Mr. Pitt's that Mr. Pitt had scarcely introduced one person into his cabinet, who would support his views in regard to parliamentary reform.1 sup The sincerity of Mr. Pitt's assurances was soon to be tested. In the new Parliament he found himself ported by a powerful majority; and he enjoyed at once the confidence of the king, and the favour of the people. Upon one question only, was he powerless. To his measure of parliamentary reform, the king was adverse", -his cabinet were indifferent or unfriendly; and his followers in the House of Commons, could not be brought to vote in its favour. The Tories were generally opposed to it; and even a large portion of the Whigs, including the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, failed to lend it their support.3 Public feeling had not yet been awakened to the necessity of reform; and the legislature was so constituted, that any effective scheme was hopeless. In the first session of the new Parliament he was not prepared with any measure of his own: but he spoke and voted in favour of a motion of Mr. Alderman Sawbridge; and promised that, in the next session, he should be ready to bring the question forward himself.1 He redeemed this pledge, and on the 18th April, 1785, moved for leave to introduce a Bill " to amend the representation of the people of England, in Parliament.” Having proved, by numerous references to history, that the representation had frequently been changed, according to the varying circumstances of the country: that many decayed boroughs had ceased to return members to Parliament, while other boroughs had been raised or 1 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 347. 2 See supra, p. 77. 3 Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 176. ♦ Parl. Hist., xxiv. 975. restored to that privilege; he proposed that seventytwo members, then returned by thirty-six decayed boroughs, should be distributed among the counties and the metropolis. But this part of his scheme was accompanied by the startling proposal, that the condemned boroughs should not be disfranchised, except with the consent of their proprietors, who were to receive compensation from the state, amounting to a million sterling! He further proposed to purchase the exclusive rights of ten corporations, for the benefit of their fellow-citizens; and to obtain by the same means, the surrender of the right of returning members from four small boroughs, whose members could be transferred to populous towns. By these several means, a hundred seats were to be re-distributed. The enlargement of the county constituency, by the addition of copyholders to the freeholders, formed another part of his plan. It was estimated that by this change, and by the enfranchisement of great towns, a total addition of ninety-nine thousand would be made to the electoral body. The portion of this scheme most open to objection was that of compensating the proprietors of boroughs; and he admitted that it "was a tender part; but at the same time it had become a necessary evil, if any reform was to take place." It seems indeed, that not hoping to convince those interested in the existing state of the representation, of the expediency of reform, he had sought to purchase their support. The boroughs which were always in the market, he proposed to buy, on behalf of the state; and thus to secure purity, through the instruments of corruption. Such a sacrifice of principle to expediency may have been necessary; but it did not save his scheme of reform from utter failure. His motion for leave to Mr. Pitt's bring in the bill, was negatived by a majority of seventyfour.1 As this was the last occasion on which Mr. Pitt advosincerity. cated the cause of parliamentary reform, his sincerity, even at that time, has been called in question. He could scarcely have hoped to carry this measure: but its failure was due to causes beyond his control. The king and Parliament were adverse, and popular support was wanting. To have staked his power as a minister, upon the issue of a measure fifty years in advance of the public opinion of his day,-and which he had no power to force upon Parliament,- would have been the act of an enthusiast, rather than a statesman. The blame of his subsequent inaction in the cause was shared by the Whigs, who, for several years, consented to its entire oblivion. Mr.Flood's motion, 1790. "Friends ple." In the five ensuing years of Mr. Pitt's prosperous administration, the word "reform" was scarcely whispered in Parliament. At length, in 1790, Mr. Flood moved for a bill to amend the representation of the people. His plan was to add one hundred members to the House of Commons, to be elected by the resident householders of every county. Mr. Pitt, on this occasion, professed himself to be as firm and zealous a friend as ever to parliamentary reform; but could not assent to Mr. Flood's motion, which was superseded by the adjournment of the House.2 Meanwhile, the cause of parliamentary reform had of the Peo- been advocated by several political associations, and more particularly by the "Friends of the People.” This society embraced many gentlemen eminent in poli 1 Ayes, 174; Noes, 248. Parl. hope's Life of Pitt, i. 256. notice, 30th tics and literature; and twenty-eight members of Parliament, of whom Mr. Grey and Mr. Erskine took the lead. It was agreed amongst them, that the subject should again be pressed upon the attention of Parliament. And, accordingly, on the 30th of April, Mr. Grey's 1792, Mr. Grey gave notice of a motion, in the ensuing April, 1792. session, for an inquiry into the representative system.' A few years earlier, the cause of reform,-honestly supported by moderate men of all parties,-might have prevailed but the perils of the time had now become too grave to admit of its fair discussion. That ghastly revolution had burst forth in France, which for two generations, was destined to repress the liberties of England. Mr. Pitt avowed that he still retained his opinion of the propriety of parliamentary reform; but was persuaded that it could not then be safely tried. He saw no prospect of success, and great danger of anarchy and confusion in the attempt. "This is not a time," said he, "to make hazardous experiments." He had taken his stand against revolutionary principles, and every question with which they could be associated. Mr. Burke, the honoured reformer of an earlier period, and in another cause 2, and many respected members of his party, henceforth supported the minister, and ranged themselves with the opponents of reform. A period was commencing, not only hostile to all change, but repressive of freedom of opinion; and the power of Mr. Pitt, as the champion of order against democracy, was absolute.3 On the 6th of May, 1793, Mr. Grey brought forward 1 Mr. Speaker Addington permitted a debate to arise on this occasion, which, according to the stricter practice of later times, would have been wholly inadmis sible.-Lord Sidmouth's Life, i. 88. 3 Parl. Hist., xxix. 1300; Tom- Mr. Grey's the motion, of which he had given notice in the pre motion, 1793. Mr. Grey's motion, 1797. vious session. First he presented a long and elaborate petition from the society of the Friends of the People, exposing the abuses of the electoral system, and alleging various grounds for parliamentary reform. This petition having been read, Mr. Grey proceeded to move that it be referred to the consideration of a committee. Like Mr. Pitt, on a former occasion,-and probably for the same reasons, he made no specific proposal; but contented himself with arguments against the existing system. A more unsuitable time for such a motion could not have been found. The horrors of the French revolution had lately reached their climax, in the execution of the king: many British subjects had avowed their sympathy with revolutionary principles: the country was at war with the French republic: the Whig party had been broken up; and the great body of the people were alarmed for the safety of their institutions. At such a time, the most moderate proposals were discountenanced; and after two nights' debate, Mr. Grey's motion found only forty-one supporters.' After such discouragement, and under circumstances so adverse, Mr. Grey did not attempt to renew the discussion of parliamentary reform, until 1797. He now had a definite plan; and on the 26th May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill for carrying it into effect. He proposed to increase the county members from ninety-two to one hundred and thirteen, by giving two members to each of the three ridings of the county of York, instead of two for the whole county, and by similar additions to other large counties; and to admit copyholders and leaseholders for terms of years, as 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 787-925; Ayes, 41; Noes, 232; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 281–283–349. |