The History of the Radical Party in Parliament/Chapter 4

by William Harris

 

CHAPTER IV.

 

FROM THE FORMATION OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION TO THE ACT OF UNION WITH IRELAND (1784–1800).

 

The accession of Pitt to the supreme power in 1784, marks an era in English political and party history rather from the possibilities which it involved, and which were developed by unforeseen circumstances, than from any actual change of policy which could be seen and appreciated by the people at the time. The minister, who ended as the most bitter opponent not only of popular rights, but even of freedom of thought and speech, began as a decided if not an enthusiastic Parliamentary reformer. He commenced his rule as a financial reformer, desirous above all things to reduce the national debt, which he ended by nearly quadrupling. There was at the outset, therefore, no reason why the Liberal feeling should have been alarmed at the power of the new minister. He had been in close correspondence, if not in alliance, with Wilkes, Sawbridge, Barré, and other Radicals; and his severance from Fox was naturally regarded with the less dislike because the coalition with North had for a time destroyed the popularity of the great orator. The true character and power of Fox were indeed hidden and obscured; but the events which kept him from power restored him to greatness. He was by instinct and sympathy the champion of causes which could not gain immediate victories, but which he watched and guarded and kept alive in times of darkness and danger. He had himself seen where his true place in political life was, and the work which he was best qualified to perform. In 1778 he had written of himself: "People flatter me that I continue to gain rather than lose estimation as an orator; and I am so convinced this is all I shall gain (unless I choose to be one of the meanest of men), that I never think of any other object of ambition. I am certainly ambitious by nature; but I have, or think I have, totally subdued that passion. I have still as much vanity as ever, which is a happier passion by far, because great reputation I think I may acquire and keep; great situations I never can acquire, nor, if acquired, keep, without making sacrifices that I will never make." This statement is not only a wonderful specimen of self-appraisement, but it shows the insight of genius into the conditions of the time, and the political instruments with which he would have to work. None of the great objects on which the mind of Fox was set could be obtained with the then existing constitution of Parliament, and a change in that constitution seemed to become ever less and less possible. Both these facts were manifest in the case of Pitt when he was firmly seated in office.

The strength of his Ministry has been the subject of remark to all historians of the time. The Parliamentary majority was overwhelming; there was a fusion of both the old political parties, and an agreement of many and varying social interests in its favour. But the power of the Premier was not coincident with that of his administration. It is true that he had the appearance of almost despotic rule; but he had soon to learn that there were limitations to his authority, and these mark not only the boundaries of his personal influence, but those of possible political action. Pitt, when he first took office, was a Whig, alike by tradition, training, and sympathies. He had especially made himself the advocate of a reform more advanced than the old Whigs would accept: he had co-operated with Wilkes and Sawbridge, and obtained the thanks of the popular committees. This must be remembered in thinking of the manner m which his accession to office was accepted by the Liberal opinion of the country. He endeavoured to redeem the pledges which he had given, and to justify the popular confidence. In less than a year after the meeting of the new Parliament—on the 18th of April, 1785—he introduced a motion for reform, which, on the 20th, was rejected by 248 votes to 174. He is described as the most determined minister who ever held power. He had almost the greatest majority behind him which has ever supported a cabinet; and he is said to have been as powerful with the Crown as with the country. This was a subject which he had made especially his own, which he had introduced in more than one Parliament, and which he had declared to be "essentially necessary to the independence of Parliament and the liberty of the people." Yet this omnipotent minister, this self-willed man, is defeated on his favourite subject by a majority of seventy-four; and, what is more, sits down quietly under the blow, and never afterwards brings forward the matter in any shape. Well might the Westminster committee, at its last recorded meeting, resolve—"that this committee, impressed with the idea of the absolute necessity of a reform in the representation of the people in Parliament, feel the deepest concern in finding that the House of Commons has refused to give leave for bringing in a bill on the motion of the Right Hon. William Pitt, for amending such representation," and then give up the hopeless struggle.

