to resign-Pitt, who "was called to the Ministry by the voice of the people," who had held it with their approbation, and under whom, "for the first time, administration and popularity were seen united.”

The description of the scene at the Cabinet which ended in this result is preserved for us in the pages of the Annual Register, and is instructive in showing the spirit of the Ministers with whom Pitt had been associated, and who were to continue the Government when he ceased to be Minister.

Pitt had recommended an immediate as against a later declaration of war against Spain. "This was the time," he declared, "for humbling the whole house of Bourbon; that if this opportunity were let slip, it might never be recovered; and if he could not prevail in this instance, he was resolved that this was the last time he should sit in that Council. He thanked the Ministers of the late King for their support; said he was himself called to the Ministry by the voice of the people, to whom he considered himself as accountable for his conduct; and that he would no longer remain in a situation which made him responsible for measures he was no longer allowed to guide."

Lord Granville, who presided in this Council, made him this reply: "I find the gentleman is determined to leave us, nor can I say I am sorry for it, since he would otherwise have certainly compelled us to leave him; but if he be resolved to assume the right of advising his Majesty, and directing the operations of the war, to what purpose are we called to this Council? When he talks of being responsible to the people, he talks the language of the House of Commons, and forgets that at this board he is only responsible to the King."

"Or right or wrong," wrote a very acute political observer in the last century,2 "from that moment, from the resignation of a servant 'given by the people to the King,' a distinction was formed between the views of the Court and the interests of the people."

It is evident from these facts-the supplanting of Whig Ministers with Tories, the manipulation of the constitution of the House of Commons by the King himself, and from the stupid sneer of the President of the Council about responsi1 Annual Register, 1761, p. 43. 2 The History of Two Acts, p. x.

bility to the people-that neither the Sovereign, nor the Ministers, who were mere tools in his hands, would be disposed to tolerate any symptoms of independence on the part of the people, either in the public expression of their views on political measures, or still less in any political action, and that the Platform or the voice of the people would have to contend against the full strength of those great powers in the State.

Next in order to the Sovereign and his Ministers was the House of Lords. Tory as a whole, the Upper House contained, nevertheless, a considerable Liberal element; for many of the great noblemen of the country were constantly contending for their own power and authority, and were by no means disposed to submit to any encroachments of the authority of the Crown. But, except as using the people as an instrument against persons or measures hostile to themselves, they were little disposed to regard with favour any attempt on the part of the people really to assume power independent of them.

Lastly, there was the third estate of the realm-the House of Commons. That House ought to have been the guardian, and protector, and champion of the people, and of their interests, but, owing to causes hereafter fully described, it was at this period as hostile to them as either the Lords or the Sovereign, and was as intensely jealous of its own authority, and as vehemently resentful against any shadow of popular trespass or encroachment on its particular sphere, as even the most Tory member of the House of Lords, or the still more autocratic Sovereign on the throne could have wished.

The House of Commons consisted of 558 members-513 for England and Wales, and 45 for Scotland. The greater number of these 558 members owed their seats, not to election by the people, as might be inferred in the case of a country reputed to be possessed of a system of Parliamentary representation, but to direct nomination by the Minister of the day, to selection by great county magnates, or to nomination by the owners of boroughs, most of whom were, for lucre's sake, staunch supporters of the Ministers.

There was, however, in it also, as in the House of Lords, a popular element, the representatives of the few constituencies that were too large to be bribed, too fearless to be intimidated. This element, though small in numbers, contained men of the

first talents, of the sincerest patriotism, and of the highest rank and wealth. Few though they were, they rendered the utmost service to the popular cause in discussing all the measures of the Government, and in informing such public opinion as there was of the merits or demerits of Government policy. But they were quite unable to cope successfully with the marshalled forces of the Government, and, accordingly, the majority of the House of Commons, and therefore, in effect, the House itself, was a pliant instrument in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown, and must practically be reckoned among the foes of the Platform and popular action.

There was thus a most formidable combination of forces arrayed against the Platform-King and King's Ministers, House of Lords and House of Commons, and those large numbers of people who were dependent on or attached to those powerful bodies or personages.

