ment claimed that, being representatives, they were completely independent; that in electing them, the electors divested themselves of all power for the life of the Parliament, and bestowed it on them, their representatives; and therefore that the electors had no right to interfere in any way in the affairs of Parliament, no matter what policy Parliament pursued, what measures it adopted. This theory comes with the most exquisite felicity and effrontery from Members of Parliament for rotten boroughs, who represented nobody except themselves, or their patron. One member, Mr. Welbore Ellis, thus enunciated this theory. He said: "This House, in its legislative capacity, constitutes the only people of England which the law acknowledges. On the expiration of our term indeed, or our dissolution by the royal proclamation, our power reverts to the hands of our constituents, and the moment they elect new representatives, these representatives, and not the constituents, again become the legal body of the people. To imagine any other people, either in a judicial or an argumentative sense, is to lay the political axe immediately at the root of our Constitution. It is to substitute anarchy in the room of order. . . . As we are therefore the people of England, sir, nothing is more absurd than to say we are trampling upon the rights of the nation, when we are merely supporting our own constitutional claims, and exercising those powers which have been immemorially allowed us for the most salutary purposes."

Another speaker said: "The people of England, considered either as a legislative or a judicative body, have no existence but within the walls of this House. . . . The name House of Commons is misunderstood. Instead therefore of giving this assembly an ambiguous appellation I shall call it the people of England."

Other members for rotten boroughs joined in the chorus, and claimed that if they did not represent a numerous electorate they represented England. In every possible way this theory of government was sought to be maintained.

But now new forces were rising to combat it. The population of the country was growing, and the growing population. were beginning to develop intellectual and political wants. The Press, which was increasing in strength and power, was

1 Parliamentary History, vol. xvii. p. 125.

readiest to hand, and was adopted; and now the Platform had been almost invented, and had been applied to politics with startling and most encouraging effect.

The Wilkes case had disclosed a triple alliance of King, Lords, and Commons, bound together by the common interests of ambition, power, place, and greed, in opposition to the rightful claims of the people. And it brought home to the popular party in the country the great fact, never after lost sight of, that the abuses of Government could only be removed, the grievances under which the people laboured could only be alleviated, and the Augean stable of corruption and despotism be alone cleansed, by bringing the House of Commons into unison with the feelings and interests of the people, and making it dependent upon the people themselves for its existence, its powers, and its privileges. Nor were the people in want of leaders to point out these lessons to them. He who had been their favourite Minister, their idol for years, was once more giving them the lead.1

"I need not look abroad for grievances," said Lord Chatham; "the grand capital mischief is fixed at home. It corrupts the very foundation of our political existence, and preys on the vitals of the State. The Constitution has been grossly violated. . . . If the breach in the Constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves return to a state of tranquillity. If not, may discord prevail for ever! .

"Rather than the nation should surrender their birthright to a despotic minister, I hope, my Lords, old as I am, I shall see the question brought to issue and fairly tried between the people and the Government. . . . I have been bred up in the principles of the English Constitution, and know that when the liberty of the subject is invaded, and all redress denied him, resistance is justified." And then, after inveighing against the corruption of the people themselves, as "the great original cause of their discontents, of the enterprise of the Crown, and the notorious decay of the internal vigour of the Constitution," . . . he passed on to the necessity of reforming the House of Commons.

"The Constitution intended that there should be a permanent relation between the constituent and the representative

1 Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 747.

body of the people.1 Will any man affirm that, as the House of Commons is now formed, that relation is in any degree preserved? My Lords, it is not preserved; it is destroyed.

The boroughs of this country have properly enough been called the rotten parts of the Constitution. But corrupt as they are, they must be considered as the natural infirmity of the Constitution. The limb is mortified, but amputation might be death. Let us then endeavour to infuse such a portion of new health into the Constitution as may enable it to support its most inveterate diseases. . .

"The representation of the counties is, I think, still preserved pure and uncorrupted. That of the great cities is on a footing equally respectable; and there are many of the larger trading towns which still preserve their independence. The infusion of health which I now allude to, would be to permit every county to elect one member more, in addition to the present representation. . . . It is not in the little dependent boroughs, it is in the great cities and counties that the strength and vigour of the Constitution resides, and by them alone, if an unhappy question should ever arise, will the Constitution be honestly and firmly defended."