The condition of the nascent Radical party was now indeed depressed, if it could be said to have any definite active existence. Its spirit and principles lived in the hearts of the people without any sense of their immediate value, and in the minds of a few statesmen without power to give them practical expression. Another cause for this state of calm is to be found in the fact that there was at this time no pressure of unusual suffering in the country, and no exercise of despotic power on the part of the Government. Neither Pitt nor any one else would be allowed to interfere with the existing order of things; but there was no influence strong enough to threaten the power of the King or the patronage of his friends. There was in the political world the sort of tndifferentism which comes from the existence of a strong Ministry professing generally popular opinions, but not striving in the least to carry them out. Such a period is within our memory during the supremacy of Lord Palmerston. The incessant growth of society, the increase of its wants, the development of its ideas, render the long continuance of such a state of affairs impossible; and it may prelude, according to the conditions of the time, either some violent outbreak of a neglected and suffering people, or some manifestation of national energy in the direction of material and intellectual progress. What would have been the result in the present case if it had been left to English ideas and Englishmen to decide, we need not attempt to inquire, for we can never know; for the terrible storm of the French Revolution burst over Europe, kindling hopes or arousing terrors before which the ordinary life of nations was bent and distorted, and their ordinary thoughts and traditions were swept away. The actual legislation which was effected or attempted between 1784 and 1790, gives us little clue to the natural tendencies of the time, outside the narrow range which King and court had marked. A good deal of the time of Parliament during this period was occupied by two subjects, one of which was discussed on broad national grounds, and the other on the narrowest lines of party, or even faction. The impeachment and trial of Warren Hastings lie beyond our boundaries, except so far as they inculcated the principle of the responsibility of rulers to the people through their representatives. In the discussions which arose on the first illness of George III., as to the terms upon which the regency was to be entrusted to the Prince of Wales, great principles were indeed introduced, but they were used for palpably party objects. The opposition, in order to increase the power of their friend and patron the Prince, maintained his hereditary right to the position. The Ministry, to whom his accession would mean dismissal, were all for constitutional limitations. The contest was creditable to neither party, and it was a good thing when it ended in the recovery of the King. For the rest, the business of the country went on quietly. Pitt tried his nostrum of the sinking fund; he negotiated a commercial treaty with France; and he slightly re-arranged the incidence of taxation, as chancellors do when, with nothing serious on hand, they have to make some show of activity. The Whigs, on their side, had no power to do anything, and did not try to do much. A few mild efforts were indeed made, but they were not pushed on with the strength of the party, which, as we have seen before, were never united or hearty on the matter. One subject only of primary importance was debated with earnestness. The Test and Corporation Acts weighed heavily upon the Nonconformists, interfering with their rights and interests in every department of local work. It is in the nature of things that this class should belong to the advanced section of the Liberals, those who most strenuously maintain liberty against authority, and efforts in the direction of religious freedom will therefore be amongst the earliest signs of political activity on the part of the Radicals. The Parliament, however, which refused Pitt's request for reform was not likely to adopt any such proposition as that for the repeal of the Test Act, which, being moved on the 28th of March, 1787, was rejected by a majority of 176 to 98. It will be seen by these numbers that there was a substantial, although not powerful, Whig party. In fact, the Whigs had been strengthening their position in many respects. Fox was outgrowing the evil effects of the coalition—which Pitt lost no opportunity of calling to mind—and his oratory daily gained in brilliance and power. The friendship of the Prince of Wales was at once a source of Parliamentary strength to the party, and a guarantee to its more timid members that no very violent policy would be pursued.

Suddenly, however, the whole aspect of affairs and the constitution and relation of parties was to be changed. The proceedings in France during the years 1788 and 1789 were watched with the keenest interest here. By no class of statesmen were they at first regarded with fear or even with dislike. Pitt seemed to agree with Fox in the hope that the movement would lead to the establishment of a settled system of freedom until then unknown in France. The violent proceedings of the end of the year 1789, the march upon Versailles, and the seizure of the King and the royal family, began to produce a feeling at first of disgust and then of horror in the minds of many Englishmen. Amongst the first to give expression to these sentiments was Burke. To his philosophic intellect it was clear that no permanent progress in liberty or in well-being could result from the unregulated violence of the city mobs who were making themselves masters of the destinies of France. He did not realize the fact that to break down the terrible despotism of Crown and nobles, by which the condition of the people of France had been made a perpetual slavery, and their lives one long and hopeless misery, a passionate national effort was necessary; and if he did admit the fact, he would have still thought that the method of its overthrow was at once wicked and unwise. So he became the mouthpiece not only of the few who, like himself, loving practical liberty, loved also the ancient forms by which it had been limited and regulated, but of the more numerous class of all ranks to whom any change at all was hateful, and violent change appalling. It was in the beginning of the year 1790 that Burke's difference with his old friend Fox was first publicly manifested. In January of that year Fox praised the French army for its sympathy with the popular cause, and on the 9th of the following month he spoke in favour of the Revolution generally. Burke immediately replied, and denounced the Revolution in the most bitter and contemptuous terms. No open breach occurred at that time, but it was felt to be inevitable, and every day saw an increase of the number of Whigs who were prepared to go with Burke. On the 4th of March an application was made by Mr. Flood to bring in a bill for Parliamentary reform. Pitt strongly opposed it, although he admitted that it resembled the scheme which he had himself once introduced. The old argument of inopportuneness was used, and Burke, Wilberforce, Grenville, Windham, and Powys having spoken against it, and Fox in support, it was withdrawn without a division. No improvement in English institutions was to be possible for many a dreary year.

