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 Flood's motion, which was superseded by the adjournment of the House.1 Meanwhile, the cause of parliamentary reform had been advocated by several political associations, and Friends of more particularly by the "Friends of the People." This society embraced several men eminent in politics 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.

"the People."

And, accordingly, on the 30th of April, 1792, Mr. Grey gave notice of a motion, in the ensuing session, for Mr. Grey's an inquiry into the representative system. A few notice. 30th April, 1792. 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 honored reformer of an earlier period, and in another cause,

1 Parl. Hist. xxviii. 452.

8

2 Mr. Speaker Addington permitted a debate to arise on this occasion, which, according to the stricter practice of later times, would have been wholly inadmissible. - Lord Sidmouth's Life, i. 88.

8 Mr. Burke had never supported parliamentary reform.

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.1

Mr. Grey's

On the 6th of May, 1793, Mr. Grey brought forward the motion, of which he had given notice in the premotion, 1793. 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 fortyone supporters.2

After such discouragement, and under circumstances so adverse, Mr. Grey did not attempt to renew the Mr. Grey's motion, 1797. 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

1 Parl. Hist. xxix. 1300; Tomline's Life of Pitt, iii. 322.

2 Parl. Hist. xxx. 787-925; Ayes 41, Noes 232; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 281-283, 349.

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 well as freeholders, to the county franchise. As regards the boroughs, he proposed to substitute for the numerous rights of election, one uniform household franchise. And in order to diminish the expense of elections, he suggested that the poll should be taken, throughout the whole kingdom, at one time. His scheme comprised, in fact, an outline of the great measure, which this eminent statesman was ultimately destined to mature, as the consummation of his labors during half a century. His motion was seconded by Mr. Erskine, in a speech which went far to contradict the assertion, so often made, that in the House of Commons this great forensic orator was wholly unequal to his reputation. At once eloquent, impassioned, and argumentative, it displayed those rare qualities, which have never been equalled at the British bar, and not often in the senate. The motion was also supported, in an admirable speech, by Mr. Fox. But vain were moderate and well-considered plans, vain were eloquence and argument. The feelings, fears, and prejudices of the people were adverse to the cause: reform being now confounded with revolution, and reformers with Jacobins. Whatever was proposed, more was said to be intended; and Paine and the "Rights of Man" were perversely held up, as the true exponents of the reformer's creed. The motion was rejected by a large majority.1

Further dis

of reform.

Again the question slept for many years. The early part of the present century was a period scarcely more favorable for the discussion of parliamentary re- couragement form, than the first years of the French revolution. The prodigious efforts of the country in carrying on the war, - victories and disasters, loans, taxes, and subsidies, engrossed the attention of Parliament, and the thoughts of 1 Parl. Hist. xxxiii. 644. Ayes 91, Noes 256.

VOL. I.

21

the people. The restoration of peace was succeeded by other circumstances, almost equally unpropitious. The extreme pressure of the war upon the industrial resources of the country, had occasioned suffering and discontent amongst the working classes. The Government were busy in repressing sedition; and the governing classes, trained under a succession of Tory administrations, had learned to scout every popular principle. Under such discouragements, many of the old supporters of reform, either deserted the cause, or shrank from its assertion; while demagogues of dubious character, and dangerous principles, espoused it. "Hampden Clubs," and other democratic associations, chiefly composed of working men, were demanding universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, which found as little favor with the advocates of reform, as with its opponents; and every moderate scheme was received with scorn, by ultra-reformers.1 But notwithstanding these adverse conditions, the question of reform was occasionally discussed in Parliament. In 1809, it was revived, after the lapse of thirteen years. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,- who had first fought together in support of the same principles, and afterwards on opposite sides, were both no more: Mr. Grey and Mr. Erskine had been called to the House of Peers; and the cause was in other hands. Sir Francis Burdett was now its advocate, less able and influential than his predecessors, and an eccentric politician, — but a thoroughbred English gentleman. His scheme was such as to repel the support of the few remaining reformers. He proposed that every county should be divided into electoral districts; that each district should return one member; and that the franchise should be vested in the taxed male population. So wild a project found no more than fifteen supporters.2 On the 13th June, 1810, Earl Grey, in moving an address on the state of the nation, renewed his public connection with the cause of reform, avowed his

Sir F. Burdett's plan, 1809.

Earl Grey, 1810.

1 Com. Journ. lxv. 360, &c.

2 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xiv. 1041. Ayes 15, Noes 74.

adherence to the sentiments he had always expressed, — and promised his future support to any temperate and judicious. plan, for the correction of abuses in the representation. was followed by Lord Erskine, in the same honorable avowal.1

He

In 1818, Sir F. Burdett, now the Chairman of the Hampden Club of London, proposed resolutions in favor Sir F. Burof universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, dett, 1818-19. vote by ballot, and annual Parliaments. His motion was seconded by Lord Cochrane; but found not another supporter in the House of Commons. At this time, there were numerous public meetings in favor of universal suffrage; and reform associations, not only of men but of women, were engaged in advancing the same cause. And as many

of these were advocating female suffrage, Sir F. Burdett, to avoid misconstruction, referred to male suffrage only.2

In 1819, Sir F. Burdett again brought forward a motion on the subject. He proposed that the House should, early in the next session, take into its consideration the state of the representation. In the debate, Lord John Russell, who had recently been admitted to Parliament, expressed his opinion in favor of disfranchising such boroughs as were notoriously corrupt. The motion was superseded by reading the orders of the day.3

sell, 1820.

At the commencement of the following session, Lord John Russell, whose name has ever since been honor- Lord J. Rusably associated with the cause of reform, - proposed his first motion on the subject. In the preceding session, he had brought under the notice of the House the scandalous proceedings at Grampound. He now took broader ground, and embraced the general evils of the electoral system. The time was not favorable to moderate counsels.

1 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xvii. 559, 590.

2 See a learned and ingenious article in the Edin. Rev., January, 1819, by Sir J. Mackintosh, on Universal Suffrage, Art. vIII.

8 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1440.

4 Ibid. xli. 302, 1091.