In such places the Platform was not likely to be had recourse to, or to be of more effect than Cobbett's experiences at Honiton. Although a general election had taken place only six months previously, the political energies of the constituencies. were not exhausted, and there were contests in 9 counties in England, and 51 boroughs, or a total of 60, as against 51 in 1806. One at least was vigorous enough, for in Sussex occurred "the most furious contest that ever took place in the county.". . . The votes of one of the members in favour of the slave-trade having given great offence to a large number of the freeholders, especially to the dissenters. . . . For fifteen days the greatest exertions were made by the friends of both parties." At length, on the last day, the popular candidate was beaten by a small majority.

2

The appeal to the people, or rather to the very limited number of electors who, in the King's phraseology, constituted "his people," resulted in a majority for the new Ministry, and the Tories were once more placed in authority with an enormous majority. For the following twenty-three years, uninterrupted by a single break, that autocratic party held the reins of power, and the Government of the country was in the hands of the men who most hated and dreaded the Platform. No wonder then that the efforts of the people to make the Platform a power in the State were discouraged and checked in every possible way, and on every possible occasion. For that prolonged period the people had to continue the fight for freedom of speech, and freedom of meeting, and for a better and more equitable system of Government; the years were years of probation, the struggle a long course of severe discipline; but the triumph when it came, as it ultimately did, was all the greater and more complete, and was worth the labour, and trials, and sufferings which had been endured.

The new Parliament met on the 22d of June 1807.

It is somewhat remarkable that with the growing intelligence and education of the people, and the expiration of the most restrictive portion of the prohibitive laws, public meet

1 The Parliamentary History of the County of Susser, p. 3, by W. D. Cooper.

2 On the first great trial of strength the Government had 350 supporters against 155 opponents.

ings had not already been more numerous. The explanation is to be found partly in the feeling of hopelessness resulting from previous disappointments, partly in the absorption of the country in the war, and partly in the want of leaders. Another reason is also given by Lord Stanhope in a letter to Major Cartwright written in 1805.1 "I have seen too much not to be thoroughly sick of the old dull road of meetings of freeholders convened by the aristocracy,"-a letter which clearly showed the disinclination of some of the leaders to attempt a revival of county meetings. Fox, "the man of the people," was no longer alive to inspire them, and no great popular leader had arisen who could at all supply the place he had held. A change, however, was about to take place.

The discreditable transactions in which Lord Melville was concerned had awakened the Platform into life; the elections of 1806 and 1807 gave it additional impulse, and other events soon followed to quicken its attention and give it occupation.

Hence, from this time on, we find the practice of holding meetings being revived, and of recourse being had to the Platform for the expression of opinions on the various events of the day. It is noticeable that the scope of the meetings thus reviving, or, in other words, the subjects treated of at them, assumed a wider range than ever before, showing clearly how far more keenly the people were becoming interested in political events, and how far more closely and jealously they watched the acts of the Government. The old subject of Parliamentary reform once more broke in on the public ear. On the 10th July 1807 a meeting of freemen and freeholders was held at Bristol in favour of inquiring into the present state of the elective franchise, and Henry Hunt,2 now beginning his political career, was in the chair; but the meeting was little more than a reminder that the subject was still there, and still to be settled, and no other places followed Bristol's example. Early in 1808 more urgent and formidable incentives to public meetings began to show themselves-want and distress. The fearful cost of the never-ending war, but above all, the high prices of food, injuriously affected nearly every class, but

1 See Life of Major Cartwright, by his niece, vol. i. p. 327.

2 See Memoirs of Henry Hunt, by himself, vol. ii. p. 275; see also Cobbett's Political Register, vol. xii. p. 210,

fell with direst and most calamitous effect on the poorer classes. Those at Bolton in their distress met and adopted a Petition which was presented to Parliament, setting forth that the petitioners were suffering "great privations on account of the depressed state of manufactures" that the wages of labour were reduced, that thousands were in the most extreme distress, that numbers were in absolute want of the necessaries of life; that they were of opinion that the continuance of the war was the cause of their sufferings, and they prayed for peace. Other places followed the example; numerous meetings were held, and numerous Petitions signed.

In Manchester the hardships of the times led to a contest between the weavers and their employers regarding wages, and meetings were held on the 24th and 25th May in St. George's Fields to promote a Bill for fixing a minimum rate of wages. The meetings "awakened the apprehensions of the authorities of the town," and on the latter day the Riot Act was read, the military were ordered to disperse the meeting, one weaver was killed, and several wounded. It was a pitiable scene, not one for which the Platform was responsible, rather one for which the absence of the Platform was accountable, for the guides and instructors of the people were

gone.

