occasion of the slaves of men who wanted to get into power; that, in fact, you were only to give your voice for what one party or the other party sent down from London to be passed, and to be sent back again, as being the decision of the county of Hants, when it was no more the decision of the real people of the county than it was the decision of the inhabitants of the moon. No wonder that such meetings had fallen into contempt. The tradesmen and yeomen of the county despised the imposture; and it did not occur to them to take the trouble of exposing it. "Recent events-quite sufficient for the purpose indeedhave roused us. They have brought us together from all parts of the county; made us acquainted with one another; produced an interchange of friendship; and do very fairly promise to make us formidable to any man, or set of men, who shall dare attempt again to consider us as men of straw."1 How considerable an event this revival of the Platform was is seen from an article of his in the Political Register.2 "The excellent disposition which has been excited and called forth by the disclosures, is manifesting itself in every part of the country, and this is the really valuable part of the thing. It is not the dismission of the Duke of York that any sensible man cares much about. It is the light, the blessed light that has been let in upon a long benighted nation, by the inquiry that has taken place. . . . Even the provincial papers, so long the vehicles of dull repetition, of borrowed and insipid reflection, have now assumed animation and mind, have now begun to have the breath of life in their nostrils, and to indicate the possession of intelligent souls; . . . at last the people have been roused, beyond the power of all the soporifics in the world, to a sense of the existence of a system of corruption more extensive than they could with reason have supposed to exist." Hot upon this discreditable disclosure followed some discreditable disclosures concerning Lord Castlereagh, the Secretary for War, who was charged with having placed at the disposal of Lord Clancarty the nomination of a writership in India, for the purpose of enabling Lord Clancarty thereby to 1 Cobbett's Political Register, vol. xv. p. 674, May 1809. 2 April 1809, p. 491. procure a seat in the House of Commons. The matter was brought before the House of Commons. Lord Castlereagh acknowledged the transaction, but said he did not think any "turpitude" attached to it, and he disavowed an intention of influencing elections corruptly. Very little later another charge was brought against Lord Castlereagh, and this time Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was involved. The charge was that of selling a seat in the House of Commons. "I affirm," said Mr. Madocks, who brought the charge forward, "that Mr. Dick purchased a seat in this House (at the cost of £5000) for the borough of Cashel, through the agency of the Hon. H. Wellesley, who acted for and on behalf of the Treasury; that upon a recent question of the last importance, when Mr. Dick had determined to vote according to his conscience, the noble Lord (Castlereagh) did intimate to that gentleman the necessity of either his voting with the Government or resigning his seat; and that Mr. Dick, sooner than vote against principle, did make choice of the latter alternative. To this transaction I charge the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Perceval) as being privy, and having connived at it;" and he moved that the charge should be heard at the bar of the House. Both the Ministers charged postponed their defence, but so anxious was the House to shield them that a vote was passed by 310 to 85 refusing to take any action on the charge. Refuse the House might to sanction any investigation into particular allegations, but to conceal their general iniquities in these matters was beyond its power, for the practice of buying and selling seats was notorious. "A bold petitioner has told us," said Mr. Curwen in the House, "that the seats are bought and sold in this House like the stalls in Smithfield;' and I may remark that to this insult the House thought fit to submit in silence. . . . But, sir, if I needed any proof of the existence of these abuses, besides their notoriety, I might refer to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Perceval), witnessed by the whole House. In a Bill he has introduced to stop the sale of places, etc., he consented to accept a clause inflicting penalties on the traffic 1 25th April 1809, Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiv. p. 203. VOL. I S of seats in this House. Here, sir, is an avowal of the existence of the abuse."1 And no less a person than the Speaker of the House, speaking in the Committee on a Bill introduced by Mr. Curwen, said: "The question now before us is no less than this-whether the seats in this House shall be henceforth publicly saleable? A proposition, at the sound of which our ancestors would have startled with indignation; but a practice, which in these days and within these walls, in utter oblivion of every former maxim and feeling of Parliament, has been avowed and justified." 