The History of the Radical Party in Parliament/Chapter 3

by William Harris

 

CHAPTER III.

 

FROM THE DEATH OF CHATHAM TO THE FIRST MINISTRY OF HIS SON, WILLIAM PITT (1778–1784).

 

The period to be dealt with in the present chapter is one full of interest to the political and social student. There was such fulness and activity of national life, such a wide diffusion of public spirit, such sympathy between the awakening energies of the people and the ablest and best of their leaders, as must have seemed most hopeful to those engaged in the work, and contrasts quite tragically with the gloomy close of the century, brought about by the influence of the French Revolution on English thought and feeling, and by the long and disastrous war to which it led. Nor was the time less important in view of the particular purpose of this inquiry. There were many signs which gave promise of the formation of a party in Parliament, answering to one actually existing in the country, which should have for its objects the promotion of the interests of the mass of the people rather than those of privileged persons and classes; and for its means such a diffusion of political power as would make popular legislation possible, and give it stability when obtained. In speaking of such a possible conflict of interests, it must not be assumed that there was even at that time any considerable number of persons who consciously and deliberately subordinated the welfare of the community generally, to that of the particular rank or class to which they belonged. A government so selfish in intention could not have been maintained; but there were political theories and fictions, adhesion to which produced the same effect which would have resulted from the avowed sanctity of individual and sectional interests. There was, in the first place, an abstraction called the nation, which was separated, in the minds of the rulers, from the people of whom it consisted, and tended more and more to mean the particular classes who, by birth or wealth, by aristocratic connections or court influence, were brought into immediate contact with the Government. The men in office then could aim at advantages to the nation, in the way of military glory, territorial additions, or international influence, without counting the cost in loss and want and misery to the people who found the taxes and filled the armies. To the same officials the security of the nation meant the stability of the existing form of government, and any extension of popular power seemed to threaten revolution and national disaster. Therefore, in order to preserve the nation, the people were to be kept in subjection, and even in ignorance; and men so unlike in character and ability as Windham and Eldon, combined to resist and defeat the first attempt to establish by law a system of popular education. It will be seen how the effect of the French Revolution was to increase and to extend these feelings, and to put back for an indefinite time the attempts which were being made on behalf of social progress and constitutional reform.

This, it may be said, was the Tory idea of national policy. In its best aspect, it may be stated as the government of the people, for the nation by prerogative. The Whig view was different in theory, but not so much unlike in practice. It recognized, indeed, the happiness and welfare of the people as the direct objects at which governments should aim, but it refused to give to the people any active share in the work of their own improvement and progress. Whilst, therefore, it often appealed successfully to outbursts of public opinion on behalf of particular measures, it refused to place any permanent constitutional power in the hands of the people. The Whig theory was the government of the people, for the people by existing privileged classes, that was practically, by the aristocracy. We now have evidence of the more definite formation, within the bounds of what we call Liberalism, of a party the individual members of which would have called themselves Whigs, and are some of them still regarded as characteristic leaders of that body, but who aimed at objects and would have adopted means which were distinctly beyond the Whig programme. Even now there was no conscious attempt to form a new party; the old lines were followed. The Radicals supported and often were members of Whig cabinets, only they desired that the party should travel quicker and further in the direction of democratic reform. Those who were most impressed with the evils which existed, the waste of the national resources, the corruption and jobbery in all departments of the public service, the pressure of taxation, the reckless conduct of the war, the repression of all attempts to improve the moral and intellectual condition of the people, were the most convinced that no essential change could be effected whilst the whole power of government remained in the hands of a limited class, to every member of which a share in the spoils of corruption seemed within reach. But this consciousness did not, in a great part of their political life, separate many of the men who held it from their colleagues in the Whig ranks. Fox, who looked to reform as the instrument by which permanent improvement was to be gained, was the colleague in office and the friend in council of Burke, who wanted to abolish jobbery without extending the popular power in the Constitution. Yet the views of the reformers gradually became distinctive, and there was a growing tendency in those who held them to associate and work together. That this association was only incidental to, and not a systematic part of, the political life of the more important men led to noteworthy results. What organization existed was loose, inefficient, and easily broken, so that its members were not influenced by it in joining or forming ministries, or in taking any other step affecting practical Parliamentary work. Fox and Sheridan, for instance, at the time we are now dealing with, were active members of an advanced political association; but they joined the Rockingham ministry, broke off from it when, on the death of its chief, Shelburne became Premier, and coalesced with North, not only without any co-operation, but, so far as is known, without any consultation with their unofficial friends. The manner in which these first attempts at Radical organization were made, and the indefinite character of their influence, are illustrated by the history of perhaps the most important of them all, having regard to the number and the position of its originators and members. This was the body called first the "Westminster Committee of Correspondence," and afterwards the "Westminster Committee of Association." This committee was established on the 2nd of February, 1780, and it continued to exist until April, 1785. The minutes during that period are consecutive, although for a great part of the time the meetings were few and irregular.^[1] The interest for us in the account of this committee arises from the fact that it contained a great number of members of both Houses of Parliament, and that it interested itself quite as much with the proceedings of Parliament as with outside agitation. It seems, indeed, to have been for some time the centre of deliberation of that section of the party which Macaulay calls the Ultra Whigs, and which he speaks of as one of the combinations with which the younger Pitt might have associated himself at the commencement of his career, and with which for a time he did work on behalf of Parliamentary reform.^[2] The great Whig historian speaks of this section as distinguished from that with which Fox was connected, whereas the orator was quite as intimately associated with them as he was with the official Whigs, and was the chairman of the Westminster committee during the whole period of its existence, and presided at the majority of its meetings.

