people, if enjoying less freedom than in later times, were yet the freest people in the world. Their laws, if inferior to modern jurisprudence, did not fall short of the enlightenment of the age, in which Parliament designed them. How are these contrasts to be explained and reconciled? How were the people saved from misgovernment? What were the antidotes to the baneful abuses which prevailed? In the first place, parliamentary government attracted the ables men to the service of the state. Whether they owed their seats to the patronage of a peer, or to the suffrages of their fellow-countrymen, they equally enlightened Parliament by their eloquence, and guided the national councils by their statesmanship. In the next place, the representation,— limited and anomalous as it was, - comprised some popular elements; and the House of Commons, in the worst times, still professed its responsibility to the people. Nor can it be denied that the small class, by whom a majority of the House of Commons was returned, were the most instructed and enlightened in the country; and as Englishmen, were generally true to principles of freedom.

Two other causes, which exercised a wholesome restraint upon Parliament and the governing class, are to be found in the divisions of party, finely called by Sir Bulwer Lytton "the sinews of freedom," and the growing influence of the press. However prone the ruling party may sometimes have been to repress liberty, the party in opposition were forced to rely upon popular principles; and pledged to maintain them, at least for a time, when they succeeded to power. Party again supplied, in some degree, the place of intelligent public opinion. As yet the great body of the people had neither knowledge nor influence; but those who enjoyed political power, were encouraged by their rivalries and ambition, not less than by their patriotism, to embrace those principles of good government, which steadily made their way in our laws and institutions. Had all parties combined against popular rights, nothing short of another revolution

could have overthrown them. But as they were divided and opposed, the people obtained extended liberties, before they were in a position tc wrest them from their rulers, by means of a free representation.

Meanwhile the press was gradually creating a more elevated public opinion, to which all parties were obliged to defer. It was long, however, before that great political agent performed its office worthily. Before the press can be instructive, there must be enlightenment, and public spirit among the people: it takes its color from society, and reflects its prevailing vices. Hence, while flagrant abuses in the government were tolerated by a corrupt society, the press was venal, teeming with scurrilous libels and factious falsehoods, in the interests of rival parties, and disfigured by all the faults of a depraved political morality. Let us be thankful that principles of liberty and public virtue were so strong, as constantly to advance in society, in the press, and in the government of the country.

The glaring defects and vices of the representative system, which have now been exposed, the restricted

Arguments for Parliamentary Re

and unequal franchise, the bribery of a limited form. electoral body, and the corruption of the representatives themselves, - formed the strongest arguments for parliamentary reform. Some of them had been partially corrected; and some had been ineffectually exposed and denounced; but the chief evil of all, demanded a bolder and more hazardous remedy. The theory of an equal representation, — at no time very perfect, — had, in the course of ages, been entirely subverted. Decayed boroughs, with out inhabitants, the absolute property of noblemen,— and populous towns without electors, returned members to the House of Commons; but great manufacturing cities, distinguished by their industry, wealth, and intelligence, were without representatives.

Schemes for partially rectifying these inequalities were proposed at various times, by statesmen of very different

"ham's scheme

opinions. Lord Chatham was the first to advocate reform speaking, in 1766, of the borough representation, Lord Chathe called it "the rotten part of our constitution; of reform, and said, "It cannot continue a century. If it 1770. does not drop, it must be amputated.” ' he suggested that a third member should be added to every county, “in order to counterbalance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs."2 Such was his opinion of the necessity of

1

In 1770, 14th May.

measure of this character, that he said: "Before the end of this century, either the Parliament will reform itself from within, or be reformed with a vengeance from without." The next scheme was that of a very notable poli- Mr. Wilkes's tician, Mr. Wilkes. More comprehensive than scheme, 1776. Lord Chatham's, - it was framed to meet, more directly, the evils complained of. In 1776, he moved for a bill to give additional members to the Metropolis, and to Middlesex, Yorkshire, and other large counties; to disfranchise the rotten boroughs, and add the electors to the county constituency; and lastly, to enfranchise Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, and "other rich populous trading towns." 4 His scheme, indeed, comprised all the leading principles of parliamentary reform, which were advocated for the next fifty years without success, and have been sanctioned within our own time.