2 The impression which all these disclosures created, following so quickly on each other, was very great, and men's minds were turned more than ever to the necessity of Parliamentary reform. It was evident that those in whose hands was the government of the country were taking better care of their own interests than those of the country. The disclosures shook the public confidence even in the most exalted public men, and they intensified the desire for such changes as would render such malpractices impossible. The revival of the Platform in the first decade of this century was due to the frauds, abuses, and corruption which had been laid bare, and was a protest, almost a revolt, against the misdeeds of the Government and its sheltering majority in Parliament. Nor was the action of the Platform altogether without effect on the Government. At any rate it stung them, as is evident from a petulant speech of Canning, then Foreign Secretary. He said: "The House were told to take care how they acted in contradiction of the sense of the people. But how and where was the sense to be ascertained? Was it in the Commons House of Parliament, or in those meetings which were held to canvass the conduct of that House? Were the House to listen only to those among them who came reeking from those meetings, and who would inculcate on the House the lessons which they received and brought from such a school? . . . With respect to the scheme which was hatching in these meetings, no man could be in the dark. We had to guard against the machinations of dangerous demagogues, at 1 4th May 1809, Parliamentary Debates, vol. xix. p. 357. 2 Ibid. p. 837. least when such meetings presumed to bring the conduct of that House to account, that House had an equal right to inquire into and animadvert upon the tendency of their conduct." He called upon the House "to make a determined stand against the encroachments of the factious."1 Perceval also (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the 4th May, referred to speeches and resolutions out of doors, and complained of the attempt "To delude the public by statements mischievous, false, and fallacious, which were the true characteristics of Jacobinism, and to inflame the public mind. with exaggerated pictures of abuse, and imaginary and impracticable ideas of reform.2 "If any member of that House, not venturing to make such. delusive statements in his place, where they might be met and refuted, should think proper to repeat them in other places, it would not be difficult to appreciate the mischief that might be the result. The language held to the public in these places was, that the House of Commons was a sink of corruption, and that that House was the only place wherein the sense of the people was treated with contempt. In the country too the subject of Parliamentary reform was evidently what was uppermost in men's minds, as was apparent from the resolutions which were passed at the meetings in condemnation of the Duke of York's conduct. As an example, the resolution passed at a county meeting at Bodmin in May may be quoted. It was then resolved "that a reform in the representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament is the only effective corrective of existing abuses, and that the only security against future corruption will be the restoring to the people that share of the elective franchise which the public good requires, and to which they are entitled by the principles of the British Constitution.” 3 Several gentlemen who had a deep interest in the numerous boroughs in the county" were present, but, notwithstanding their opposition, the resolution was carried by a majority of 50 to 1. The Platform was given some further encouragement in this matter by the question of Parliamentary reform being 2 Ibid. p. 372. 1 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiv. p. 523. raised in Parliament itself. Early in May Mr. Curwen brought in a Bill with the view of checking bribery, and imposing penalties on the sale of seats in Parliament. The Bill did not interfere with or profess to disturb Parliamentary representation, but it dealt with the more discreditable practices of Parliamentary elections, dragged them into the glare of day, and kept the public attention fixed on them for the greater part of the session. In his introductory speech Mr. Curwen gave a most valuable summary of the character of the meetings which had taken place in connection with the discreditable transactions in which the Duke of York had figured. He said: "It is well worth our attention to examine how the meetings have been composed, as well as the language in which their resolutions have been worded. It will be found that they have consisted of the respectable part of the community-of men attached to the Constitution, firm supporters of the throne, not hostile to the administration of the right honourable gentleman, or friendly to those opposed to him. In their expressions will be found nothing to justify alarm, except in the minds of those who profit by abuses. Invariably they point at these abuses, and at the defects in this House, as their source. "By timely reform you will turn the tide of popular feeling, and convert it into increased affection and attachment to the Constitution. It is true dignity to resist when right and justice are on our side; but it is obstinacy and madness to identify our existence with abuses which we can neither deny nor defend." 1 The argument did not commend itself to all. Mr. Windham opposed the Bill. "It had for many years been his opinion that the House ought strenuously to oppose, as dangerous and mad, any proposal for Parliamentary reform." The Government, however, were wiser, and under the stress of Platform agitation, took the Bill under their wing, but altered it considerably, and then allowed it to become law. Before the close of the session the subject of the reform of Parliamentary representation was brought before Parliament by Sir Francis Burdett, who offered to the House a plan of 1 Hansard, vol. xiv. p. 355, 1809. |