Vox populi
Governmental reform is of perennial interest to observers of political systems. Unless viewed in the sweep of history, it is all too easy to believe that the principles of governance in place during our life times are permanent and unchanged from earlier, less complicated ages. For example, many, if not most, Americans are unaware that the United States Senate has not always been a body of popularly elected men?and women?chosen in state-wide elections in the same manner as the members of the House of Representatives. But, in fact, the U.S. Constitution says, ?The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof? (Art.1, section 3); and for the first 126 years of the nation's history, U. S. Senators were not chosen by popular vote. The procedure by which different state legislatures made their selection of Senators varied widely. In some cases, the governor of a state nominated his state's Senators, the legislature doing little more than ratifying his choice; in others, some form of election took place, but in no case were Senators chosen by the voice of the people. This situation was changed by the XVII Amendment (?United States Senators to be elected by direct popular vote?), proposed to Congress on May 13, 1912 and ratified April 8, 1913. Thus, until the second decade of the twentieth century, the franchised voters of the United States (men over the age of 21) had no voice in the selection of their Senators. Women, and all persons under the age of 21, of course, had no electoral voice at all.
Still, the United States Constitution, prescribing proportional voting for the House of Representatives (adjusted for periodic censuses), had been constructed in part in reaction against the Parliamentary electoral system that prevailed in England. The framers of the Constitution rightly perceived the electoral practices of Great Britain to be not only irrational on the basis of its electoral districts, but, by changes over time in demographics, rendered fundamentally unrepresentative of a large percent of the population of Great Britain. Many people in the United Kingdom shared that perception. For decades prior to the Parliamentary debates of the 1820s and 1830s, reformers inside and outside Parliament argued that England's unwritten constitution was susceptible of reform as changing events required changed procedures and practices.
Strong reaction met that viewpoint, both in the Commons and the Lords. The period in Great Britain preceding the passage in 1832 of what has become known as the Great Reform Act, witnessed complicated struggles for representative reform. Edward Pearce, in ?Reform!? focuses on the Parliamentary maneuvers which took place as Members of Parliament argued for and against electoral reform. He quotes extensively from speeches delivered in the Commons by such great orators as Thomas Macaulay, Robert Peel, and Earl Grey. Many lesser-known MPs' voices are also heard through the transcripts made at the time by reporters covering the debates. This verbatim reportage gives an immediacy to Pearce's narrative that would otherwise be lacking?we see the issue hanging in the balance. Looking back, we know how the debate ended; the argumentative men of the time didn't know what the outcome would be. We get to live through the struggle with them.
Pearce assumes a knowledge of the issues of electoral representation in the unreformed House that is absent for almost all readers, at least in the United States. The term ?rotten boroughs? does not even appear in the index, although that concept was the centerpiece of the debates. There is no mention of pot-wallopers, scot and lot boroughs or pocket boroughs. Indeed, there is no discussion of the difference between county members and borough members. The unique situation of Cornwall is never thoroughly explored. Through the excerpts of the debates and the accompanying commentaries, we come to understand how the landed gentry controlled most of the seats in the House of Commons, and how generally unrepresentative the system of the unreformed House was. But to understand how the system evolved, and the vested interests involved in maintaining it, we have to go to other sources.
However, for those who have already mastered the intricacies of Parliamentary electoral practices in the pre-Reform period, ?Reform!? is an excellent examination of a crucial period in British history. The lives and honors of these men, their passions and their weaknesses are displayed before us in their own words. In some ways, the book is a tough read: the text is dense, and close attention is required. But the attention is well rewarded with a unique picture of the British Parliament on the eve of Reform.