Formidable, however, as this array of powers and authorities undoubtedly was, there were forces at work in the country which would not be deterred even by such opposition, but which, despite all, would gradually, though slowly, press forward and assert themselves.

The division of the two Houses of Parliament into parties, or rather into factions-uneven and unequal though that division was-led, when a general election occurred, to contests in the larger constituencies for Parliamentary representation, and these contests brought home at least to some sections of the people the import of some of the political questions of the time, awakened their interest, and incited them to take a more active part in political matters. Moreover, the growing tendencies and ambitions and desires of large sections of the people were all in the direction of taking greater interest in, and claiming a share in the government of the country of which they formed so important a part.

Once the people, or any portion of them, began to move at all in politics, or to agitate for any political measure, the need for public meeting and public speaking began, and the rise of the Platform became inevitable.

It might be contended that the system of representative government which was originally devised and adopted by the English people as that which would best secure them the self

government they so dearly prized, should have sufficed for all the natural or legitimate requirements of the people. But even had that system been perfect, which it was very far from being, it would have sufficed only for the consideration by the Legislature of the questions which the representatives brought before Parliament. Consultation and discussion among the people themselves were essential preliminaries to complaining, or to suggesting remedies. And it was just here that some farther means for public discussion than those which existed at the time were required. The Press, useful though it was, only in part filled this function. More was wanted than even it could supply. The Platform alone held out the prospect of answering the popular requirements. It was, in fact, the one way by which the people could consult among themselves and render themselves articulate. The great example set by Parliament itself of meeting and discussing and settling the affairs of the nation was before them. What better example could they follow, what better course than meeting and discussing and saying their say when events occurred which closely and immediately affected themselves? Up to the end of the reign of George II. the people had submitted to the existing state of things.

But with the accession of a new King, and the opposition evoked and engendered by his autocratic policy, the tendencies of the people towards action in the political affairs of the nation became stronger and more persistent. They began to have recourse to the Platform, at first naturally and spontaneously, and later, as they learned to appreciate its advantages, and became familiar with its power.

It was not, however, without opposition, without discouragement, without long years of suffering, persecution, and grievous trials, that the people at last made good their right to the Platform as the medium of the expression of their will, as the instrument for supplying the deficiencies of the system of representative government, and ultimately as the censor and controller of Parliament itself.

The early part of George III.'s reign may, I think, be fairly assigned as the period in our history when the Platform began to make its appearance in public life-when the seeds long dormant began to show above ground and to put forth their

strength. Cases of popular clamour there had been previous to this date-such, for instance, as the agitation in 1733, when Sir Robert Walpole proposed a scheme of excise-but it was only in the commencement of the reign of George III. that the Platform assumed a definite shape or coherence as a system, and entered on a steadily progressive career, the various steps of which can be clearly and definitely traced. It was then, too, that there occurred what may be regarded as practically the earliest example of the system of Platform agitation in this country.

In March 1763 the Government of the day, with Pitt's successor, the Earl of Bute, as Prime Minister, introduced into Parliament a Bill imposing a tax upon Cider and Perry. This law conferred on the officers of Excise the right of entering and searching any private house where cider or perry might be made at any hour of the day or night. "This duty," wrote the Annual Register of that year, 66 was one concerning which very sober men might have had their doubts. It gave to all the discontented the fairest opportunity which could be furnished, of raising a popular clamour, and inflaming the whole nation." This opportunity was as fully availed of, as the circumstances of the times admitted. The proposal was received with the most intense indignation in the cider counties, and a great popular clamour arose at this outrageous infringement of the privacy and sanctity of a man's own home. The city of London, ever ready to take the lead in all measures of defence of public and private liberty, "whose ill-temper had always a most prevalent and extensive influence, exerted itself beyond. the efforts of the most "violent periods to prevent this scheme from passing into law,"1 and the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council "instructed" their representatives, in the most pressing terms, to oppose it, and "they successively petitioned every branch of the Legislature against it-a proceeding which, though by no means illegal or blamable, has no precedent that we can recollect."

Lord Bute was told that there was a Petition to be presented to the King. "Wounded to the quick by a resolution to carry the voice of the people to the throne without his intervention" he offered, if they would stop the Petition, to have the 1 Annual Register, 1763, p. 35. 2 The History of the Minority, etc., p. 110.