but from the assistance of men of great weight, both in and out of power. But with all these temperaments and helps it has failed. Not one proselyte has been gained from corruption, nor has the least ray of hope been held out from any quarter, that the House of Commons was inclined to adopt any other mode of Reform. The weight of corruption has crushed this more gentle, as it would have defeated any more efficacious plan, in the same circumstances. From that quarter, therefore, I have nothing to hope. IT IS FROM THE PEOPLE AT LARGE THAT I EXPECT ANY GOOD. And I am convinced that the only way to make them feel that they are really concerned in the business is to contend for their full, clear, and indisputable rights of universal representation."

The remarkable feature in the history of the Platform at this period is, that no sooner was it checked in one direction than it would burst out in another; and, having gathered fresh strength, could return, with increased powers, to attack the position from which it had been repulsed.

Checked temporarily in the Reform question, the fierce. struggle which centred round the Coalition Ministry, and the elevation of Pitt to the Prime Ministership, created numerous occasions for the use of the Platform, and that, after all, was what the Platform wanted for the growth of its power.

On the death of the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord Shelburne had been appointed Prime Minister. His Ministry rapidly fell to pieces, and he resigned. The celebrated Coalition Ministry was formed with the Duke of Portland at the head, and Fox and Lord North Secretaries of State.

"There were circumstances which rendered this junction peculiarly abhorrent," and the country was "at once astonished and scandalised." Seldom had two Ministers been more bitterly opposed to each other than Fox and Lord North. For years they had been the bitterest and most outspoken foes, but now, wiping out all the things they had said against each other, they formed a coalition which, having regard to the numbers of their respective followers in Parliament, gave them a large majority in the House of Commons. The King, unable at the time to get any other Ministry, had no choice but to accept them.

1

"Finding," his Majesty wrote, "on the coolest reflection, when the supplies are not yet found for the navy, army, and unfunded debt, that a bankruptcy must ensue if I did not sacrifice myself to the necessities of my people, I have taken the bitter potion of appointing the seven Ministers named by the Duke of Portland and Lord North to kiss hands, who are after that to form their plan of arrangements."

No sooner were the Ministers installed in office than the King began planning their overthrow.

They introduced a plan for the better government of India, which did not meet with royal favour. Unable to secure its rejection in the Commons, where it was supported by large majorities, the King secured its rejection in the House of Lords by deliberate threats of royal displeasure, which, of course, then meant a good deal. He authorised Lord Temple to protest against the proposed Bill.

"His Majesty allows Earl Temple to say that whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem stronger, and more to the purpose."

In vain did the House of Commons pass condemnatory resolutions. Sir Erskine May has well summarised the situation. He said: "The strange spectacle was here exhibited of a King plotting against his own Ministers, of the Ministers inveighing against the conduct of their royal master, of the House of Commons supporting them, and condemning the King, and of the King defying at once his Ministers and the House of Commons, and trusting to his influence with the peers. The King's tactics prevailed. On the very day on which the Commons agreed to these strong remonstrances against his interference, it was crowned with complete success. The India Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and the next day the King followed up his advantage by at once dismissing his Ministers." 2

The King now chose Pitt as Prime Minister, who entered on an apparently forlorn hope. The moment he assumed the

1 George III. to Lord Ashburton, 2d April 1783, Morrison MSS.-Parliamentary Papers, 1883, vol. xxxvii. p. 482.

2 Constitutional History of England, by Sir T. Erskine May, vol. i.

p.

60.

duties of his office, the hostile majority in the Commons passed resolutions of want of confidence in the Ministers. The King refused to change them, and Pitt, claiming that the nation was behind him, refused to resign.1

The majority of the House of Commons appeared to be powerless. Fox had made the grievous miscalculation that a majority of the House of Commons could compel the Crown to dismiss its Ministers, or could oblige the Ministers themselves to resign. It could neither do one nor the other, at this period of history, and that is, for us now, a most instructive landmark.

Pitt's assertion that the nation was behind him was daily being made good. His fighting almost single-handed against a powerful opposition enlisted the widest sympathy; his championing the King endeared him to all whose political creed could be summed up in the formula, "for King and Church."

"The Throne and the Altar were made the catch-words, and under them was comprehended every man's property, and influence, and consequence in life-all of which he was persuaded he should lose unless he supported the measures of the Administration."