In 1779 meetings were held in various counties to petition, in the first place, for a reduction of expenditure and taxation, and the abolition of sinecure places, exorbitant emoluments of necessary offices, and pensions unmerited by public services, all of which had been, and were still, increasing to an alarming extent. To this claim for the redress of immediate grievances was added a demand for Parliamentary reform, but this at the outset held a quite secondary place in the thoughts of the promoters and the prayers of their petitions. The greatest of these meetings was held at York, on the 30th of December, 1779; and the example was followed in a very short time by the counties of Middlesex, Chester, Hants, Hertford, Sussex, Huntingdon, Surrey, Cumberland, Bedford, Essex, Gloucester, Somerset, Wilts, Dorset, Devon, Norfolk, Berks, Bucks, Nottingham, Kent, Northumberland, Suffolk, Hereford, Cambridge, and Derby. In February, 1780, the city of Westminster held its meeting for the same purpose, and formed the committee already referred to. Amongst the members then elected were the Duke of Portland, Lord Temple, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, Wilkes, Sawbridge, five Cavendishes, Barré, Beckford, Churchill, and James and Thomas Grenville. Here we find representatives of nearly all shades of Liberal opinion, and the number and representative character were further increased by subsequent additions, amongst others being the Dukes of Richmond and Devonshire, the Earl of Shelburne and Sir Cecil Wray. On the 20th of February, 1783, that is, three years after the formation of the committee, on a change of secretary a complete list of members was entered on the minutes, and it is important to know that it then contained sixteen peers and fifty-one members of the House of Commons, for this fact gives great significance to the resolutions passed and the policy advocated. At the first meeting of the committee, Fox was chosen permanent chairman, and a resolution was passed inviting the various Committees of Correspondence throughout the country to co-operate. This invitation was responded to by the associations of Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Nottinghamshire, Middlesex, and London. The committee intended to act on Parliament and on the constituencies, and at its third meeting, held on the 23rd of February, it requested the chairman "To procure as correct a list as possible of the members of the House of Commons who voted for and against Lord North's amendment to Sir George Saville's motion for a full account of the pensions, which amounts to a direct refusal of one of the great objects of the petitions of the people, and that he do transmit the same to the different committees."

