be maintained, some regular form of procedure to be followed, and some inter-communication of ideas to take place. Thus the first rude outlines of the Platform were actually in existence a good long time ago, were almost coeval, in fact, with the origin of public petitioning. This right was undoubtedly one of the most valuable which the people possessed, for it afforded them the means of giving public expression to their wishes, and obtaining the consideration of their prayers in times when freedom of speech was watched with hostile eyes. Moreover, it brought them together for a common object, it gave them the opportunity of presenting to the governing powers of King and Parliament views which otherwise could not have reached those great authorities, and, fenced round as it was with immunity from punishment, it afforded a safe and almost unassailable basis of action in the long struggle for the goal of popular government.

The right, however, it must be remarked, was in one way not absolutely unlimited, for it was subject to legislative restriction by an Act of Parliament, which had been passed in the reign of Charles II.,1 with the object of preventing tumults or disorders, which had become common, "upon pretence of preparing or presenting public petitions or other addresses to His Majesty or the Parliament." This measure enacted, that no person or persons whatsoever should in future "solicit, labour, or procure the getting of hands, or other consent, of any persons above the number of twenty or more, to any petition, complaint, remonstrance, declaration, or other address to the King, or both or either House of Parliament, for alteration of matters established by law in Church or State, unless the matter thereof have been first consented unto, and ordered by three or more Justices of that County, or by the major part of the Grand Jury of the County, or, if arising in London, by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons in Common Council assembled;" and that no petition should be delivered to the King or either of the Houses of Parliament "by a company of more than ten persons."

But, as a matter of fact, by the middle of the eighteenth century, this Act appears to have been completely disregarded, and to have fallen into desuetude. As yet, however, the

1 See 13 Charles II., cap. 5, 1661.

practice of petitioning was only occasional and limited, and no real effort had yet been made to use it as a means of political agitation.

Dr. Johnson, in his pamphlet entitled The False Alarm,1 gives a humorous if slightly biassed description of the method of getting up a petition; but he shows, nevertheless, the occasion which petitioning sometimes afforded for the use of the Platform. He says: "The progress of a petition is well known. An ejected placeman goes down to his county or his borough, tells his friends of his inability to serve them, and his constituents of the corruption of the government. His friends readily understand that he who can get nothing, will have nothing to give. They agree to proclaim a meeting; meat and drink are plentifully provided; a crowd is easily brought together, and those who think that they know the reason of their meeting undertake to tell those who know it not. Ale and clamour unite their powers; the crowd, condensed and heated, begins to ferment with the leaven of sedition. All see a thousand evils, though they cannot show them, and grow impatient for a remedy, though they know not what. A speech is then made by the Cicero of the day; he says much, and suppresses more, and credit is equally given to what he tells and what he conceals. The petition is read and universally approved. Those who are sober enough to write, add their names, and the rest would sign it if they could. The petition is then handed from town to town, and from house to house, and wherever it comes the inhabitants flock together that they may see that which must be sent to the King. Names are easily collected. One man signs because he hates the papists; another because he has vowed destruction to the turnpikes; one because it will vex the parson; another because he owes his landlord nothing; one because he is rich; another because he is poor; one to show that he is not afraid; and another to show that he can write."

Another somewhat analogous practice to petitioning which was recognised in the Constitution was also conducive to the use of the Platform, though by no means to the same extent -that of presenting addresses to the Sovereign. These were

1 This pamphlet was published in 1770, a few years after the time I am now writing of.

more restricted in the nature of their contents than petitions, and were generally more complimentary and adulatory in their character.

Recourse had frequently been had to them in previous reigns, generally on the occasion of the accession to the throne of a new sovereign, and though an address did not necessitate a meeting and speechifying such as we now associate with the name of the Platform, still in many cases a meeting of a sort was held, and we may safely therefore assume that speeches of a sort were delivered.