"Never was there a period," says Bishop Tomline,2 in his life of Pitt, "when the national opinion was more strongly or more generally expressed. Almost every county, city, and considerable corporation in the kingdom, not under the immediate influence of the adverse interest, presented addresses to the Throne, in which they returned their warmest thanks to his Majesty for dismissing his late Ministers from his service, and declared their firm resolution to support him in the defence of the lawful rights of his Crown."

In some of these proceedings the aid of the Platform was invoked.

Contemporary newspapers give a description of one of the meetings, which is specially interesting, as it presents Edmund Burke to us in the character of a Platform speaker, different somewhat from that in which he had appeared at Bristol.

1 Essay on Pitt.

2 Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable William Pitt, by George Tomline, D.D., vol. i. p. 441.

3 The Morning Chronicle, 23d March 1784; also The Morning Herald.

There he spoke from the electoral Platform; here he spoke at a county meeting. The magnates of the Tory party in Buckinghamshire determined on getting up an Address to the King to thank him for dismissing his late Ministry, and a meeting was accordingly held on the 20th March at Aylesbury-"the most numerous and respectable that has been remembered in the county of Bucks."

When the adoption of the Address had been proposed Sir William Lee rose and expressed his disapprobation of it. Mr. Aubrey, M.P., spoke in favour of it. Burke, the greatest of orators, then rose, but was prevented speaking "by repeated hisses and groans from the audience." Lord Mahon then came forward and requested them to hear Mr. Burke fairly, and he trusted they would answer him completely. Mr. Burke then obtained an audience. He said this had not been the first time that he had been hissed in public; he had received that mark of disapprobation upon former occasions when his conduct had proved right in the end. It would always be his maxim to pursue the good of the people without regard to their smiles or frowns. He found that they had made up their minds on the subject of the Address, but nevertheless he should speak his sentiments upon it. He expatiated on the danger of diminishing the power of the House of Commons, on which the existence of the liberties of this country depended. He observed that the other States of Europe had been free, but had successively lost their liberties, and that if they annihilated the present House of Commons they would never get such another. Here he was interrupted by a cry of "Not so bad a one." However, he proceeded at length in defence of the late Administration and of the India Bill. He rallied Mr. Aubrey upon not having delivered his sentiments in Parliament upon the India Bill. That was the proper place to discuss questions of so delicate a nature, and not popular assemblies like the present. He said the people were not competent to decide upon such points. They had approved of the American War in the same senseless manner they now disapproved of the India Bill; they had not capacity to comprehend it. He said he had warmly supported it, and he desired that might be remembered and might descend as a monument to posterity. He concluded with thanking them

for the candour with which they had heard him. The Morning Chronicle reporter said: "He showed the eloquent and able orator throughout the whole of his speech, which lasted about three-quarters of an hour, and which was upon the whole well heard, allowing for the warmth and earnestness with which the freeholders present espoused the Address."

Lord Mahon then spoke. His speech was "a very able and complete refutation of what had been urged by Mr. Burke." Mr. Coke, M.P. for Norfolk, began to speak. He said he was a supporter of the India Bill. "This occasioned a general indignation expressed by hissing and hooting and such a complication of noises that he withdrew." The Address was adopted.

"Where," says a correspondent of The Morning Herald"where is the use of convening public meetings if, as in the above instance, every method is taken by the ministerial partisans to drown all arguments that militate against them in noise and clamour, and by that means prevent the independent elector from impartially judging of the justice of their cause." There is also extant for our edification an interesting description of another meeting of the most crucial import in the struggle between the Crown and the majority of the House of Commons. It occurred on the familiar ground of York, and the prize was the adherence of that great county to the one side or the other. Success in Yorkshire was "the sheet-anchor of the Coalition"; whilst, on the other side, an Address to the King would, it was thought, prove a deathblow to the future hopes of the Coalition. The Yorkshire Association had already decided against the Coalition, and a meeting of the county was convened to settle whether it would declare the same way.

The meeting took place on 25th of March-"a cold hailing day"; it was held in the Castle Yard at York, and lasted from ten o'clock in the morning till half-past four o'clock in the afternoon. "In those days they kept up a vast deal of state, and the great men all drove up in their coaches and six. An immense body of the freeholders was present. It was a wonderful meeting for order and fair hearing."1 An address to the King condemning the Coalition Ministry was proposed by 1 See Life of William Wilberforce, by his sons, vol. i. p. 53.