Thanks were also voted to Burke for his plan of economic reform, which he had introduced on the 11th of February, in the memorable speech which is said to have "placed him not merely in the first rank of orators, but also in the very first rank of practical statesmen." On the 1st of March two resolutions were adopted, one appointing three members to meet a deputation from the other committees, and another "recommending such members of this committee as are members of the House of Commons, to give the most diligent attendance to their duty on impending business." The attention of the committee had been given to financial and other business, but it began to be felt more and more not only that one of its main functions was to promote Parliamentary reform, but that this work was the one on which all the others really depended. At the meeting on the 13th of March it was resolved—"That by the resolution of the general meeting, directing this committee to prepare a plan of an association on legal and constitutional grounds to support the laudable reform and such other measures as may conduce to restore the freedom of Parliament, this committee conceive themselves bound to enter into the consideration of every question tending to establish the independency of Parliament on a solid and durable basis." Accordingly, a sub-committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the representation of the country, and to report. Of this sub-committee Sheridan was appointed chairman, and its report, presented on the 20th of March, is signed by him in the minute-book. It defends annual Parliaments as constitutional, and as having been illegally altered; states that by the statute 8 Henry VI. the Parliament then elected by the commonalty at large, passed an Act to disfranchise the greater part of the constituents by establishing the forty-shillings qualification; and then refers at length to the decay of old boroughs, the representation of which is controlled corruptly either by the Crown or by hereditary owners, whereas new and large communities had grown up which are entirely unrepresented; and it ends by the declaration that, whether as regards population or property, the representation is essentially unequal. On the presentation of this report, it was resolved that annual Parliaments are the right of the people, and that "the present state of the representation is inadequate to the object, and a departure from the first principles of the Constitution." At a meeting on the 22nd of March, with Fox in the chair, and Burke, Sheridan, and Beckford present, we come upon the first reference to the ballot in a resolution—"That the obtaining of a law for taking the suffrages of the people in such a mode as to prevent both expense in elections and the operation of undue influence therein, is necessary towards the freedom of Parliament."

A change was now made in the form of the committee. On the 3rd of April a sub-committee, consisting of Fox, Sheridan, and Colonel Fitzpatrick, was instructed to draw up a plan of an association, to be submitted to a general meeting called by advertisement, addressed to "the nobility, gentry, clergy, electors, and other inhabitants paying taxes to Government, resident in the city and liberty of Westminster." At the public meeting the plan of association was adopted; the committee then became "the Committee of Association," and Fox was again elected chairman. Contact with popular feeling seems to have strengthened the tone of the committee, and enlisted its energies more definitely on behalf of Parliamentary reform; for a sub-committee was appointed, which reported to a meeting on the 27th of June. The report, which was submitted by Mr. Brand Hollis, was long, elaborate, and rhetorical, but it concluded with a definite scheme, as comprehensive and as thorough-going as any which has been put forward by the most advanced Radicals at any time. It included the well-known "five points" of the Chartists,^[3] and proposed a plan of electoral divisions similar to that recently proposed by the Rev. Mr. Fowle,^[4] and which seems to possess the merits of equalizing the voting power, whilst recognizing the local associations of the counties which have existed from the very commencement of our Parliamentary system. There were sixteen recommendations, which were to the following effect:—

1. Each county to be divided into as many districts as it is entitled to elect representatives, each district choosing one representative.
   ⁠(The number of members for each county was set out, but was to be subject to periodical revision according to the relative increase of population. See V.)
2. Each district as far as possible to contain an equal number of males; the name of the district being taken from the parish containing the greatest number of electors.
3. Annual Parliaments to be elected on the first Tuesday in July each year, the election to commence between eight and eleven, and close before sunset of the same day.
4. All male inhabitants of this country (aliens, minors, criminals, and insane persons excepted) to vote.
5. Makes first allotment of members to counties, in all 513.
6. Regulation as to register.
7. Grand inquest in each county to allot members to districts.
8. Election to take place in principal town or village of district.

9. Votes to be taken by ballot.
10. Churchwardens to declare poll to sheriff of county, who returns writ.
11. The annual session of Parliament to commence on the first Tuesday in November.
12. Session to end in April, or, if necessary, may be continued by Crown to first Tuesday in July.
13. Declaration by members.
14. All members to be paid.
15. All election causes to be decided by jury before judges of assize.
16. Every person competent to vote to be eligible for election.

