ments for

Reform.

system, which have now been exposed, the restricted Arguand unequal franchise, the bribery of a limited elec- Parliatoral body, and the corruption of the representatives mentary themselves,-formed the strongest arguments for parliamentary reform. Some of them had been partially corrected; and some had been ineffectually exposed and denounced; but the chief evil of all, demanded a bolder and more hazardous remedy. The theory of an equal representation, at no time very perfect,-had, in the course of ages, been entirely subverted. Decayed boroughs, without inhabitants, the absolute property of noblemen,—and populous towns without electors, returned members to the House of Commons: but great manufacturing cities, distinguished by their industry, wealth, and intelligence, were without representatives.

1

ham's

1770.

Schemes for partially rectifying these inequalities Lord Chatwere proposed at various times, by statesmen of very scheme of different opinions. Lord Chatham was the first to reform, advocate reform. Speaking, in 1766, of the borough representation, he called it "the rotten part of our constitution;" and said "it cannot continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated." In 1770, he 14th May. suggested that a third member should be added to every county," in order to counterbalance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs."2 Such was his opinion of the necessity of a measure of this character, that he said: "Before the end of this century, either the Parliament will reform itself from within, or be reformed with a vengeance from without." The next scheme

1 Debates on the Address, January, 1766.

2 Walp. Mem., iv. 58; Chatham Corr., iv. 157, where he supports his views by the precedent

of a Scotch act at the Revolution.
Strangers were excluded during
this debate, which is not reported
in the Parliamentary History.

3 Parl. Hist., xvii. 223, n.

Mr.

Wilkes's scheme, 1776.

Duke of

Rich

mond's

was that of a very notable politician, Mr. Wilkes. More comprehensive than Lord Chatham's,-it was framed to meet, more directly, the evils complained of. In 1776, he moved for a bill to give additional members to the metropolis, and to Middlesex, Yorkshire, and other large counties: to disfranchise the rotten boroughs, and add the electors to the county constituency; and lastly, to enfranchise Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and "other rich populous trading towns.' His scheme, indeed, comprised all the leading principles of parliamentary reform, which were advocated for the next fifty years without success, and have been sanctioned within our own time.

The next measure for reforming the Commons, was brought forward by a peer. On the 3rd June, 1780, bill, 1780. in the midst of Lord George Gordon's riots, the Duke of Richmond presented a bill for establishing annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and equal electoral districts. A scheme so wild and inopportune was rejected without a division."

Other schemes

of reform, 1780.

Nor was the duke's extravagant proposal an isolated suggestion of his own. Extreme changes were at this time popular,-embracing annual parliaments, the extinction of rotten boroughs, and universal suffrage. The graver statesmen, who were favourable to improved representation, discountenanced all such proposals, as likely to endanger the more practicable schemes of economic reform by which they were then endeavouring, with every prospect of success,-to purify Parliament, and reduce the influence of the crown. The petitioners by whom they were supported, prayed also for a more equal representation of the

1 21st March, 1776, Parl. Hist., xviii. 1287. The motion was nega

tived without a division.
2 Parl. Hist., xxi. 686.

people but it was deemed prudent to postpone for a time, the agitation of that question.1

The disgraceful riots of Lord George Gordon, rendered this time unfavourable for the discussion of any political changes. The Whig party were charged with instigating and abetting these riots, just as, at a later period, they became obnoxious to imputations of Jacobinism. The occasion of the king's speech, at the end of the session of 1780, was not lost by the tottering government of Lord North. His Majesty warned the people against "the hazard of innovation;" and artfully connected this warning, with a reference to "rebellious insurrections to resist or to reform the laws." 2

Among the more moderate schemes discussed at this period, by the temperate supporters of parliamentary reform, was the addition of one hundred county members to the House of Commons. It was objected to, however, by some of the leading Whigs, "as being prejudicial to the democratical part of the constitution, by throwing too great a weight into the scale of the aristocracy.

"2

motion for

Mr. Pitt was now commencing his great career; and Mr. Pitt's his early youth is memorable for the advocacy of a inquiry, measure, which his renowned father had approved. His 1782. first motion on this subject was made in 1782, during the Rockingham administration. The time was well chosen, as that ministry was honourably distinguished by its exertions for the purification of Parliament: while the people, dissatisfied with their rulers, scandalised by the abuses which had lately been exposed,

1 Ann. Reg., xxiv. 140, 194; Rockingham Mem., ii. 395, 411. 2 Parl. Hist., xxvi. 767.

3 Letter of Duke of Portland; Rockingham Mem., ii. 412.

May 7th.

Mr. Pitt's resolutions, May 7th, 1783.

and disgusted by the disastrous issue of the American war, were ripe for constitutional changes. After a call of the House, he introduced the subject in a speech, as wise and temperate as it was able. In analysing the state of the representation, he described the Treasury and other nomination boroughs, without property, population, or trade; and the boroughs which had no property or stake in the country but their votes, which they sold to the highest bidder. The Nabob of Arcot, he said, had seven or eight members in that House; and might not a foreign state in enmity with this country, by means of such boroughs, have a party there? He concluded by moving for a committee of inquiry. He seems to have been induced to adopt this course, in consequence of the difficulties he had experienced in obtaining the agreement of the friends of reform, to any specific proposal.1 This motion was superseded by reading the order of the day, by a majority of twenty only.2

cause.

Again, in 1783, while in opposition to the coalition ministry, Mr. Pitt renewed his exertions in the same His position had, in the meantime, been strengthened by numerous petitions, with 20,000 signatures.3 He no longer proposed a committee of inquiry, but came forward with three distinct resolutions:-1st, That effectual measures ought to be taken for preventing bribery and expense at elections; 2nd, That when the majority of voters for any borough should be convicted of corruption, before an election committee, the borough should be disfranchised, and the unbribed minority

1 Ann. Reg., xxv. 181.

2 161 to 141; Parl. Hist., xxii. 1416; Fox Mem., i. 321-2; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 72-75.

All the petitions which had

been presented for the last month, had been brought into the House by the Clerk, and laid on the floor near the table.

entitled to vote for the county: 3rd, That an addition should be made to the knights of the shire, and members for the metropolis. In support of his resolutions, he attributed the disasters of the American war to the corrupt state of the House of Commons, and the secret influence of the crown, which, he said, "was sapping the very foundation of liberty, by corruption." Universal suffrage he condemned; and the disfranchisement of "rotten boroughs" he as yet shrank from proposing. A great change, however, had now come over the spirit of the Commons. The people, once more enjoying the blessings of peace, were contented with the moderate reforms effected by Lord Rockingham; and their representatives rejected Mr. Pitt's resolutions by a majority of one hundred and forty-four.1

Before Mr. Pitt had occasion again to express his Yorkshire sentiments, he had been called to the head of affairs, and petition, was carrying on his memorable contest with the coali- 1784. tion. On the 16th January, 1784, Mr. Duncombe presented a petition from the freeholders of Yorkshire, praying the House to take into serious consideration. the inadequate state of the representation of the people. Mr. Pitt supported it, saying, that he had been confirmed in his opinions in favour of reform, by the recent conduct of the opposition. "A temperate and moderate reform," he said, "temperately and moderately pursued, he would at all times, and in all situations, be ready to promote to the utmost of his power." At the same time, he avowed that his cabinet were not united in favour of any such measure; and that he despaired of seeing any cabinet unanimous in the cause. In this opinion Mr. Fox signified his concurrence: but added,

1 Parl. Hist., xxiii. 827: Fox's Mem., ii. 79; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 86, 400; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 118.