The crisis soon came. Its phases were marked chiefly by the relations between Fox and Burke. In March, 1791, the "Reflections on the French Revolution" were published. On the 15th of April, Fox made a speech, in concluding which he said, with regard to the change of system that had taken place in the French constitution, there were different opinions entertained by different men; he for one admired the new constitution, considered altogether, as the most glorious fabric ever raised by human integrity since the creation of man. He thought it superlatively good, because it aimed at making those who were subject to it happy. Burke at once rose to reply to this challenge; but it was late at night, there were interruptions and confusion, and he sat down. Attempts were made by the Duke of Portland—the acknowledged chief of the Whigs—and others to heal the breach; but as they all involved the relinquishment by Burke of the right of expressing his opinions freely in the House, they came to nothing. On the 6th of May came the celebrated debate in which Burke lamented the loss of friendship made inevitable by his position with regard to the Revolution; and when Fox said that there was, that there could be, no loss of friendship between them, he replied, "Yes, there was. He knew the price of his conduct; he had done his duty at the price of his friend—their friendship was at an end." Burke was right. The friendship between the two statesmen had been one founded on and sustained by agreement in principles and devotion to a common cause. To both of them politics was the very breath of life, the main subject of their thought, the one end of their actions. Private friendship could not survive the severance of the ties that made it valuable, and the severance was complete. It was not merely the cessation of agreement; it was active antagonism. The causes which led to this separation were producing similar results throughout the whole social and political life of England. Sir Erskine May does not exaggerate the case when he says, "Society was becoming separated into two opposite camps—the friends and the foes of democracy."^[1] The fear, and, it may be added, the misapprehension of the designs of what he calls the democrats, are reflected, indeed, in Sir Erskine's own views as he describes the break-up of the Whig party. "When Mr. Grey gave notice of his motion for reform, the tone of the debate disclosed the revulsion of feeling that was arising against popular questions and the widening schism of the Whig party. While some of its members were not diverted from their purpose by the contact of democracy, others were repelled by it even from their traditional love of liberty." Again, after speaking of the failure of the attempt to reconcile Pitt and Fox, he goes on to say, "But Mr. Fox, in opposition, was encouraged to coquet with democracy, and proclaim out of season the sovereignty of the people, while the alarmist section of the Whigs were naturally drawn closer to Mr. Pitt."^[2] This way of speaking about democracy as something terrible with which the Radicals were prepared to coquet it being too fearful even for them to acknowledge openly—has been the fashion with the milder class of Liberals and with all Tories, from the days of Sidmouth down to the time when the late Lord Derby declared it was his mission "to stem the tide of democracy," just before he passed the Reform Act of 1868, which gave to the people the most direct influence in the government of the country. But instead of being frightened by names, it is well to try and understand exactly what they mean. This is especially desirable in political discussions, where opponents are apt to pelt each other with epithets without stopping to define, much less to justify them. If by democracy is. meant a desire to suddenly alter the form and substance of government; to abolish in politics the influence of social and intellectual gradations; to ignore the result of national character and traditions, and begin with an old race in an old land an entirely new system, as the French were doing when Burke was so angry with them—then there has never been in the English Parliament a democratic party. But if by a democrat we mean a person who wishes to extend the principle of self-government among the people; to give them a more direct constitutional influence, as well as to recognize in their independence, progress, and welfare the true end of government;—then every Liberal must of necessity be a democrat, and the Radical especially may accept the name. What may be the effect upon the social future of the continual increase of popular power, it may not be possible to predict. Philosophers have drawn conflicting pictures of that future; for us it is enough to trust that, if it is the result not of violent artificial change, but of natural growth and development, we may, whilst doing the duty which lies nearest to us, possess our souls in patience. It was different, however, at the time when Burke and Fox were separated. Then efforts were being made in Europe to overthrow established institutions by violence, which, however well deserved, seemed incapable of replacing the forms it destroyed by others suited for the permanent service of society. It was indeed a great thing that Fox and the remnant of the Whigs—the Radicals they may well be called—who adhered to him in spite of the outcry which was being raised, had faith enough in their principles, and belief enough in the character and morale of their countrymen, to keep true to their old professions, and still to advocate the cause of reform. They are to be judged not as politicians desirous of undertaking the actual conduct of affairs, but as men recognizing great principles, and willing to abandon present power for their sake.

