[95] Grey in his speech disclaimed the fact that the object of his motion was the reform of Parliament, though he owned he wished it was so. As, however, this was impracticable he wished only to try to keep Parliament in its present state.
[96] John Gale Jones (1769–1838), a Radical politician of the advanced school, though by profession a surgeon.
[97] Fox, in a letter to Lord Holland, dated March 1798 (Memorials and Correspondence), says: ‘With regard to secession (that is declared secession) I confess I do not like it as a measure, but I believe the Duke of Bedford does. I should dislike to a degree I cannot express to attend again myself: ... but I am so far from wishing others to do the same, that I even wish for occasions when you and others may have opportunity of attending.’ Again, on October 21, he writes: ‘The Duke of Bedford, who is here, confirms what you say of Grey’s intention to attend occasionally, and I shall not be at all sorry to find myself the sole seceder.’
[98] Lord Holland points out in the Memoirs of the Whig Party that this was the first motion in the House of Lords on a subject which finally received the assent of Parliament in 1829. The motion was not directly negatived, but the debate was concluded by Lord Boringdon, who moved the previous question.
[99] A bill on this subject was brought in by Lord Auckland in April, but was dropped after passing the second reading. The same gentleman introduced a new Bill on May 16, which passed through the House of Lords, though on third reading the figures were only 77 to 69. It was also read twice in the House of Commons, but was thrown out on a motion that it should be considered in Committee. The first was to prohibit the intermarriage of the offending parties. The second contained an additional clause making the offenders liable to imprisonment and fine.
From every latent foe,
From the assassin’s blow,
God save the King!
O’er him thine arm extend,