"Where were the men," says Prentice in his History of Manchester, "who could have reasoned with the weavers on the causes of their distress and the remedies which they ought to have demanded? Some were frightened out of the field by the prosecutions of 1794; some, shocked by the atrocities perpetrated during the French Revolution, had lost their sympathies with the multitude, and regarded a movement for increased wages as the precursor of a demand for democratic government, and many had sunk into a hopeless and selfish indifference." 2

In the following year other events gave a considerable impetus to the expression of public feelings, case after case coming to light of shameful misconduct on the part of some of the very highest officials of the State, and triumphantly

1 Parliamentary Debates, vol. x. p. 692, 22d February 1808.

2 Historical Sketches and Personal Recollections of Manchester, by Archibald Prentice, p. 33.

justifying charges which hitherto had been indignantly denied as the malicious fabrications of Jacobinical revolutionists.

The first disclosure concerned no less a personage than the Duke of York, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and a son of the King. Again was the House of Commons the scene of a sensational indictment. On the 27th of January Colonel Wardle of the Militia brought before it a series of allegations against the Duke of York, directly charging him with corruption in the appointment to Commissions in the Army, in the regulation of exchanges, and in the filling up of vacancies, and he declared that unless the system of corruption which had so long prevailed in the military department should be done away with, this country might fall an easy prey to the enemy. The scandal was heightened by the fact that the other person involved in the charge was the mistress of the Duke, a certain Mrs. Clarke, the Duke himself being a married man. The Government, for once unable to meet the charge with mere denial, was compelled to recognise the necessity of the allegations being inquired into fully, and the inquiry was undertaken by a Committee of the whole House of Commons.

2

The inquiry lasted seven weeks, and the attention of the public was riveted on the proceedings in the House. At the end of that time the House passed a resolution by 364 votes to 123, or by a majority of 241, that there was no ground for the charges made against the Duke in the execution of his official duties as Commander-in-Chief; but two days after this the Duke resigned his office, and the House, with a contradictoriness, strangely at variance with its previous resolution, passed one that, in consequence of this resignation, the House did not think it necessary to proceed any further into the conduct of his royal Highness, as far as that evidence related to him.

Scarcely was the inquiry over before the Platform seized on the case, and meeting after meeting was held throughout the country approving of Colonel Wardle's action, condemning the Ministry, and, in some instances, asking for Parliamentary reform.3 At Westminster 10,000 persons met and

1 Parliamentary Debates, 1809, vol. xii. p. 179, etc. 2 lbid. vol. xiii. p. 639. 8 An account of many of these meetings is given in Cobbett's Political Register for 1809, vol. xv.

passed resolutions. They declared that they had long been aware of the existence of scandalous and corrupt practices in various departments of the State, and that the fact had now been made manifest to every part of the United Kingdom.

They thanked Colonel Wardle, and expressed the hope that the discoveries made ought to animate the people to prosecute inquiry and reform in all the departments of the State.

The Liverymen of London, in meeting assembled, declared that it had lately been proved that abuses of a most corrupt nature and ruinous tendency have existed, and still exist, in various branches of the administration of public affairs.

The freeholders of Middlesex met; Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cornwall, Wilts, Herefordshire, Hampshire, and several other counties, had county meetings; 5000 persons met at Sheffield, and large numbers at other cities and towns. The meeting of Wiltshire was "the first public meeting which, within the memory of man, was ever held in the county for any other purpose but that of an election."1

The meeting of Hampshire was attended by some 1800 to 2000 persons, and consisted chiefly of the principal tradesmen and yeomanry of the county.

"We saw none of that rabble," wrote Cobbett, "that follow the heels of an election candidate for the sake of a little dirty drink; we heard no senseless bawling on the one side or the other; no squads of hirelings to hiss or to applaud." It was "an assembly of sober, intelligent men of property-a fair representation of the sense and the integrity of the county.": Such an awakening of the country, such an instantaneous appeal to the Platform, had never yet been witnessed. How real that awakening was can be judged from a letter by Cobbett "to the Independent People of Hampshire," in which he said: "The reason why your voice has heretofore not been heard is this: that you had no inclination to attend at county meetings. The few who did attend saw that the object was merely a party one; that no good purpose was answered by an attendance; that a set of resolutions, ready cut and dry, were passed without opposition; that the audience consisted upon one occasion of the slaves of men in power; and upon the next

1 Hunt's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 368.

2 Cobbett's Political Register, vol. xv. p. 644.