Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-07-24

20 Hyde Park was one Of the largest ever
seen even IN that city. II Represented va.
rious sturdy elements, and it cannot be
questioned that this fact, together with the
utterances OF the speakers, who addressed
the crowd, will 10 long way
towards enabling Mr.. GLADSTONE TO
carry h,s point. However, similar demon
strations are nothing new In England, and
when some OF our northern contemporaries
make this one the occasion for holding up
the CORY head Of CHARLES I. for the edifca-
ton OF the Prince OF Wales, who viewed
the PROCESSION from place very near the
spot where the tickle King was executed, 1t
IL difficult 10 repress smile. There IL no
more significance In the popular protest OF
Monday than there was In scores OF popu-
lar demonstrations that have preceded IL.
nor Is VI likely to affect anything be-
yond the business in hand. II has
upt "shaken the English throne TO
the centre,D the historic stone which Is
said 10 form the seat OF that time-honored
and useful piece OF British furniture was
intact when last heard from, and as far as
can be seen, there Is no reason to antici-
pate q violent isconnection-ether meta
pborical or physical-between two I'M
portant sections OF ALBERT EDwARDs's
anatomy. In fact, In the demonstration OF
Monday. history merely repeated itself 10 a
comparatively mild form. The incidents
connected with the first English ministerial
reform movement show that the British
mind was then in much more infammatory
and dangerous, or, II n stronger word Is
preferred, revolutionary state than 1t Is
now; yet since that time British loyalty 70
the crown has stood triumphantly q hun
bred crucial tests.
Let us glance at few facts. Reform In
Parliament has been source Of agitation
for over hundred years. As far back as
1889 Mr.. PITT introduced motion for re-
form, which was lost by majority OF 30.
In 1888 there was majority OF IA against
IL, and In 1855 majority Of IA against II.
The first ministerial reform bill was
introduced in the House OF Commons
March 1, 1881, by Lord JOHN Rus
SELL, and after great debate was
carried, on its second reading, by a vote OF
302 to 30l, q majority Of l. General
GAscoYSE moved an amendment that the
number Of representatives for England and
Wales ought not to be diminished. On
April the 10th this amendment was carried
on a division by vote Of 800 to POI, ma
lority Of 8. Subsequently the ministry
were defeated on several questions,
the bill was abandoned, and Parlia-
ment was dissolved. The new House
OF Commons was chosen amid great popu-
lar excitement, and in full house the MINI
istry bad majority Of 100. Another re-
form bill was introduced, debated for
weeks, and finally passed by vote Of $40
10 236, a majority OF 1l3. However, the
Lords threw out the bill by a'malonty Of Al,
which was Is less than the majority by
which the bin Of two weeks ago was de-
ieated. This action not only gave rise to
popular protests but excited great popular
indignation. Immense meetings were held
and feeling ran so high that serious
riots occurred ut Derby, Nottingham, and
Bristol. At the last-named place the Man.
sion.House, the Bishops palace, several
merchants stores, number OF prisons,
and about hundred priyatelhouses, were
burned, and many lives were lost. On De.
cember ~, 1881, third reform-bill was
brought forward, which passed to Its sec
ond reading by a majority OF 1872. The
Lords aIso passed 1t tApril IA, 1882 to a
second reading by majority OF O.; but on
May It'll they defeated the Ministry by a
majority OF 80. Then followed series
Of complications growing out OF the
question Of creating peers. The Min
istry demanded creation OF peers,
but the King refused and they re-
signed. WELLINGTON undertook to form
government, but the House Of Commons
opposed the Duke and advised the King to
create as many peers as would be necessary
to carry the bill through the Lords. On
the 18th OF May the Wings returned to
power and in June the Lords passed the
majority ofsI. BY it "6ity-six boroughs that
had returned Ill members were extlnguisl-
ed, thirty others lost member each and
two united boroughs that had sent four
members were reduced to a representation
OF two. AS no reduction was made in the
lower house this left 143 members to be dis.
posed Of, 65 Of whom were given to
counties; % to the metropolitan dis
tricts and other boroughs with popula-
tions Of $4,000 and upwards, and q to
boroughs having $4,000 inhabitants and
upwards" New and great CONSTITUENCIES
were created in England and Wales, and |
numerous improvements in elections were
provided.
That this was radical change in the or |
der OF things no one acquainted with the |
English system will deny. At the same |
time we have no evidence that it and SUBJ |
sequent reforms have shaken the loyalty OF |
the people to the English crown. When |
we view the present agitation by the light |
OF the past, It is in some aspects very con-
sentative. The action Of the House OF Lords |
in rejecting the bill was in conformity |
with tradition. The action OF the people was |
also In conformity with tradition {; the |
action Of both In the future will be in con-
formity with tradition. The Lords will |
probably yield to the will Of the people,
the people will be satisfied, and matters
will settle down TO the usual slow-going,
conservative pace. As TO the republican |
tendency Of England which is paraded |
by our northern contemporaries every |
time there is question between the |
Lords and Commons, England is in a sense
more republican to-day than is the United |
States. II one thing has been more clearly
demonstrated than another in this country,
il is that universal suffrage does not neces-
sarily make q republican government. The
President Of the United States has
more power than has the Queen OF Eng
land, and the Congress Of the United States
can defy the will Of the people in a man
ner that would hardly be tolerated in Eng.
lapd. But for all this, and In spite OF pub
- H. l.