DEBATES ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETC.
The subject of parliamentary reform had many times been debated in the house of commons, though uniformly to very little purpose. The debates in parliament, however, on this subject, if void of any immediate result, had their effects. From them, and from the knowledge conveyed through the medium of the press, the nature of our representative system became well understood by the mass of the people, and about this period a society was instituted for the alleged purpose of effecting a reform in parliament, on the principles formerly advocated by the prime-minister. This society assumed the name of the “Friends of the People,” and about thirty members of parliament, besides other persons of note, enrolled their names as members. Frequent meetings were held by the society, and the resolutions adopted on these occasions were uniformly published, together with the sentiments which were entertained by the members upon this subject. These resolutions and sentiments were often violent and unconstitutional, whence a strong feeling was created at court and in parliament against all parliamentary reform. This was seen on the 30th of April, when, conformably to the plan of the society, Mr. Gray rose to make a speech on the subject, and to give notice of his intention to move, in the course of the ensuing session, for an inquiry into the state of the representation. Mr. Grey said, that both Fox and Pitt had declared themselves to be parliamentary reformers, and that the majority of the nation were of an opinion that parliamentary reform was required. But Pitt at least had now altered his opinion upon this subject. In reply to Mr. Grey he remarked, that this was no time for. moving questions that involved the peace and safety, and endangered the constitution of the kingdom. He was, indeed, no enemy to reform if it could be obtained peaceably and by a general concurrence, but the present time was not proper for, and the national sentiment was decidedly hostile to any such attempt. The present was not a season for experiments, and he would resist every attempt of the nature to his last hour; if he was called on either to hazard our safety, or abandon all hopes of reform for ever, he would say that he had no hesitation in preferring the latter alternative. It was true, that at the conclusion of the American war he had thought a parliamentary reform necessary, in order to quiet the clamour and confusion which had arisen from the dread of an approaching bankruptcy; but however much he might in early life have promoted schemes of reform, experience had taught him the danger of tampering with the established forms of government. Pitt noticed the society of the “Friends of the People,” and its advertisements, which invited the public to join the standard of reform: stating that he saw with concern the gentlemen to whom he alluded, united with others who professed not reform only, but direct hostility to the nature of our government, and who threatened the extinction of monarchy, hereditary succession, and everything which promoted order and subordination in a state. Against the whole class of revolutionary writers Pitt inveighed in the most bitter terms; asserting that they were labouring might and main to bring about an imitation of the revolution in France. Fox replied to Pitt, and in allusion to the applause which the minister’s speech had gained, he observed that he felt additional difficulty in delivering his sentiments. He knew, he said, that the words “parliamentary reform” were very unpopular in the house of commons, but he believed that the public regarded them in a very different light, and that unless something were done to quiet the minds of the people there would be a difficulty in preserving the public tranquillity for any length of time. He had never, he continued, been so sanguine on the subject as the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken, but he was more consistent, for early in life he had formed an opinion of the necessity of some parliamentary reform, and he was still convinced of that necessity. The danger which then existed to the liberty of the people existed still, and the necessity for reform in Parliament, so far from diminishing had increased more than ever since the last session of parliament. Fox said that the opinions of that house were often at variance with those of the people; instancing, by way of illustration, the Russian armament, which had been carried by a ministerial majority, notwithstanding the public voice was hostile to such a measure. The people of England, he remarked, were at this moment paying the expenses of an armament for which they never gave their consent, and as far as that went, they were paying their money for not being represented in parliament. Fox, in conclusion, made some indefinite remarks on the books recently published upon principles of government; ridiculed the idea of danger from innovation in the constitution of England, and warmly applauded the principles of the French revolution, expressing his belief that the accounts received of the calamities of the French and of the defectiveness of their present form of government were maliciously exaggerated. Burke rose to reply to Fox, and in doing so he loudly declaimed against the political societies of the day. The object at which some of them aimed, he said, might not be altogether bad, and the motives of many individuals might be innocent, but the way they went to work was decidedly wrong. The sense of the people had not been taken on the subject, nor had any specific grievance been pointed out, or any specific remedy assigned, without which innovation might be made, but it would not be reform. The house of commons, he said, was not perfect, but he believed it was as perfect as human nature would permit it to be. He added:—“At any rate, while I can raise a voice or arm to prevent it, it shall never assimilate to the national assembly. In that body there are seven hundred members, four hundred of whom are lawyers, and three hundred out of no description that I could name: and, out of the whole, there are not a dozen who possess, in any way, one hundred pounds per annum.
