order to establish responsible government : the arbitrary power of the king must be restricted by an assembly independent of the court ; the assembly must obtain effective con trol of the Government by transforming the king's ministers into agents for carrying out the will of the assembly; and the electoral system must be such as to ensure that the members of the assem bly were representative of the will of the people.

In France the power of the king was so great that the people, who possessed no institutions through which they could exercise their action, were unable to impose any limitation on his authority. At a period when Great Britain already had a government re sponsible to an elected parliament, France had no political assem bly, no franchise, and no check on the arbitrary power of ministers. The latter were simply the instruments through which the king exercised his personal authority.

It was impossible to modify this system, as had been done in England, by introducing successive improvements in the method of government, because there was no machinery in France through which control could be exercised. The change was made, without transition, by revolution ; the old system of government was de stroyed, and a new one had to be improvised. In devising a new system of government in this way it was of course necessary to proceed according to a general plan and to apply uniform rules of a legal and abstract character, whereas the British constitution was rather in the nature of a body of customs built up by a series of historical precedents. The difference in the method followed in the two countries has generally been attributed to a difference of national temperament, the Englishman being more phlegmatic, conservative and practical, and the Frenchman more passionate, revolutionary and fond of abstract ideas. It may however be more naturally explained by the different conditions under which the transformation of the political system was effected in the two countries. England already possessed an elected parliament which tended by gradual development to establish its control over the ministry ; all that the English had to do was to reform their archaic electoral system. The French nation had to improvise an entire political system, and could only do so by the application of general rules.