It was here that Fox and the Radicals were brought into contact with Burke's fundamental principle of civil government, its authority, and its function. His desire to separate the experimental and practical from the abstract in the theory of government, and expediency from legality in its practice, are well described by Mr. Pollock as the essence of his contribution to the theory of politics.^[3] It is to be noticed that the actual and the expedient meant the conditions of the Constitution as he found them existing in his own time. They were the result of the endeavour of past generations to bring those conditions into harmony either with ideas of right or with the changing requirements of a society in which new interests were arising and new powers were being exerted. The Constitution, the form of government which Burke was willing to accept, was the result of constant and continuous growth and change. But he seemed desirous, and his theory involves the necessity, of arresting this process of development. The wisely expedient thing is to be careful that alteration is not mere arbitrary change, but the consequence of natural growth. But Burke, as we have seen, opposed every suggestion of constitutional reform. The necessity of some reform was accepted by almost every other great practical statesman of his time. Chatham, and his son William Pitt, Richmond, Shelburne, Portland, Fox, had all recognized the fact that some modification of the representative system was essential, in order to make it consistent with the social and political necessities of the time. Burke resisted every one of these attempts. What he was willing and indeed anxious to do, was to remove abuses of the system. He would clean and oil the machinery, but would not have it altered. And if the instrument of government were indeed a machine, and not a living organism, he might have been right. It was arguable that this machine had been perfected, and did not admit of improvement. But if it is permissible to regard the form of a constitution apart from the feelings, the traditions, the sympathy, and the wishes of a people, we should have to go further than Burke, and to admit that at any given time in any nation the actual state of things would be practically unchangeable. It would be for the administrators of the day to be satisfied with it—as Burke was in the case of England—to settle the matter. Forms of government would be, as Pope said, indifferent:

"Whate'er is best administered is best."

The whole case is changed if we take the other view, and regard political institutions as a part of a living social organism. Inorganic machines may remain unchanged, but to a living organism change is a part of the law of its being. Either growth and development or decay and disintegration are, and always must be, going on. It is the test of the wisdom and sagacity of statesmen, that they shall know how little or how much change is desirable or inevitable.

The Radicals were acting in obedience to a sound political law—and that none the less although they did not understand its origin and basis—in declaring that some constitutional change was necessary alike to comply with the wishes and requirements of the people, and to improve the working of the practical government of the country. That their proposals were defeated and the natural growth checked, does not invalidate this interpretation of the law. The natural growth of a child or of a limb may be impeded and distorted by artificial bandages, but it is at the cost of present suffering and permanent weakness. The greatness of the suffering which came upon England because its political institutions were not allowed to represent its varying interests and reflect its growing spirit and intelligence, the history of the country from the outbreak of the French war to the death of Castlereagh sufficiently demonstrates. Pitt's own career is a sort of illustration in little of the theory that has been discussed. When he ceased to be progressive, he became positively reactionary; dropping reform, he took up restriction of personal liberty and freedom of expression, and employed the constitutional forms, into which he ceased to want to infuse new life, as instruments for the exercise of the most arbitrary rule.

There was no possibility of either healing over or concealing the differences in the Whig camp. Burke's statement as to the end of the friendship betwixt himself and Fox, was made on the 6th of May, 1791. On the 11th the final debate took place, in which Burke, whilst declaring that sentence of banishment from his party had been pronounced against him, vindicated his position and accepted the decree of severance from the men who continued to reprobate the principles which he had enunciated in his book on the Revolution. The next day the Morning Chronicle, the recognized organ of the Whigs, published what Burke called the "definitive sentence," in the following terms:—"The great and firm body of the Whigs of England, true to their principles, have decided on the dispute between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke; and the former is declared to have maintained the pure doctrines by which they are bound together, and upon which they have invariably acted. The consequence is that Mr. Burke retires from Parliament."^[4] It was, however, one thing for the formal leaders of the Whigs to take this position, and another to carry with them the bulk of their followers. On all questions but one, which affected constitutional changes or any advancement of popular liberties, the Ministry from this time forward were strengthened by Whig votes. The one subject on which Fox was able to accomplish a work of permanent value was in the case of an amendment, or rather a clearer definition, of the law relating to the power of juries in libel cases. The measure, which asserts the right of a jury to decide both as to facts and law in such trials, was introduced by Fox on the 20th of May, 1791, and carried through the Commons, but was lost in the Lords. Brought forward again in the next year it became law, having been supported by Pitt. With this exception, Fox and his immediate colleagues found themselves deserted on all the questions to which they were most devoted. Many, indeed, of the old leaders accompanied or followed Burke in his secession. The consequences to the power of what remained of the party showed themselves with greater rapidity as the fierce drama of the French Revolution was unfolded. At the opening of the session of 1792, on the 31st of January, the address in the Commons, in reply to the speech from the throne, was carried by 209 to 85. During that year, occurred in Paris the attack on the Tuileries, the massacre of the guards, and the imprisonment and trial of the King; and when the next session met in December, having been called much earlier than usual, Fox could only carry fifty votes with him, in opposing the address which virtually committed the country to war. The faithfulness of the few was severely tried in the course of the year. On the 21st of May, 1793, the Government issued a proclamation for preventing seditious meetings and writings. This proclamation was a direct attack upon the freedom of expression of public opinion, either in meetings or in the press. It warned the people against wicked and seditious writings, industriously dispersed amongst them, and commanded magistrates to discover the authors, printers, and promulgators of such writings, and sheriffs and others to prevent tumults and disorders. This was a direct incitement, or rather command, to the executive authorities throughout the country for the most part responsible to no one but the Sovereign to enter upon a system inquisitorial and arbitrary to the last degree. Yet when the House of Commons was asked to approve of the proclamation, the motion, although it was opposed by Fox, Grey, Whitbread, Russell, Hamilton, and others, was carried without a division.