 

This very pronounced scheme, having been considered, was, at a meeting on the 10th of July, ordered to be printed and sent to all the committees of counties, cities, and boroughs. It did not form the basis of any prolonged agitation, and was not, indeed, looked upon as the definite reform programme of the committee; for on the 3rd of November Sir George Saville was thanked for a declaration about Parliamentary reform, and requested to prepare a scheme and submit it to Parliament, and some months afterwards the Duke of Richmond was asked to publish his bill for universal suffrage and annual Parliaments. The remarkable thing is that proposals so extreme should have been accepted at all, and without opposition, by a committee of which Burke, Shelburne, and Townshend, as well as Wilkes, Sawbridge, and Beckford, were members.

At this time, however, the movement for reform, although rapidly coming to the front, was regarded rather as the subject of outside agitation, to be supported, indeed, by declaratory resolutions in both Houses, than as the immediate practical work of the Liberals in Parliament. The most pressing business was to bring the fatal war with America to a close; and that which seemed to offer the best prospect of useful result was the effort in favour of financial and economic reform, which, especially after the success of Dunning and the splendid advocacy of Burke, was brought well within the range of practical politics. During this year, 1780, the Liberal members at once informed the committee, and received from it encouragement and support on both these subjects. At the meeting on the 3rd of November, at which Fox was in the chair, a resolution was passed against the continuance of the American war, as "if it could possibly be attended with success it would not only be destructive of the Liberties of England; but in the highest degree injurious to the general interests of mankind." On the 30th of the same month, Fox again presiding, the thanks of the committee were voted to "Mr. Wilkes and such other friends to public liberty as opposed the vote of thanks to General Clinton and Lord Cornwallis on Monday last, on the ground that success in the American war would be the ruin of the liberties both of America and England."

At the close of this year the proceedings give us an illustration of the feelings, not only of confidence but of affection, with which Fox was regarded by his associates and colleagues. On the 10th of November, John Churchill in the chair, thanks were given to Fox for his conduct in the House, accompanied by a declaration that his honesty and boldness may make him "the object of such attacks as he has already received;" and the inhabitants of Westminster were invited to do their best "to preserve to the great body of citizens by whom he has been elected, and to his country, the benefit of his services and the inviolable security of his person." On the 14th of December, when Colonel Fitzpatrick was in the chair, it was resolved to carry Fox at the election without any charge whatever to the candidate.

In the following year, 1781, the committee continued its outside agitation and its influence with the popular Liberals in the House. On the 23rd of January, Fox, the Earl of Effingham, Sheridan, General Burgoyne, W. Wyndham, W. Scott, and John Churchill were appointed delegates to attend in London or Westminster, to communicate with the delegates of other petitioning associated bodies on the means of carrying into effect the objects of their petition. At the next meeting instructions were given to the delegates that their objects should be to obtain—

1. Economic reform and regulations for reducing the unconstitutional influence of the Crown.

2. More equal and fair representation by adding one hundred additional members, to be chosen in due proportion in the different counties and principal cities.

3. Shortening the duration of Parliament.

The meetings of these delegates attracted considerable attention, and were regarded by Government and its supporters as dangerous, if not illegal. Although they petitioned Parliament in their individual and not their representative capacity, their proceedings were objected to, and at a meeting of the committee on the 4th of April, a formal declaration was made of the right to meet, associate, and correspond. In this year, although it was not the most active, the committee continued its work on behalf of economic reform and its protest against the American war. On the 8th of December a petition to the King was prepared, which, after denouncing the war, ended thus: "We therefore humbly implore your Majesty that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to dismiss from your presence and councils all advisers, both public and private, of the measures we lament, as a pledge to the world of your Majesty's fixed determination to abandon a system incompatible with the interests of your crown and the happiness of your people." This petition was submitted to and approved by a public meeting, and Fox was requested to present it.

On the 9th of February a resolution was passed, calling on all members of the committee who were members of Parliament, to support Burke's motion for economical reform; and a similar appeal was made on the 27th of March on behalf of Dunning's motion for reforming abuses in the expenditure of public money and for reducing the influence of the Crown.