The next measure for reforming the Commons, was brought forward by a peer. On the 3d June, 1780, in the Duke of Rich midst of Lord George Gordon's riots, the Duke of mond's Bill, Richmond presented a bill for establishing annual

1 Debates on the Address, January, 1766.

1780.

2 Walpole's Mem. iv. 58; Chatham's Corresp. iv. 157, where he supports his views by the precedent of a Scotch Act at the Revolution. Strangers were excluded during this debate, which is not reported in the Parliamen tary History.

8 Parl. Hist. xvii. 223, n.

4 21st March, 1776, Parl. Hist. xviii. 1287. The motion was negatived without a division.

parliaments, universal suffrage, and equal electoral districts. It was rejected without a division.

Other

Nor was the Duke's extravagant proposal an isolated sug gestion of his own. Extreme changes were at this schemes of re- time popular, — embracing annual parliaments, the form, 1780. extinction of rotten boroughs, and universal suffrage. The graver statesmen, who were favorable to improved representation, discountenanced all such proposals, likely to endanger the more practicable schemes of economic reform by which they were then endeavoring, with every prospect of success, to purify Parliament, and reduce the influence of the Crown. The petitioners by whom they were supported, prayed also for a more equal representation of the people; but it was deemed prudent to postpone for a time, the agitation of that question.2

The disgraceful riots of Lord George Gordon, rendered this time unfavorable for the discussion of any political changes. The Whig party were charged with instigating and abetting these riots, just as, at a later period, they became obnoxious to imputations of Jacobinism. The occasion of the king's speech at the end of the session of 1780, was not lost by the tottering government of Lord North. His Majesty warned the people against "the hazard of innova tion;" and artfully connected this warning, with a reference to “rebellious insurrections to resist or to reform the laws.”3 Among the more moderate schemes discussed at this period, by the temperate supporters of parliamentary reform, was the addition of one hundred county members to the House of Commons. It was objected to, however, by some of the leading Whigs, "as being prejudicial to the democratical part of the Constitution, by throwing too great a weight into the scale of the aristocracy." 4

1 Parl. Hist. xxi. 686.

2 Ann. Reg. xxiv. 140, 194; Rockingham Mem. ii. 395, 411.

8 Parl. Hist. xxvi. 767.

4 Letter of Duke of Portland; Rockingham Mem. ii. 412.

Mr. Pitt was now commencing his great career; and his early youth is memorable for the advocacy of a Mr. Pitt's mo measure, which his renowned father had approved. tion for inquiry, 1782. His first motion on this subject was made in 1782, during the Rockingham administration. The time was well chosen, as that ministry was honorably distinguished by its exertions for the purification of Parliament. On the 7th May, after a call of the House, he introduced the subject in a speech, as wise and temperate as it was able. In analyzing the state of the representation, he described the Treasury and other nomination boroughs, without property, population, or trade; and the boroughs which had no property or stake in the country but their votes, which they sold to the highest bidder. The Nabob of Arcot, he said, had seven or eight members in that House: and might not a foreign State in enmity with this country, by means of such boroughs, have a party there? He concluded by moving for a committee of inquiry. He seems to have been induced to adopt this course, in consequence of the difficulties he had experienced in obtaining the agreement of the friends of reform, to any specific proposal.1 This motion was superseded by reading the order of the day, by a majority of twenty only.2

Again, in 1783, while in opposition to the Coalition ministry, Mr. Pitt renewed his exertions in the same Mr. Pitt's rescause. His position had, in the mean time, been olutions, May 7th, 1783. strengthened by numerous petitions, with 20,000 signatures.3

He no longer proposed a committee of inquiry, but came forward with three distinct resolutions:- 1st, That effectual measures ought to be taken for preventing bribery and expense at elections: 2d, That when the majority of voters for any borough should be convicted of corruption, before an

1 Ann. Reg. xxv. 181.

2 161 to 141; Parl. Hist. xxii. 1416; Fox Mem. i. 321–2.

All the petitions which had been presented for the last month, had been brought into the House by the Clerk, and laid on the floor near the table.