Another measure of the growing weakness of the Whig party and the desertion of its members, is to be found in the proceedings having reference to religious liberty. In 1789 Mr. Beaufoy had brought in a bill to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, and secured 102 votes. In 1790 Fox made a similar attempt, and had 105 supporters; but when, on the 11th of May this year, he proposed a much less important concession to the Nonconformists, leaving the Test and Corporation Acts untouched, but repealing some old and very oppressive laws, only thirteen members of his old party would go with him. Even this number was soon further reduced. The proclamation against seditious writing and meetings formed one occasion for desertion; and the execution of Louis XVI., and the immediate declaration of war in the beginning of 1793, gave the final blow to the strength of a party to which no one could remain constant who was not either personally attached to the great leader, or so impressed with faith in and devotion to the cause of popular liberty as to be able to look beyond the violence and confusion of the day, to a future in which great principles must triumph over temporary obstacles. The time was one, indeed, in which, on both sides, there were manifested the passion which is born of political excitement, and the violence which springs from terror. Timid people might be excused if, in such a mad world, they clung with desperation to existing authority as the only protection to society against revolution and anarchy. It was indeed a fire in which to try the temper of men and nations. The revolutionary clubs and associations of reformers were undistinguished by the opponents of all change, the voluntary suppressors of sedition, the friends of "Church and King," and by every class and grade of the official world. It was at this time—the end of 1792 and the beginning of 1793—that many of the old Whigs followed Burke in his hatred of France, his resistance to reform, and his support of the most coercive measures of the Government. Windham, who was one of the first to leave his old party, became one of the most bitter of their foes. Lord Loughborough, whom the Whigs had intended to make Lord Chancellor if the regency had not been arrested by the recovery of the King, took that office under Pitt, on the enforced retirement of Thurlow. The Duke of Portland himself joined the deserters from the army which he had nominally commanded, and he was accompanied or followed by Grenville, Lords Spencer, Sheffield, Carlisle, and Fitzwilliam, and Sir Gilbert Elliott.

There was, in fact, no party left in the House of Lords, and in the Commons from forty to fifty votes were the most that Fox and his friends could muster in a division. We have seen that only fifty members voted against the address to the Crown, on the opening of Parliament on the 13th of December, 1792; and when, on the 30th of January following, ministers announced the death of Louis, the withdrawal of ambassadors, and the virtual declaration of war with France, it was hopeless even to take a division. This position was fairly represented by the vote on Mr. Grey's motion in favour of Parliamentary reform, based on a petition from residents in London. The debate was commenced on the 6th of May, 1793, and continued by adjournment on the following day. Pitt had now reached the level of the most bitter opponent of the reforms which he had previously advocated, and declared that he would rather abandon what he conceived to be the best plan of reform than risk the Constitution as it then existed. Fox spoke strongly in favour of the motion, which was rejected by 282 to 41. The forty-one members who voted with Grey may be taken as forming that Radical party which, deserted by their Whig colleagues, and subjected to abuse and misrepresentation, remained true through the darkest days to the cause of liberty.^[5]

They were indeed dark days which were coming upon England, not only for the friends of reform and progress, but for the whole nation. With a war commenced without definite object, carried on without method and without success, and ending in a desperate struggle for life; with the resources of the country lavished in subsidies to allies without energy or genius; with trade paralyzed, and the people daily sinking lower in want and suffering; with a Government driven by fear—that most cruel of all human passions—into a policy of continual coercion and repression, there seemed neither within nor without any possibility of present happiness, any hope of future improvement It was through this period of desolation and despair that the small band which rallied round Fox had to keep alive the fire which has happily never been quite extinguished in England. Engaged in such a struggle and against such odds, we must not too minutely examine by our present lights the prudence of every step they took, the wisdom of every word they uttered. It would have been strange indeed if, encountered by persecution and abuse, they had not replied in terms of passionate indignation; nor is it wonderful that in circumstances so unprecedented they should, like their opponents, mistake the meaning of some of the actors and the tendency of some of the events which were convulsing the whole of Europe. If their belief in the leaders of the French Revolution, and their trust in Napoleon, were shattered by the mad violence of the terror and the heartless ambition of the Emperor, they were at least inspired by sympathy with the aspirations of nations, and not by devotion to the power of monarchs and the interests of privileged classes.