The beginning of the year 1782 was both the most active and the most interesting period in the history of the committee, because the political events of that time were of the greatest national importance, and they were affected mainly by the influence and energy of men who found in the committee their point of contact with the people. But there is another matter of great personal as well as historic interest, illustrated by the minutes of the transactions of these few but eventful months, that is, the relation between Pitt and those whom Macaulay calls the "Ultra Whigs." During this period the North Ministry was destroyed; the long determination of the King not to make peace with the colonists was broken down; Fox and Sheridan, Shelburne and Burke, were in office under Rockingham; and William Pitt had made it known that he did not intend to enter any Ministry in the formation of whose policy he had not a potent voice—and at that time Pitt was a sincere and earnest reformer. At the beginning of this year everybody knew that the end of the war and the end of North's Ministry would come together, and that both must come soon. On the 22nd of February General Conway moved a resolution in the House of Commons for ending the war, and it was lost only by one vote, the numbers being 193 to 194. This was a sign, and the reality followed closely. On the 27th Conway moved—"That the further prosecution of offensive hostilities for the purpose of reducing the revolted colonies to obedience by force, would weaken the efforts of Great Britain against her European enemies, increase the mutual enmity so fatal both to Great Britain and America, and, by preventing a happy reconciliation with that country, frustrate the desire expressed by his Majesty of restoring the blessings of peace and tranquillity." A motion made by ministers for adjournment was defeated by a majority of nineteen, and General Conway's resolution was carried without a division. So the long-lived and disastrous administration of Lord North received its fatal wound; but yet it could not for some weeks be got decently buried out of sight. Confusion, irritation, and passion were displayed, not only in Parliament, but in all political quarters, and it was not until the 20th of March that North formally announced his resignation. In the mean time, our Westminster committee had shared the common anxiety and activity. On the 4th of March, Earl Fitzwilliam being in the chair, it was resolved to thank the members who voted for General Conway's successful resolution. On the 26th of March, Churchill chairman, there was a promise to support those approved friends of the people who, "in this awful and discouraging crisis," will endeavour to rescue the country from "a general confusion which has been heaped together by the combined negligence, folly, and wickedness of the worst and most incapable ministers." Two days after this the announcement was made in Parliament of the arrangement for the new Ministry, in which the Marquis of Rockingham was Premier, Shelburne and Fox Secretaries of State, and Burke Paymaster. On the same day the committee resolved—"That the Right Hon. C. J. Fox, by his able, spirited, and finally successful opposition to an administration profligate beyond the example of former times, hath accomplished an essential part of the wishes of his constituents, and shewn himself worthy of their warmest approbation and support."

Although the defeat of North and the formation of the new Ministry had been hailed with satisfaction by all sections of the Liberals, it was soon seen—and this was the first experience of a system which in later times became only too common—that whilst the victory had been largely due to the enthusiasm of the reformers or Radicals, the policy of the administration, although Liberal, was to follow strict Whig lines. The conditions under which the Ministry was formed were announced as—(1) peace with America; (2) financial reform on Burke's plan; (3) the diminution of the influence of the Crown. Under the last article the bills for excluding contractors from seats in Parliament and disqualifying revenue officers from voting were included. There was nothing about constitutional reform, nor any proposal whereby Parliament should be made more directly representative of the people. The committee was not slow in recognizing and protesting against this omission, although its chairman (Fox) was one of the chiefs of the Ministry. On the 19th of April it was resolved—"That this committee, sensible of the baneful influence from whence the late administration derived the power and support which enabled them to persist in measures to the utmost degree disgraceful and ruinous to the nation, do expect from the same spirit and constancy with which the public cause has been maintained against a Ministry existing by Parliamentary corruption, a full and permanent security against undue influence by the establishment of such constitutional reforms in the Commons House of Parliament as shall restore to it its purity, and cause it to be a real representative of the people." At the same time, the necessity of continued outside agitation was proclaimed by an invitation to other committees of cities and counties "to correspond upon the proper means of encouraging and strengthening the expected movements of the Parliamentary friends of reformation by the authority of the collective body of the people."

