outrage. It was not however consistent with the course of parliamentary proceedings, to bring forward the bill at that session, after it had been once rejected, and the ministers consequently turned their attention to the completion of a few bills, which were in a state of forwardness before the prorogation.

On the 20th of October the session was closed by a speech from the throne, which strongly enforced the necessity of a constitutional reform of parliament, and the King expressed his unalterable desire to promote the settlement of that question by such an improvement in the representation as might be found necessary for securing to his people the full enjoyment of their respective rights, which in combination with those of the other orders of the State,' he declared 'were essential to the support of our free constitution.'

This liberal sentiment, in the King's mouth, materially aided the government in preserving public order during the turbulent vacation, which followed the rejection of the reform bill. It evinced the determination of the monarch to yield to the wishes of the nation, and indicated that in the final struggle with the aristocratic party, the King and the people were united in interest, and in sentiment.

At the same time the government took efficient steps for the preservation of the public tranquillity. Special commissions were issued for the trial of the rioters at Bristol, Nottingham, and Derby. The political unions which

had proved very efficient in giving an impulse to the work of reform, having evinced a disposition to give greater unity to their proceedings, by forming a National political union, the government began to fear that a power was growing up in the State, which might ultimately prove too strong for control. The doctrines put forth by an association of the working classes, savored strongly of a Jacobin spirit, and a meeting called by that association in London on the 7th of November to sanction those doctrines, was regarded with such distrust by government, that precautionary measures were taken to put down the meeting, and a deputation from the society was informed by the Home Secretary, that its professed objects were treasonable, and they were advised to abandon it. This was accordingly done, and on the 22d of November, a proclamation was issued declaring these political associations to be unconstitutional and illegal, and commanding all the lieges to abstain from joining them.

This had the effect of checking the growth of the spirit of affiliation and concerted action; but the existing unions continued as before to act in impelling the progress of reform, and to press their peculiar ideas upon the government.

All eyes were now directed to the opening of Parliament, which took place on the 6th of December, 1831. The King delivered the speech in person, it being one of the longest delivered from the throne for many years, and remarkable, also, for furnishing some

real information concerning the state of public affairs. In this document, which will be found in the appendix, page 292, the speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question of reform is enforced, as of great importance to the security of the State, and for the contentment and welfare of the people.

In pursuance of this recommendation Lord John Russell, on the 12th of December, brought forward for the third time, the bill for reforming the House of Commons.

This bill, although somewhat modified from that, which had been rejected, was not less efficient. The principles recognised in the former bill, consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent towns; and the introduction of new electoral qualifications. In determining upon the boroughs to be disfranchised, the census of 1821, was taken as the standard in the former bill, and all whose popula

tion did not reach a certain number were included in the disfranchised list. Since then, a new census had been completed, which although it could not be entirely thrown out of view, was liable to the objection, that in all the boroughs whose population approached the point of disfranchisement, great pains had been taken to swell the enumeration above that point. It was therefore determined to resort to the number of houses, rather than that of inhabitants, as affording less room for imposition. In adopting this test, it was necessary to take into con

sideration, the character, of the houses, as well as their number, so that an inconsiderable place, with the requisite number of houses, might not be represented, to the exclusion of towns of more real importance, but with a smaller number of houses. This was done by referring to the annual amount of assessed taxes in connection with the number of houses of £10 annual value.

Upon these data a new schedule (A) had been formed, containing the boroughs to be disfranchised, which amounted to 56, - the same number that were in the former bill, although some of the boroughs which formerly escaped disfranchisement now took the place in schedule A, of the other, and that by the operation of the new rule were removed to schedule B.

As

Those now proposed to be added to the disfranchised class were Aldborough, Amersham, East Grinstead, Oldhampton, and Saltash, in the place of Midhurst, Petersfield, (Eye), Wareham, and Woodstock, which were removed to schedule B, containing the boroughs that were to be represented by one member. the disfranchising these boroughs would still leave 23 members to be disposed of, besides the additional members given to the counties and to the newly enfranchised towns; it was proposed to give an additional member to some of the new boroughs, and to remove some of the largest of the boroughs from schedule B. This schedule would then contain 30 boroughs, instead of 41, the number included in the same class

annexed to the former bill; and the representation of the newly enfranchised towns, entitled to send two members each, would be increased from 12 to 22. In this manner the towns of Bolton, Brighton, Bradford, Blackburn, Macclesfield, Stockport, Stoke upon Trent, Oldham, Stroud, and Halifax, were added to schedule C, and enabled to send two members each. A member was also given to Chatham, and another to the county of Monmouth. These alterations had the effect of diminishing the number of boroughs, whose representation was reduced, from 41 to 30; but on the other hand, it gave additional representation to some of the larger towns. The measure of reform therefore, was not materially altered, so far as the apportionment of representatives was concerned. That important part of the bill, which regulated the right of suffrage, was subjected to a greater modification. In the former bill the occupants of houses assessed to the poor rate at £10, and which were of the yearly value of £10, were entitled to vote in boroughs; but no tenant whose landlord compounded for the poor rates, unless he claimed to be rated himself, and unless he had occupied the premises for one year, was admitted to the exercise of this right. The present bill proposed, that the occupants of houses, of the yearly value of £10, who were rated at any sum, should be entitled to vote in boroughs.

It was also provided, that the rights of freemen acquired by birth or servitude, should be pre

served forever, excepting those who were non-resident; and that in those cities which were counties in themselves, those who voted in the county at large, and those who voted for the county of the city, should stand on the same footing as formerly; and those who were not entitled to vote for either place, should be allowed to vote upon their qualifications in the county where the borough was situated. It was asserted by the Tory party, that these alterations had been made in consequence of their suggestions; and that the provisions, perpetuating the rights of freemen and preserving the full complement of the House, had been inserted through their earnest opposition at the last session. was admitted on all hands, that the bill was better considered than its predecessor; and leave was given to bring it in, and it was read the first time, and after an animated debate on the 16th and 17th of December, was ordered to a second reading, ayes 324, nays 162. Parliament then adjourned to the 17th of January, when the subject was to be again brought forward for a final decision.

During the recess, legal proceedings were instituted against the rioters at Bristol and Nottingham, and inquiries were also directed into the conduct of the municipal authorities, and of the officer commanding the military at Bristol.

Twentyone of the rioters at Bristol were convicted and condemned to death, four of whom were left for execution. Nine