It is a striking illustration of the continuity of history, a proof that the events of the life of a nation are not mere isolated incidents, but are links in the long chain of growth and evolution, that even in these evil times there was no positive reaction so far as the forms and institutions of government were concerned. The powers of the law were stretched to the utmost for the suppression even of free thought and speech, but the law itself was not overstept. Even the last bulwark, that created by Fox's Libel Act, was respected, although by increasing the powers of juries it preserved the liberties, if not the lives, of many men obnoxious to the Government. The protection afforded by the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended more than once, and the country prisons were filled with suspects; but the suspension was effected by the constitutional power of Parliament, and freedom of debate in the House of Commons itself was never denied. The old struggle on behalf of liberty against authority was indeed continued, but it was carried on under new forms. Authority spoke in different tones, although its meaning was the same; it had become less personal in its forms, and less distinct in its claims; but this did not decrease the difficulty of its opponents. Instead of the acknowledged supremacy of the royal prerogative, there was the subtle and pervading influence of the court and courtiers; instead of the infallible authority of the Church, there was the interest of churchmen always ready to do battle for their own order and its friends; instead of the proud authority of the old aristocracy, there was the interest of the landowning class and the monied men who purchased rank by using their wealth for political purposes.

It is not to be assumed that the direct influence of king, noble, or priest was abolished; only that it was modified. Whoever has read the "Life of the Prince Consort," written for and approved by the Queen, will know what authority the Crown still exercises over even the most powerful of responsible ministers. And in the time of George III. this authority was more direct. We have seen that his power was checked by the union of the Whig aristocracy with the popular leaders, but this opposition was in its turn undermined by the method adopted by George and his minister of filling the benches of the upper House with new men devoted to Church and King. This is described by Wingrove Cooke, who says "George III. had early set his heart upon changing the character of the upper House. If we scrutinize the votes of the Peers from the period of the revolution to the death of George II., we shall find a very great majority of the old English nobility to have been the advocates of Whig principles. The splendour of their name enabled them to espouse popular doctrines without fear of being herded with the ignorant demagogues of the day. The party creed was generally as hereditary as the family estates, and as these ancient titles were commonly created by writ, and consequently descended to heirs general, there appeared but little chance of the Whigs being extinguished in that House. As the tide of the royal favour gradually drifted away from Whiggism, he also saw the advantage of having a stable and indissoluble majority of his own party in the House of Peers. He wisely divined that the surest way to accomplish this object was to fill the House with men whose descent was not such as to enable them to take liberties with their dignity; who would vote popular doctrines vulgar, and think that their new nobility compelled them to be exclusive. George III. had kept the doors of the House of Peers cautiously shut against the Coalition, but he threw them wide open to Pitt. The change was to be effected, not by a sudden inundation, but by turning a streamlet into the House. Without shocking the ancient nobles, the aggregate of the Pitt peers soon became considerable. Within four years after he had assumed the government, Pitt could reckon forty-two of his own creations in that House."^[6]

When this result was obtained, there was a union of the three elements of authority against any attempt to extend popular privileges. The battle had become not less social than political, and even if less personally dangerous, it was made more difficult by the number and variety of the forces. Sir Erskine May says, "There was a social ostracism of Liberal opinions, which continued far into the present century. It was not enough that every man who ventured to profess them should be debarred from ambition in public and professional life. He was also frowned upon and shunned in the social circle. It was whispered that he was not only a malcontent in politics, but a free-thinker or infidel in religion. Loud talkers at dinner-tables, emboldened by the zeal of the company, decried his opinions, his party, and his friends. If he kept his temper, he was supposed to be overcome in argument. If he lost it, his warmth was taken as evidence of the violence of his political sentiments."^[7] Against such forces the mild Whigs did not attempt to fight; indeed, by joining it they made the army of authority the stronger. From a Parliament elected by and representing narrow constituencies where such elements were predominant, there could be no hope of reform. It was more difficult to obtain it now than it would have been before the power of the old Whigs was broken, and before the French Revolution had filled the minds of the people with doubt, and those of their rulers with terror. The very instrument by which alone a change could be effected was in the hands of a class to whom all change was hateful, and by whom it was held to be dangerous.