“Such might be the perfection of representation in the eyes of some, and I understand it to be the opinion of many of the new sect of politics; but I trust to the good sense of the people of England never to permit such a mob, nor any thing resembling it, to usurp the sacred office of their legislature.” Windham, one of the most eloquent and accomplished men of the Whig party, warmly seconded Burke, and after a few words from Sheridan and Fox, the conversation dropped. The subject, however, was one of intense interest and not easily to be forgotten. Government by this time, indeed, had become alarmed at the proceedings of its opponents, which alarm was made manifest by a royal proclamation issued against seditious meetings and seditious writings; and exhorting the magistrates to vigilance, and the people to submission and obedience. This proclamation was laid before the house on the 2nth of May, when the master of the rolls moved an address of approbation and support to his majesty. Both in and out of the house opinions varied as to the propriety of this proclamation: some contending that public opinion was not to be directed by such a measure, and others arguing that it was a timely exertion of authority in a turbulent season, and which was indispensably requisite to restrain that lawless spirit which threatened to subvert the established government. The address was warmly opposed by Mr. Grey, who denounced the proclamation in severe terms, as an insidious and pernicious measure, and who moved a counter address, which declared that government was already vested with sufficient power to punish any open violation of the laws; that if seditious writings had been published, ministers had been guilty of neglect in not instituting prosecutions against the authors; that the proclamation was not necessary, and was calculated to create groundless alarms and suspicions; that the house of commons was ever ready to concur with his majesty in the suppression of all riots, tumults, or other disorders, on whatever pretexts they might be formed; that they deeply regretted the tumults and disorders which took place at Birmingham in the course of last summer, to the disgrace of all good government, etc.; and that the surest means of averting the like calamities would be to proceed with all the severity of the law against such persons as might have been instrumental in aiding and abetting those tumults and disorders, and particularly to prosecute and punish such magistrates as appeared to have been guilty of neglect in their duty. It was argued by Grey, and others of the opposition, as Fox, Francis, Whitbread, Lambton, and Lord John Russell, all of whom vehemently supported the counter address, that the diligent inquiry enjoined by the proclamation after the authors and distributors of wicked and seditious writings, tended to establish an odious system of espionage; a system which had made the old government of France an object of general detestation, and which was unworthy of the sovereign of a free people. Grey, and those who supported his amendment, uttered many bitter invectives against Pitt in their speeches, but he declared in reply that such language should not deter him from pursuing that line of conduct which he deemed most conducive to public tranquillity, and the preservation of constitutional freedom. Pitt expressed his high respect for many of the members of the society of “the Friends of the People,” and said that they need not come—as the opposition had presumed they would—within the scope of the proclamation. It was, he remarked, directed against those daring and seditious principles that had been so insidiously propagated amongst the people, under the plausible and delusive appellation of “The Rights of Man.” Pitt expressed his astonishment that the existence of a republican spirit in England had been denied, when it was openly avowed and industriously propagated, both by individuals and by societies. He charged Fox with being the only person who saw no danger in the writings and doctrines so widely promulgated; proclaimed him a friend, if not an advocate, of Paine and his doctrines; and asserted that such conduct could not be reconciled with any spark of patriotism. Fox indignantly rejoined, and disclaimed all sympathy with Paine. At the same time, he avowed that he saw no danger in his writings and doctrines, or of any other writer of his class, because the good sense and constitutional spirit of the people at large were a sure protection against them. Fox intimated that these were once the opinions of Pitt, and that he had only altered them when he saw, or thought he saw, the means of stirring up division among the friends of freedom. Whether a division in the camp of the Whigs was stirred up by Pitt or no, it is certain that such existed at the present time, for several opposition members, as the Marquess of Titchfield, Lord North, Windham, Grenville, with others, spoke in favour of the address; acknowledging their conviction that the doctrines promulgated by the press, and the conduct lately pursued by clubs and societies demanded the vigorous interposition of government, lest they should lead to the evils experienced in France. The address was carried without a division, and it was then communicated to the house of lords, and their lordships’ concurrence requested, in order that it might be presented to the king as the address of both houses. At this time the Prince of Wales was as closely connected as ever with Fox and Sheridan, and it was supposed that he might share their opinions with reference to the French revolution. On this occasion, however, he put the public in possession of his sentiments upon this subject. As soon as the motion for an address was made and seconded, the prince rose for the first time, and said that he should be deficient in his duty as a member of their lordships’ house, unmindful of the respect he owed to the constitution, and inattentive to the peace and welfare of the country, if he did not state openly what was his opinion upon a subject of such magnitude, as that on which their lordships were then deliberating. He continued:—“Having been educated in principles which taught me to revere that constitutional liberty of the people on which their happiness depends, to those principles I will give my firm and constant support. The matter at issue appears to be, whether the constitution was or was not to be maintained—whether the wild notions of untried theory are to conquer the wholesome maxims of established practice; and whether those laws, under which we have flourished for so long a series of years, are to be subverted by a pretended reform, which the people will not sanction. As a person nearly and dearly interested in the happiness of the people, I should feel it treason against my own principles if I did not declare my disapprobation of those seditious publications which have occasioned the present motion. On this great and solid basis I will vote for a concurrence with the commons in their wise and salutary address.” In the course of the debate Lord Grenville observed that such sentiments as those delivered by the Prince of Wales must warm the breast of every Englishman who heard them, and would convey the greatest satisfaction to the people at large, inasmuch as they might expect a continuance of those essential blessings which they had enjoyed since the accession of the present illustrious family to the throne of these realms. The address was supported by several opposition peers, and an amendment moved by Lord Lauderdale and seconded by Lord Lansdowne was rejected without a division. Having received the concurrence of the lords, the address was presented in form to the throne, and it was followed by addresses from all parts of the kingdom. Encouraged by the public sentiment, the ministry commenced prosecutions against many offenders, amongst whom Paine, the author of the “The Rights of Man,” was the most conspicuous. Paine was found guilty, but foreseeing the event, he eluded punishment by absconding to France, where he was elected member of the national convention. It is a question whether it was judicious to prosecute the demagogue, for his prosecution only served as an advertisement to his production, the sale of which became more rapid and more extensive than ever it had been before.
GEORGE III. 1792-1793