Mr. Buck, and supported by Mr. H. Duncombe and others. On the other side appeared Lord John Cavendish, Lord Fitzwilliam, and many other men of rank and influence. When the proposers of the Address had spoken, and the Whig Lords had been heard in answer, the day was far advanced, and the listeners were growing weary of the contest. At this time Mr. Wilberforce mounted the table, from which, under a great wooden canopy before the High Sheriff's chair, the various speakers had addressed the meeting. "The weather was so bad that it seemed," says an eyewitness, "as if his slight frame would be unable to make head against its violence. The Castle Yard too was so crowded that men of the greatest physical powers had been scarcely audible. Yet such was the magic of his voice, and the grace of his expression, that by his very first sentence he arrested, and for above an hour he continued to enchain, the attention of the surrounding multitude."

The Address was carried by a show of hands, though the division on it appeared to have been so very close an affair that there was considerable doubt about it; and almost whilst in the act of speaking, Wilberforce received a letter from Pitt announcing the dissolution of Parliament. The King and Pitt both thought that the time had come for a dissolution, and on the 25th March Parliament was dissolved, the King stating that he "appealed to the sense of the people."

"It is not every dissolution of Parliament that can with propriety be regarded as a direct and specific appeal from the Sovereign to his people." This one emphatically was.'

Years afterwards a critic in the Edinburgh Review regarded this fact as subversive of the principles of representative government, and condemned Pitt accordingly; but it is a practice regarded now as so much the opposite of being subversive of the Constitution, that it has become more and more common, and the tendency still further in that direction is one of the features of the present day. This dissolution is memorable further for the reason pointed out by Macaulay, that "No prince of the Hanoverian line had ever under any provocation ventured to appeal from the representative body to the constituent body"; and also as showing how fully aware Pitt was

1 See A History of the Political Life of William Pitt, by John Gifford (1809), vol. i. p. 163.

of the importance of public opinion, and how desirous he was to conciliate and secure its support.

Strange as it on the surface appears, that an alliance should have been formed between a sovereign who was opposed to all popular reform, and a man who was one of the leaders and the spokesman of the party of reform, yet the fact was there, visible to all men. That Pitt should have been supporting the King, and Wilkes appealing to the electors of Middlesex to enable him to support Pitt, was indeed curious. For once the cries of "King and Church," and "Reform and Economy," commingled.

While the dissolution was still impending, meetings were held in Westminster to prepare the way for the coming contest in that constituency. These meetings, we are told, were "a series of tumults and outrages unparalleled either for their grossness or continuance, which occasioned all sorts of violence, bloodshed, and murder."We got a graphic sketch of one of them, evidently not hate the worst on the 14th March the public general meeting was held in Westinster Hall. Before twelve o'clock Sir C. Wray and his friends "took their station on the hustings erected in the hall. Soon afterwards Mr. Fox and his friends mounted the hustings, which was crowded to excess. A disgraceful scuffle immediately ensued, and the chair was broken to pieces. The utmost confusion was produced in the hall. The hustings were nearly destroyed, and the limbs and lives of many were endangered. After a contention, which lasted nearly an hour, Mr. Fox and his friends retired." Fox then proceeded to address 66 a multitude in Palace Yard from a window of the King's Arms Tavern, whence, having been drawn by the populace to Devonshire House, Piccadilly, a second meeting was held."

Macaulay has given a very lucid explanation of the feelings of the electors and of those in whose hands the electors were the pawns.2

By the Coalition between North, the recognised head of the Tory party, and Fox, the idol of the Whig party, both offended their most zealous supporters.

1 See "Wilkes's Address to the Electors of Middlesex," in The Public Advertiser, April 1784.

2 See his Essay on Pitt, p. 372.

"Squires and rectors who had inherited the principles of the cavaliers of the preceding century, could not forgive their old leader (North) for combining with disloyal subjects in order to put a force on the Sovereign. The members of the Bill of Rights Society, and of the Reform Associations, were enraged by learning that their favourite orator now called the great champion of tyranny and corruption his noble friend. Two great multitudes were at once left without any head, and both at once turned their eyes on Pitt. One party saw in him the only man who could rescue the King, the other saw in him the only man who could purify the Parliament."

Quite early in the elections was it evident to which side victory would go.

On 6th April we learn from The St. James's Chronicle: "Some gentlemen are already thrown out, of the most unexceptional characters and fortunes, merely because they were friends of the Coalition; and in a great number of places there are oppositions on that one principle which shows the wisdom of the Ministry to taking the sense of the people."