Nor was it without hope that this call for public support was made, for although the Ministry would not touch the question of reform, it was now taken up by one who, by his connections no less than his abilities, began to fill that position in politics which was destined to become so striking in importance and so tragical to himself and his country in result. William Pitt inherited much of the oratorical power, all the self-reliance, and at first something of the popular enthusiasm of his great father. On the 7th of May, in this year, he moved in the Commons for a committee to inquire into the state of the representation in Parliament, and to report to the House their observations thereon. His principal object was to abolish rotten boroughs, and establish equal representation. Although Fox was in the Ministry which refused to act in this direction, he supported Pitt's motion, as did also Sheridan and Sir George Saville. But Burke and Townshend opposed, and the dead weight of the Whig following was cast in the same scale, and Pitt was defeated, although by a majority of only twenty. The committee at once met. They thanked Fox for his support of the resolution, and resolved—"that Alderman Sawbridge, Sir Cecil Wray, Mr. Churchill, and Major Cartwright be deputed from this committee to the Hon. W. Pitt, to express to him our acknowledgment of his truly patriotic motion on the 7th inst., respecting the state of the representation of this country in Parliament, and our hopes that he will continue his exertions in support of a reform essentially necessary to the independence of Parliament and the liberty of the people." On the 23rd of May, 1782, the following letter from Pitt, addressed to Alderman Sawbridge, was received and entered on the minutes:—

 

"Sir,

⁠"I am extremely sorry that I was not at home when you and the other gentlemen from the Westminster committee did me the honour to call. May I beg the favour of you to express that I am truly happy to find that the motion of Tuesday last has the approbation of such zealous friends to the public, and to assure the committee that my exertions shall never be wanting in support of a measure which I agree with them in thinking essentially necessary to the independence of Parliament and the liberty of the people.

"I have the honour to be, with great respect and esteem, sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

"W. Pitt."

 

The connection thus opened the committee were willing enough to continue and strengthen. During this same month of May, a vacancy in the representation of the city of Westminster was caused by Sir George Rodney being created a peer. Pitt was requested by the committee to stand, but at a meeting on the 3rd of June, Fox being in the chair, Churchill reported "that the Right Hon. William Pitt declines the honour of offering himself for this city;" and Sir Cecil Wray, who had been nominated at a public meeting, was accepted. Events soon occurred which not only prevented any joint action between Pitt and Fox, but broke the unity of the Whig party, and for a long time alienated from Fox the sympathy and support of many of his old friends, and of a large part of that public opinion which had been his greatest strength. On the 1st of July the Marquis of Rockingham died. His was the only influence which could keep the two sections of the Cabinet united, and at his death the quarrel between Fox and Shelburne, which had long smouldered, burst into flame. Both these great men have been defended by friends and advocates for the part they took on this occasion. We have less to do with the causes of the dispute than with its results, which, as regarded the fortunes of Liberalism in Parliament and the country, were most disastrous. Burke and other old Whig leaders went with Fox, and it was soon seen that Shelburne could not form a Ministry from what was left of the old connection. When, however, the time came for the King to have any voice in the appointment of a Cabinet, Fox was certain to be excluded, and so Shelburne became Premier, and William Pitt was, at the age of twenty-three, made Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be remembered, however, that the young minister was at that time a Whig in opinions, with even Radical tendencies, and was supposed especially to feel the desire which his father had always manifested, to give increased effect in Parliament to the popular will. His joining a Whig Ministry was therefore in itself no injury to the cause of Liberalism. The evil effects were subsequently developed. The first of these was the commencement of that separation between Pitt and Fox, which afterwards became so complete and so bitter; and this could not but have a bad effect on Pitt, if only because it kept him from the influence of that enthusiasm for the cause of freedom and popular progress which all contemporaries agree to have been almost irresistible by those who came into close and intimate relations with Fox. Another consequence was the beginning of that alliance between Pitt and the court party which was so soon to manifest itself in defiance of the precedents of Parliamentary rule, and that close personal devotion to the Sovereign to which Pitt often sacrificed not only his own wishes, but his opinion of what was right towards the nation. The worst immediate effect of the triumph of Shelburne was that which it exercised upon Fox himself. For almost the only time in his life, he seems to have allowed the sense of his personal injuries, and the injustice with which he had been treated, to affect, if not to overcome, his devotion to his political principles. He formed that coalition with Lord North which indeed avenged his own wrongs and seated him in office in spite of King and court, but which damaged him irreparably in the opinion of his countrymen, and remains a blot upon a most illustrious career.