Such was the position in which the little band which followed Fox found themselves, and they maintained the struggle with wonderful courage. Their only hope was that they might create an effect upon public opinion, and it was inevitable that they should adopt a tone which the calmer members of their party have called violent and democratic. During the remainder of the year 1793 some further efforts were made to arrest the war, but they secured on divisions only between forty and fifty votes, and Parliament was prorogued in June. This year a young man entered Parliament who was destined to exercise an immense influence upon the position and power of parties in England, and to begin a new era in the foreign politics of his country. George Canning, who sat for the first time as member for Newport, in the Isle of Wight, began his career as an admirer and a supporter of Pitt, and he continued faithful for the remainder of the life of the great minister. He was from the beginning a bitter and unscrupulous opponent of Radicals and Radicalism, and attacked them alike with satire and with serious eloquence. Yet he lived to do more harm to Tories and Toryism than he was ever able to accomplish against the objects of his early hatred.

In the year 1794 there was little change in the real strength of parties in Parliament, and none in the policy of repression at home or in the feebleness and extravagance of the conduct of the war. The division in the Whig camp was completed, or rather publicly acknowledged, by the acceptance of office under Pitt by the Duke of Portland and Earls Fitzwilliam and Spencer, which took place in July. Windham had already gone over, led by his admiration for Burke. These accessions to the Government took place whilst it was using its power in the most remorseless way for the purpose of preventing every expression and punishing every action on behalf of what were called "French principles," which included any word or thought in favour of liberty or reform. They joined the Ministry in the same year in which the prosecution of Muir, Palmer, and others, in Scotland resulted in trials which were a mockery of justice and sentences which were an outrage on mercy; in which attempts to punish Horne Tooke, Hardy, Thelwall, and others, in England failed only because of the firmness and honour of English juries; and in which, after that failure, the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and the liberty of the subject handed over to the tender mercies of ministers who did not hesitate to denounce in Parliament the men whom the juries had just acquitted.^[8]

The Government grew stronger by its converts, and continued to use its strength without moderation. Early in 1795 Sheridan moved to repeal the Act suspending Habeas Corpus, but was defeated by 184 to 41; and motions against a continuance of the war met with a like fate. The distress which such a war so conducted was certain to cause began now to be felt, and when the King went to open Parliament on the 29th of October, he was mobbed by people, who cried out for cheaper bread and the dismissal of Pitt, and a shot was fired at his carriage. The Ministry had but one reply to its opponents in Parliament or the famishing people outside more repression. So bills were brought in and carried to "provide for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's person and Government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts," and "for the prevention of seditious meetings." The causes of the troubles were dwelt upon by the opposition, and especially by Grey, who, on the loth of March, 1796, on moving for a committee on the state of the nation, called attention to the fact that in three years the national debt had been increased by £77,000,000, whilst the total amount borrowed for the American war was only £63,000,000. The resolution was negatived by 207 to 45; and on the 19th of May Parliament was dissolved by a speech from the throne, which referred to the happy effects experienced from the provisions adopted for suppressing sedition and restraining the progress of principles subversive of all established government.

The new House of Commons, which met on the 6th of October, differed little in character from the last one. Whatever might be the feeling amongst the mass of the people, the classes who held possession of the electoral power were still filled with terror of French principles and hatred of French rulers. The opposition numbers were slightly increased, and additions were made to it of two members who were to be heard of afterwards, one as a solid and important leader, the other beginning as a declamatory agitator, and ending as a deserter from the Radical party. These were Mr. Tierney and Sir Francis Burdett. The test of party strength was applied on a motion by Fox, condemning the advance by ministers of £1,200,000 to the Emperor of Germany, on account of the war, without the consent of Parliament. To this resolution, which declared that by this act ministers had acted contrary to the trust reposed in them, and had violated the constitutional privileges of the House, an amendment was carried by 285 to 81. Some negotiations which had been opened having failed, the war was continued. Its effects upon the finances of the country were felt with increasing weight, and early in 1797 cash payments were suspended, first by the Government, and afterwards by a bill which remained in operation until 1819. The year was in every way disastrous and gloomy. The expenditure on the war and the consequent burden of debt increased with terrible rapidity, and two mutinies broke out in the fleet. It was in the midst of these misfortunes—the second mutiny broke out on the 20th of May—that Mr. Grey, on the 26th of May, moved for a sweeping reform in Parliament. The time was not wisely chosen, the long existing fear of change was increased and rendered more acute by the mutiny, and yet he obtained ninety-three votes for his resolution, which was more than double the number he could rally six years before in the last Parliament. Yet in spite of this increase the outlook seemed so dark, the battle so hopeless, that Fox and many of his followers resolved to give up the struggle, and to cease to attend in the House. This secession lasted with more or less consistency until the end of 1800, and even then Fox himself did not return to regular attendance. The whole of the party did not join in this movement. Sheridan remained at his post, and even supported ministers in their action with regard to the mutineers—a course of conduct for which he was never entirely forgiven by his old friends. Tierney, too, continued his attendance, and, in the absence of Fox, soon came to take the lead of what Liberal forces were left. But the party was shattered and rendered useless by the secession, and ministers, no longer opposed even by the eloquence of their old enemies, were entirely unrestrained in their policy.