And soon after, in replying to an address of thanks which was presented to him by the city of London for his Parliamentary conduct during the session, he again impressed the necessity of reform: "Purity of Parliament is the corner-stone of the commonwealth; and as one obvious means towards this necessary end, and to strengthen and extend the natural relation between the constituent and the elected, I have already expressed my earnest wishes for a more full and equal representation by the addition of one knight of the shire in the county as a further balance to the mercenary boroughs."

Sixty years and more were to pass before the reform of Parliament was carried; but from the time Lord Chatham delivered these opinions until the first great Reform Act was enrolled in the statutes of the realm, the reform of Parliament, or to speak more accurately, such an extension and arrangement of the suffrage as would lead to the actual, instead of the nominal, representation of the people, was the object for which, above all others, the Platform strove.

1 Parliamentary History, vol. xvi. p. 753,

In recording the first great genuine Platform agitation mention must also be made of practically the first attempt at organisation for political purposes.

Just at the very time that the Platform was forcing itself into prominence, and taking up its position as an engine of political power, the idea of political Associations or Societies, which were destined to be the principal source of strength to the Platform, was originated.

Those who were in opposition to the Government, and who were aspiring to obtain some influence in the conduct of the affairs of the country, felt the necessity of some form of organisation to enable them to make any head against the organised power of the Government. "This," says Mr. Stephens in his life of John Horne-Tooke, "was deemed a favourable conjuncture, therefore, to organise a new as well as formidable species of opposition, and, by means of political associations, to concentrate the hitherto unheeded resentments and influence of a number of scattered individuals into one formidable mass, which, without either the forms or restraints of a body politic, should produce all the spirit, zeal, and effect of a great corporation."1 A multitude of associations of different kinds were created in London, denominated generally after the place they met in, such as "The Standard Tavern," or designated by the views of the leading members, like the "Anti-gallicans." These being generally more numerous than respectable, it was at length determined in 1769 to form one, which should have for its main object the preservation of the Constitution, as it had been established at the Revolution, and it assumed the name of "The Society for supporting the Bill of Rights." Wilkes, and four other Members of Parliament, and the Rev. Mr. Horne-Tooke, and others, were members. "The members were few at first, but respectable both for wealth and talents. Their meetings, their speeches, their resolutions, were attended with powerful effects. They inflamed the zeal of each other, they inspired the public mind with energy, vigour, and resentment." But like many societies they attempted more than they were able to accomplish, passing rapidly from possibilities to absurdities. They drew up instructions to be used as

1 See Memoirs of John Horne-Tooke, by Alexander Stephens (London, 1813), vol. i. p. 161.

a test to all candidates before election to serve in Parliament, as if they had power to impose terms even on a single constituency. They quarrelled amongst themselves. Gradually the Society narrowed itself into a committee, and at last disappeared, having done its work in this, that it gave an example of organisation for a common end by individuals sharing similar opinions, and set a precedent for rendering the expression of those opinions more effectual.

That, after all the agitation, the Middlesex election case would exercise some influence at the General Election when it came, might have been expected, but the excitement of 1769 and 1770 had been followed by depression, and other more absorbing matters were throwing dark shadows across the political sky, and diverting attention from home politics. Moreover, the time for the dissolution was specially selected by the Government with the view of obviating any such result. The struggle with the American colonies had begun, and the King dissolved Parliament somewhat prematurely, without waiting, as was then usual, for it to come to its natural end. "I advised the dissolution," said Lord North, "lest popular dissatisfaction, arising from untoward events, should break the chain of those public measures necessary to reduce the colonies to obedience."1

The General Election, or as Dr. Johnson called such an event, "the Saturnalian season, when the freemen of Great Britain may please themselves with the choice of their representatives," took place in 1774.

A grimly amusing letter in The Gentleman's Magazine of September of that year gives a description of some of the candidates. The writer said: "In the list of such who describe themselves 'proper persons' to be in the ensuing Parliament, I find 'nabobs' who have amassed immense fortunes by plunder, murder, and infidelity to their masters, and who now, by corrupting the electors, and destroying old family interests are become 'proper persons,' etc.: West Indians; noblemen's stewards, who (murder excepted) answer the above description of nabobs; commissaries who have already robbed the public of a little matter which now, as they give us to understand, enables them to live honest; stockjobbers and agents

1 Correspondence between George III. and Lord North, vol. i. p. 219. VOL. I

F