The effect of this strange alliance was not long in manifesting itself. The new Ministry was formed in July, 1782, and on the 20th of January, 1783, the preliminaries of peace, whereby the independence of the United States was recognized, were signed in Paris. On the 24th of the same month the conditions of the treaty were discussed, and the existence of the coalition for the first time made known to Parliament. Fox and North both attacked the provisions of the treaty, although neither then nor at any subsequent stage of the discussions did they endeavour to prevent the acceptance of the conditions to which the nation had, as they held, been improperly committed. As soon as the alliance was known, it was felt that the fate of the Ministry was sealed. There were regret and dismay in the minds of many Liberal leaders, and still stronger feelings among the majority of the people outside; but the bonds of the Parliamentary party were too strong to be broken, and the followers of Fox and those of North, who had so often waged bitter war with each other, now marched in an unbroken and irresistible phalanx to attack the government. On the 17th of February the Ministry were defeated in the Commons. On the 21st a like calamity befel them, and Shelburne resigned. Under ordinary circumstances this would have ended the matter, and the victorious opposition, commanding a strong Parliamentary majority, would have taken office. But the King was determined not to admit Fox to his council, if he could by any means prevent it; and in this determination he, found support in Pitt, who took the unprecedented course of remaining in office for no less than five weeks after the Cabinet had been virtually destroyed by the resignation of the Premier. The time thus gained was used by the King in making incessant efforts to construct an administration which should not include Fox. He wanted Pitt to form a Ministry; he vainly endeavoured to induce North to betray and desert his newly-made colleague. All, however, was in vain; North was faithful, and the majority unbreakable. A resolution was passed on the 24th of March, by the House of Commons, calling upon the King to form a Ministry. A similar resolution was proposed on the 31st, but was withdrawn on Pitt's announcement that he had resigned; and on the 2nd of April the Coalition Ministry was formed. Of this Cabinet the Duke of Portland was nominally the head, but the real power was divided between the two secretaries, Fox and North.

It was soon to be seen how little permanent strength could be possessed by a Ministry supported by a mechanical majority in the Commons, not united by any devotion to common principles, and not in harmony with public feeling in the country which could either impress the court or make effective an appeal to the nation. By these events both the possible arms of an actively Liberal party were disabled: Pitt by his alliance with the court and his obedience to the wishes of the King, and Fox by the alienation from him of popular sympathy and affection. As regards the last-named consequence, the proceedings of the Westminster committee form an illustration. During the early period of its existence all the Parliamentary struggles of Fox had been marked by corresponding action on the part of the committee. There had been the most perfect unison between the active party in Parliament and public feeling outside. That was now changed. The committee still continued, and was, indeed, in its greatest numerical force, for it was in the month of February in this year (1783) that the long list of members before referred to was compiled. But there was no sympathy shown with Fox on the present occasion, and no desire manifested to give him support. During the interregnum, when Fox was battling with the court, no meeting was held. After the formation of the Coalition Ministry, which was on the 2nd of April, a meeting took place on the 30th. Sir Cecil Wray, afterwards Fox's opponent in Westminster, was in the chair, but no notice was formally taken of the late ministerial crisis or its result. It was resolved that "this committee will continue to exert themselves to obtain a more equal representation of the people and a shorter duration of Parliament," and "that no minister will deserve the confidence and support of the people who will not sincerely promote a more equal Parliamentary representation." It was a curious commentary on this vote that in the following week, on the 7th of May, Pitt moved three resolutions on Parliamentary reform, and his motion was rejected by 293 to 149. This was in the House in which Fox was virtually the leader. He himself voted and spoke strongly for the motion, but his colleague North not only voted but spoke against the resolutions. In estimating the forces which were engaged in the vehement Parliamentary struggle between Pitt and the Coalition majority this fact must be borne in mind, that Pitt still acted as the advocate of the increase of popular privileges, and Fox had allied himself with the man and the party who were its most persistent and bitter opponents.

