heading: _PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST BILL._]

The reform bill of the whig ministry, drawn on broad and simple lines,
struck at the root of this system. Its twofold basis was a liberal
extension of the suffrage with a very large redistribution of seats. The
elective franchise in counties, hitherto confined to freeholders, was to
be conferred on L10 copyholders and L50 leaseholders; the borough
franchise was to exclude "scot and lot" voters, "potwallopers" and most
other survivals of antiquated electorates, but to include ratepaying L10
householders. The qualification for this franchise had originally been
fixed at L20, and the king deprecated any reduction, but the omission of
the ballot reconciled him and other timid reformers to an immense
increase in the lower class of borough voters. Sixty boroughs of less
than 2,000 inhabitants, returning 119 members, were to be disfranchised
altogether; forty-seven others, with less than 4,000 inhabitants, were
to be deprived of one member, and Weymouth was to lose two out of the
four members which it returned in combination with the borough of
Melcombe Regis. Fifty-five new seats were allotted to the English
counties, forty-two to the great unrepresented towns, five to Scotland,
three to Ireland, and one to Wales. Altogether the numerical strength of
the house of commons was to be reduced by sixty-two, and this entirely
at the expense of England. Both the county and borough franchises in
Scotland were to be assimilated generally to those established for
England, and the L10 borough franchise was extended to Ireland. The bill
contained many other provisions designed to amend the practice of
registration, the voting power of non-resident electors, and the
cumbrously expensive machinery of elections. It is important to notice
that it also limited the duration of each parliament to five years--a
concession to radicalism afterwards abandoned and never since adopted.

On February 3 parliament met after the adjournment, and Grey stated that
a measure of reform had been framed, but the nature of it was not
disclosed to the house of commons until March 1, and during the interval
the secret was kept with great fidelity. The task of explaining it was
entrusted to Russell, whose thorough mastery of its letter and spirit
fully justified the choice, partly suggested by his aristocratic
connexions and historical name. His speech was remarkable for clearness
and cogency rather than for rhetorical br