doubtedly the present scheme of representation is inadequate. But if this be true, we are living under a different Constitution from that of England. I think we have the happiness to live under a limited Monarchy, not under a crowned Republic. And I think the House of Commons, as at present constituted, is equal to its functions, because I conceive it to be the office of the members of the House of Commons not to conduct the government themselves, but to watch over and control the Ministers of the Crown; to represent and to speak the opinion of the people-to speak it in a voice of thunder if their interests are neglected, or their rights invaded; but to do this, not as an assembly of delegates from independent states, but as a body of men chosen from among the whole community, to unite their efforts in promoting the general interests of the country at large. "1

Six years later, in 1818, he devoted a great part of a speech which he delivered at the close of the election for Liverpool to the same subject. He said: "The Constitution of this country is a Monarchy, controlled by two assemblies-the one hereditary, and independent alike of the Crown and the people; the other elected by and for the people, but elected for the purpose of controlling, and not of administering, the government. The error of the reformers, if error it can be called, is that they argue as if the Constitution of this country was a broad and level democracy, inlaid (for ornament sake) with a peerage, and topped (by sufferance) with a Crown. If they say that for such a Constitution—that is, in effect for an uncontrolled democracy-the present House of Commons is not sufficiently popular, they are right; but such a Constitution is not what we have, or what we desire. We are born under a Monarchy which it is our duty, as much as it is for our own happiness, to preserve, and which there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the reformers which are recommended to us would destroy.

2

"If any man tell me that the popular principle in the House of Commons is not strong enough for effective control (over the acts of monarchical power), nor diffused enough to ensure sympathy with the people, I appeal to the whole course of the transactions of the last war; I desire to have cited to me the 1 Canning's Speeches, edited by T. Kaye, p. 78.

2 Ibid. p. 225.

instances in which the House of Commons has failed, either to express the matured and settled opinion of the nation, or to convey it to the Crown. . . . If, on the other hand, it be only meant to say that the House of Commons is not the whole government of the country-which, if all power be not only for but in the people, the House of Commons ought to be, if the people were adequately represented, -I answer, Thank God it is not so! God forbid that it should ever aim at becoming so!'

6

"But they look far short of the ultimate effect of the doctrines of the present day who do not see that their tendency is not to make a House of Commons such as, in theory, it has always been defined-a third branch of the Legislature, but to absorb the legislative and executive powers into one; to create an immediate delegation of the whole authority of the people -to which, practically, nothing could, and, in reasoning, nothing ought to stand in opposition."

Cleverly as it was argued, his contention did not meet the whole case, for even if Parliament fulfilled in the most complete and perfect manner the utmost that the most perfect theory of popular representation could have demanded, there would still have been the necessity for the Platform. How much greater was the need for it, when the popular representation which existed in the House of Commons was only very limited in extent; when the majority of even the popular branch of the Legislature was constituted of the nominees of boroughmongers, or of powerful members of the aristocracy, and was under a control opposed to all popular rights, ambitions, or desires.

That the need for the Platform was becoming ever greater is, I think, demonstratively proved by the fact that the resort to it was steadily increasing, in spite of disappointments as to the results, in spite of discouragement, in spite of prohibition, in spite of punishments. Contrast the number of meetings in previous agitations and in this which had just been suppressed. In the early days of the Platform the meetings. were easily counted, for a political meeting then was a great, a memorable event, and a few county meetings went to make up an agitation. The number of meetings held in the agitation against the passing of the Two Acts was the largest of

any in the last century, but as an agitation it could not be compared with that of 1819. Contrast, too, the numbers attending the meetings of previous agitations and this one. The "not fewer than 400, many of them substantial people,” which Burke speaks of with satisfaction as having been present at the meeting at Aylesbury in 1769, the 800 which Sir G. Savile estimated as being present at York in the same year -contrast these with the tens of thousands that were present at the meeting at Manchester, or the thousands at Halifax, York, and other places. Even making every allowance for exaggeration in the estimate of the numbers of those present, still it is beyond controversy that the numbers attending these later meetings were far greater than had ever been seen before. Moreover, as years had gone on, the action of the Platform had become more pertinacious, less intermittent-showing clearly that the people were no longer going to let affairs go on for any length of time without commenting on them. Instead of decades between Platform agitations, such as occurred between the Middlesex Election Agitation, the Economy Agitation, and the Agitation consequent on the French Revolution, the gaps diminished to quite short periods, witness the quickly following agitations on the disgraceful episodes connected with Lord Melville in 1805, the Duke of York, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Perceval in 1809, the AntiCorn Law Agitation of 1814 and 1815, the Agitations of 1816 and 1817, and lastly, that of 1819.