The struggle soon came. On the nth of November the Indian bills were introduced. They were carried in the Commons; but the King was determined they should not pass, and, by a most unblushing violation of constitutional usage, his private opinion was employed to influence votes in the House of Lords, and the Ministry were defeated on the 15th of December by 87 to 79. On this occasion no time was allowed for consultations. On the 18th the King called upon the ministers to resign, and on the 19th Pitt became Premier. From that day until the 25th of March in the following year, a period of more than three months, there was one long passionate Parliamentary war. Pitt's position, holding office with a majority in the House of Commons constantly opposed to him and calling by actual vote for his resignation, was clearly contrary not only to Parliamentary precedent, but to the plainest principles of the Constitution. Yet he held on without either speakers to help him or votes to support him, against the attacks of the ablest orators who have ever moved Parliament and the constant majorities which were behind them. The one thing which redeemed his conduct from the worst form of absolutism was the consciousness on both sides that an appeal to the country would result in the triumph of the Ministry. Here the opposition put themselves entirely in the wrong, denying by votes the undoubted right of the Crown to dissolve Parliament that the opinion of the constituencies might be ascertained. What that opinion would be was hardly a matter of doubt. In Westminster itself Fox had lost his hold on public feeling. The majority of the old committee was passively with him, but took no open steps in his behalf; and an active section, including Churchill and Sir Cecil Wray, was in violent antagonism. A public meeting had been held by the opposition, at which one hundred members were added to the committee, which by vote refused to receive them or have them admitted. On the I4th of February, 1784, whilst the Parliamentary war was raging, Fox's friends held a meeting at which he presided. There was violent disturbance, and a bag containing capsicum and euphorbium was thrown at Fox, who was in front of the hustings. A reward of two hundred guineas was offered by the committee to any one who would bring the perpetrator of this outrage to justice, but without effect. On the 5th of March, during the very height of the final struggle, the committee met, but made no reference to the crisis, and passed a general resolution in favour of reform and declaring its readiness to co-operate with other committees of counties and cities.

It was not until the contest was practically over that the committee spoke, and then it was in view of a dissolution rather than as taking part in the Parliamentary battle. On the 8th of March Fox in a division had a majority of only one vote, and everybody knew that his case was lost. On the 19th, what was left of the committee met. There were but twenty-five members present, and there were two dissenting voices to the resolution—"that it is the opinion of this committee that the continuance of the present ministers in their offices after the House of Commons has declared by repeated resolutions that they do not possess the confidence of that House, and has addressed his Majesty for their removal, is contrary to the essential principles of the Constitution, injurious to the most valuable interests of the nation, and has a manifest tendency to prolong the unhappy distractions and divisions which prevail in this country." Even when the committee got to the real work for which it met, there was one dissentient voice to the resolution, that in the case of a dissolution the committee recommend the electors of Westminster to support Fox. Five days afterwards the dissolution came, the Coalitionists were routed all over the country—160 of them lost their seats, and gained the name of Fox's Martyrs—and their great leader himself narrowly escaped. He was opposed in Westminster by his former friend, Sir Cecil Wray, whom he only defeated by 235 votes; and there was a long and acrimonious struggle over a petition and scrutiny before he could sit for the city, a provisional Scottish seat having to be found for him in the mean time. Thus was broken for a time the connection between the people, needing as they did and longing for constitutional and practical reforms, and the only man who, alike by his abilities and his earnest convictions, was qualified to create and lead a party which should not immediately obtain—for that was impossible—but steadily prepare the way for the accomplishment of the national desire.

 

1. These original minutes, which are in three volumes and are signed by the various chairmen—principally by C. J. Fox—are in the possession of Mr. Samuel Timmins, of Birmingham, who kindly lent them to me for perusal and extract.
2. "Biography of William Pitt."
3. These were universal suffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral districts, payment of members, abolition of property qualification.
4. Fortnightly Review for October, 1880.