"Now rose the war-cry of the hustings throughout England,” wrote Lord Stanhope. "Almost everywhere Fox's banner was unfurled, and almost every where struck down." One hundred and sixty of the Coalition lost their seats, and were known by the name of "Fox's martyrs."1

"So strong," wrote Wraxall, "was the general enthusiasm, that neither high birth, nor extended property, nor long Parliamentary services, nor talents, however eminent, could always secure a seat, unless sustained by opinions favourable to the Administration." The King was overjoyed; the results were "on the whole more favourable than even the most zealous expected."

It was a great occasion for the Platform. Never yet had there been so many contests at a general election, and every contest implied to some extent, large or small, the use of the Platform. Eight counties were contested in England, and one in Wales, and no less than 65 boroughs-a total of 74 contests.

1 Life of Pitt, by Lord Stanhope, vol. i. p. 204.

2 Memoirs of Sir N. W. Wrazall, vol. iii. p. 339.

The King to Mr. Rose, 4th April 1784.-See Diaries and Correspondence of the Right Hon. G. Rose, vol. i. p. 62.

Fox stood for Westminster, "the greatest and most enlightened as it was then considered of all the represented boroughs of England." "The poll continued open from the 1st of April to the 17th of May.": " During this time every nerve was strained on either side. "At the hustings at Covent Garden, hour after hour, the orators strove to out-argue and the mobs to out-bawl each other. All day long the open space in front resounded with alternated clamours, while the walls were white with placards, and the newspapers teeming with lampoons. Taverns and public-houses were thrown open at vast expense. Troops of infuriated partisans, decked with party ribbons, and flushed with gin and wine, were wont to have fierce conflicts in the streets, often with severe injuries inflicted, and in one instance even with loss of life."

Pitt himself stood for the University of Cambridge-" rather unexplored ground at present," he wrote to the Duke of Rutland, "but I am sanguine in my expectations." He was successful after a keen contest. "That learned body," wrote Wraxall, "conscious that the spirit of distributing prebends and bishoprics had been transferred from the Coalition, placed him at the head of the poll."

4

No speech was delivered by him there. In Oxford University there was a regulation that no candidate for Parliamentary election should approach within ten miles of the jurisdiction of the University during the time of an election.5 A somewhat similar regulation existed at Cambridge University, though not quite so strict apparently, for Pitt was there and canvassed; that is recorded.

As regards the use of the Platform throughout the country at this election, the Press of the time gives little information. In none of the metropolitan newspapers is there scarcely more than a reference to any speech at any of the elections, except in the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood. Still there is sufficient to enable us to draw the general conclusion that

1 Stanhope's Pitt, vol. i. p. 208.

2 See also History of the Westminster Election of 1784.

3 See Correspondence between the Right Hon. Wm. Pitt and the Duke of Rutland. London, 1842.

4 Memoirs, vol. iii. (1884 ed.), p. 340.

5 See Oldfield's History of the Boroughs, etc., vol. ii. p. 387.

6 See London papers of the time.

candidates were obliged, in larger or more open constituencies, to have recourse to the Platform, or the "Hustings," as it was then called; but they attributed little importance to any results to be gained from it, and we conclude that the Press did not consider what was said from it as of much consequence.

It is of course to be borne in mind that owing to the slowness of communication in those days, no speech could have had any wider effect than upon those to whom it was addressed; but the real explanation of the comparative unimportance of the Platform was that the actual government of the country was securely fixed in the hands of the King and Parliament; and further, that in those days politicians thought only of their Parliamentary reputation.

The history of the country at this period is written in accounts of personal changes, of the composition of successive Cabinets, of the Parliamentary intrigues, and of the individual opinions or schemes of this or that politician. It is far more a personal history than a public history. The personality of a public man overshadows completely the importance of the measures advocated or opposed by him in Parliament. The intrigues, quarrels, coalitions, separations of the statesmen of the day, figure to the exclusion of the advantages or disadvantages of the measure discussed, or its effect on the general public. Reputation sprang from distinction in Parliamentary debate and management and not from any efforts outside the House. Brilliant orators many of the most prominent men were, genuine lovers of their country, but Parliament was the arena of conflict, and Parliamentary laurels the crown of victory.

It is desirable to dwell on these facts in connection with the most important general election of the century, for, as has been truly pointed out, "the General Election of 1784 determined for more than forty years the question of the government of England.”1

It would, however, be taking but a partial view of the "Platform" at election time, if whilst acknowledging that as a political power it was held in more or less contempt by statesmen and politicians, we were to shut our eyes to the fact that every electoral contest familiarised it more and more to the

1 Russell's Fox, vol. ii. p. 247,