The debates in the House of Commons afford proof of this. They disclose that the effect of this more frequent action of the Platform was making itself felt there, and that members of Parliament were themselves becoming aware of the change that was taking place in the volume and strength of publie opinion. We find there numerous acknowledgments of the growing power of outside opinion, numerous recognitions of its strength. Thus, speaking in 1819, Plunket said: "The state of society in this country had, within the last twenty or thirty years, undergone a greater change than from the period of the Conquest until the time of which he spoke. Within that interval the public attention has been called to the consideration of every measure connected with the administration of the Government in a degree hitherto unprecedented. There

had been an intensity of light shed upon all subjects—civil, political, and religious-so that measures were now scanned with minuteness which were scarcely looked into, or at most, but generally known before."1

Canning, speaking in December 1819, said: "Public opinion was represented by his honourable friend (Sir J. Mackintosh), and truly represented, as possessing now tenfold force at the present compared with former times. Not only was public opinion advanced, but its power was accumulated, and conveyed by appropriate organs, and made to bear upon legislation and government, upon the conduct of individuals, and upon the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament."

Speaking in February 1821, Lord Castlereagh complainingly said: "There appeared a growing disposition on the part of the public to drag every subject before the House-a disposition which was fed by the facility with which members lent themselves to present their Petitions." And in the following year Mr. Robinson (afterwards Lord Goderich) said: "True it was, that offices under the Crown had numerically increased, as compared with former times; but, on the other hand, there had grown up a counteracting influence which opposed-and he hoped always would oppose-an insuperable barrier to undue influence in the Crown. Could any one deny the existence of that counteracting power which rendered comparatively inefficient in the country the influence, direct or indirect, of the Crown? When the extension of universal information throughout the country was considered, a degree of information which gave respectability to public opinion which it had never before possessed-an intelligence which no man half a century ago could have expected-was not the balance to Government interest apparent to every man? Were the acts of public men half a century ago scrutinised with the just severity applied to them at present? Could any individual in eminent station do a single act which was not canvassed by the public at large? And did not every public officer at present feel that he acted under a responsibility unknown to Ministers of former times? " &

1 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xli. p. 1044.

2 Ibid. p. 1547.

3 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. vi. (1822), p. 1089.

The opinion of another future Prime Minister may also be quoted that of Mr. Peel, expressed not in debate but in a letter to his friend Croker. "Do you not think that the tone of England-of that great compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs, which is called public opinion-is more liberal, to use an odious but intelligible phrase, than the policy of the Government? Do not you think that there is a feeling becoming daily more general and more confirmed that is, independent of taxation, or any immediate cause-in favour of some undefined change in the mode of governing the country? It seems to me a curious crisis, when public opinion never had such influence on public measures, and yet never was so dissatisfied with the share which it possessed. It is growing too large for the channels that it has been accustomed to run through. God knows! it is very difficult to widen them exactly in proportion to the size and force of the current which they have to convey, but the engineers that made them never dreamt of various streams that are now struggling for a vent."

Among the causes which were contributing to make the public opinion of the Platform more powerful was the additional publicity given to its proceedings by its fellow-labourer in the struggles for liberty-the Press, also now rapidly growing in influence and power. Without a published report of the speeches delivered from the Platform, their effect was restricted to the very limited number of persons reached by the voice of the Speaker, and such reminiscences thereof as they But the wider could carry away to retail to their friends.

2

circulation given to Platform speeches by the Press extended their effect to an immeasurable extent, in some cases carrying the voice of the Speaker to the uttermost parts of the country. From Prentice's History of Manchester we learn the beginning of the practice of publishing reports of meetings and speeches in an important part of the provincial Press: "To the occurrences of 1819," he says, "the people of Lancashire owe the system of giving regular and full reports in their local newspapers of all important public meetings and law proceedings. Previously, subjects of great consequence were dis

1 Mr. Peel to Mr. Croker, 23d March 1820, The Croker Papers, vol. i. p. 170. 2 P. 179.