Secession such as this is a course which admits of no justification, more especially from a Liberal to whom the principles of representative government ought to be dear. It is conceivable that a man who obtains a seat, either by purchase or the exercise of hereditary or social influence, may come to look upon his office as a piece of property to be used or enjoyed for his personal ends only. Such a one might either attend or absent himself from the House, as suited his convenience, his interests, or his caprice. But a Radical must regard the position conferred upon him by a constituency as a trust to be exercised for the good of the community, to be held only so long as the conditions can be honourably fulfilled. He cannot hold a commission and refuse to fight. It is always open to a member to decide whether or not he will continue to hold the trust; but so long as he holds it, he must perform the duties. When he can do this no longer, he must give way to one who will—otherwise he deprives his constituents of all representation. And abstention is as much a mistake in policy as it is a violation of principle. The work of the world will go on whether a particular set of men take a share in it or not. Neither the work nor the life of any man is so essential that the business of a nation can stop because he cries Hold! although it may take a somewhat different direction in consequence of his exertion. This was seen plainly enough in the present instance: the minister proposed his measures and his followers voted for them, irrespective of the fact that Fox was not there to criticize, and that the opposition votes numbered nineteen instead of ninety.

A worse time could not have been chosen for such an experiment than that which was actually selected. Not only did the war and the war expenditure go on without sufficient discussion, but a most important piece of internal legislation was commenced and completed during the absence of the Foxites. The union with Ireland was a work of the very greatest consequence to the future government of the country. Every detail of such an arrangement ought to have had the careful consideration of the party in Parliament, which represented the feelings of the popular or democratic section of the constituencies. Perhaps if Pitt had been met by such full discussions, the immediate consequences, as regards his own position, which followed the completion of the union might have been avoided. The great work, however, was accomplished without such criticism, and, it may be said, it was done in the absence of any Radical or Liberal party in the House. The Act of Union received the royal assent on the 2nd of July, 1800; and the Imperial Parliament, including, in the House of Commons, the old members and one hundred Irish members, met on the 22nd of January, 1801, and with its meeting begins a new chapter not only in the history of the Radical party, but of the Parliamentary government of the nation.

 

1. "Constitutional History of England," first edit. vol. ii. p. 30.
2. Ibid., p. 38.
3. "The History of the Science of Politics," Fortnightly Review, October, 1882.
4. Quoted in "Pictorial History of England" edition, 1857, vol. v. p. 813.
5. The following are the names of the forty-one. It must be remembered that Tierney, who was afterwards so energetic a member of the party, was not then in the House. He was elected in 1796.
   Fox, Rt. Hon. C. J.
   Grey, Charles
   Taylor, M. A.
   Francis, P.
   Wharton, J.
   Macleod, Col.
   Erskine, Hon. T.
   Spencer, Lord R.
   Fitzpatric, Col.
   Thompson, Thos.
   Baker, W.
   Curwen, J. C.
   North, D.
   Courtenay, J.
   Weycome, Lord
   Vaughan, Ben.
   Birch, J. R.
   Millbank, R.
   Colhoun, W.
   Sturt, C.
   Western, T. C.
   Church, J. B.
   Smith, W.
   Lambton, W. H.
   Jekyll, J.
   Lemon, Sir W.
   St. John, H. A.
   Lee, Antoine W.
   Shawe, W. C.
   Bouverie, E.
   Russell, Lord J.
   Taylor, Clement
   Jervis, Sir R.
   Whitmore, T.
   Plumer, W.
   Harrison, John
   Featherstonaugh, Sir H.
   Phillips, J. S.
   Honeywood, T.
   
   

   Sheridan, R. B. Whitbread, T.

   $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$ Tellers.

6. "History of Parties," vol. iii. pp. 363, 364.
7. "Constitutional History of England," pp. 11–36.
8. In the debates on the address, Windham spoke of Horne Tooke and others as no better than acquitted felons. On the 6th of October, 1794, the grand jury of Middlesex found true bills against Hardy, Horne Tooke, Thelwall, and nine others, for high treason. Hardy, who had been secretary to the Corresponding Society, and had written and published some very strong things, was first tried. There was a very full bench of judges, and Scott—afterwards Lord Eldon—opened the charge in a speech which lasted nine hours. After being carried on for eight days, the trial ended on the 5th of November, in a verdict of acquittal. As Hardy's was certainly the strongest case, there was not much chance of the conviction of the other prisoners. The Government, however, determined to persevere, and on the 17th of November Tooke was put upon his trial. He amused the public and irritated the prosecution by his wit, and on the 22nd he was acquitted. Thereon all the other cases were abandoned, except that of Thelwall; but, after a trial lasting over four days, he also was found not guilty. These trials are evidence at once of the malignity of the Ministry and the independence of English juries.