In fact, the description "We, the High Sheriff, noblemen, gentlemen, clergy, and freeholders," had become already a stereotyped form of address when the third of the Georges came to the throne in 1760. On his accession, a very large number of addresses were presented to him condoling with him on the death of his royal grandfather, and conveying to him assurances of loyal devotion.1

"The High Sheriff, Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Derby," sent him an address. "The LordLieutenant and Custos Rotulorum, Nobility, High Sheriff, Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Stafford," addressed him, and other counties, boroughs, and corporations too numerous to mention; and though it is not always stated that the addresses were from persons "in public meeting assembled," yet from the terms in which some of the addresses were signed, it is clear that they emanated from meetings. And a couple of years later, namely in 1762, the practice was again had recourse to in a different matter, and on, for the time, a large scale; and from the account of the occurrence given in a work called The History of the Minority, it is clear that Addresses to the Throne, sometimes at least, proceeded from meetings, and that the signatures were not merely collected by a house-to-house visitation.

"The victory (i.e. the Parliamentary approbation of the peace with France in 1762) being as complete as the 'favourite ' (Lord Bute) could wish, he had now nothing to do but to try the force of corruption among the people, in order to obtain another mode of approbation. The Lieutenants of the Counties had begging letters sent to them entreating them to use

1 See London Gazette, January 1761.

their utmost influence towards procuring addresses. The mayors and other magistrates of corporations, the leading men in societies, and every person who had influence enough to collect ten or twelve men together, were all applied to for addresses on (i.e. in approbation of) the peace. . . Νο means, honourable or base, abject or forcible, were left untried to obtain these prostitute addresses. . . . Some of them came from counties which never met to consider them, with subscriptions (signatures) mendicated from house to house, of such as could be prevailed upon to sign them. Others were surreptitiously procured from packed assemblies, to which those only were secretly invited whose subserviency to a job was secured, and opposed by others accidentally present. "They were, in general, devised and dictated by some favourite tool of administration."1

There were thus two most valued and important public practices, which contained the germs or seed of the Platform -the practice of Petitioning, and the custom of Addresses.

More important, however, than the tendency to the Platform encouraged by the exercise of the right of "Petitioning" and the practice of "Addressing" was the fact that, on the somewhat rare occasions of the election of representatives to serve in Parliament, the Platform did actually exist in one of its phases at this time, and might have been seen in actual operation. Here it was recognised by Government as so necessary a right, that in all the chances and changes of history, and all the attempts made to suppress free speech, no attempt was ever made to interfere with public meetings or free speech at the time of an election. In a more or less nebulous sort of way it had thus existed for a considerable period, though not giving evidence of its future development, nor awakening even a suspicion of the part it was to take in the political life of the kingdom."

It was known here under the name of "Hustings." By the

1 See The History of the Minority during the years 1762, 1763, 1764, and 1765. London 1765, p. 88.

2 Up to the time of Henry VI., when the law respecting 40s. freeholders was passed, there is no trace whatever of any instance of polling; an election was by show of hands. So late as the reign of James I. the right to a poll when demanded was not completely established. See The Institutions of the English Government, by Homersham Cox.

middle of the eighteenth century the practice was not uncommon for the candidates to appear on the hustings, and to address the electors. In the metropolis the Platform was much used at election time. Here, in the three constituencies -the city of London, the city of Westminster, and the borough of Southwark, and sometimes, too, in the county of Middlesex -not alone did an election seldom pass without a contest; but as the constituencies were large, and the electors numerous, being several thousands in number, there was a very large amount of platforming or speech-making on each occasion. The metropolis then led other places almost altogether in the matter of politics, and the use of the Platform was thus suggested to the country; but from the nature of the other constituencies at the time, the example was not one which could be very widely followed.

Elections were by no means so frequent in the middle of the last century as they have been in the present century, Parliament then generally continuing to the full term of its prescribed existence of seven years; and it was only in the case of contested elections that more than a nominal or formal recourse was had to the Platform. In those few cases where a contest occurred, the Platform was confined to the county town, where the election took place, and then to but a very limited auditory, for travelling was difficult in those days, the distances in large counties very great, and the assemblage of large numbers of the people practically an impossibility. Moreover, votes being given for more tangible reasons than political convictions, the proceedings on the hustings were rendered considerably less attractive than they otherwise would have been.

Nor were such speeches as were made reported at any length in the newspapers. One speech appears to have escaped the general neglect of such Platform oratory as there was at the general election of 1761, and one or two extracts from it are worth quoting, as it is one of the earliest election Platform speeches which was printed and published at any length. It was delivered by Alderman Beckford (later the celebrated Lord Mayor) upon his being re-elected as member for the city of London. He said: "I take this opportunity of declaring in the face of all the Livery of London that my principles ever have been, and ever shall be, to support the religious and civil