country. What England is now Ireland was in 1791: what was said of the few they had now applied to the many; and as there were discontents in this nation which we could neither dissemble nor deny, let us not, by an unwise and criminal disdain, irritate and fret them into violence and disor der, nor leave to the operation of chance what we might more certainly obtain by the exercise of reason. It had been affirmed that the ministers possessed the confidence of the country in the same degree as ever, since the majority of the house supported the measures of the government, and gave their countenance to all the evils we were doomed to endure. He was surprised to hear the noble lord advance a proposition so unaccountable, when a number of petitions had been presented to his majesty for a dismissal of his ministers. Why was the question of reform agitated, but because a general election did not afford the people the means of expressing their voice; because this house was not a sufficient representation of them? When we contend (said he) that ministers have not their confidence, they tell us that parliament is their faithful representative; and when we prove that the house does not speak their sentiments, from the petitions to the throne, we are desired to observe the general election, as, at this period, they had an opportunity of choosing faithful organs of their opinion. Lord North had made use of the same argument in the American war: "What! can you contend it is "unpopular, after the declaration in its favour which the people have made by their choice of "representatives? The general election is the proof that it continues to be the war of the people

66

"of England." Sospoke lord North; and yet it was notoriously otherwise; so notoriously, that the present chancellor of the exchequer made a just and striking use of this fallacious argument to demonstrate the necessity of a parliamentary reform. "You see (said he) that so "defective, so inadequate is the "present practice, at least, of an "elective franchise, that no im

66

pression of national calamity, no "conviction of ministerial error, "no abhorrence of disastrous war, "is sufficient to stand against the "corrupt influence which has "mixed itself with elections, and "drowns and stifles the popular "voice." Upon this statement he acted in 1782, and repeated this warning in 1783 and 1785: it was the leading principle of his conduct: "Without a reform (these "were the words) the nation cannot "be safe; this war may be ended, "but what will protect us against "another? As certainly as the spi

66

rit which engendered the present "actuates the secret councils of the crown, we shall, under the in"fluence of a defective representa"tion, be involved in new wars "and similar calamities." This was the right honourable gentleman's prophecy (continued Mr. Fox), and it has been fully accomplished; another war did take place, equal in disaster, and at least equal in disgrace! In what a state of whimsical contradiction did he now stand! After having complained of "the defect of representation being the national disease, and unless we applied our remedies here, we must submit to the inevitable ill consequences," after having affirmed, "that without a parliamentary reform we could not be safe against bad ministers, nor could any good ministers be of use;" it seems as it

his whole life, from that period, had been destined by Providence for the illustration of the warning! During the whole course of the present war every prediction which the chancellor of the exchequer had made, every hope that he had held out, every prophecy he had hazarded, had failed; he had disappointed the expectations he had raised, and all the promises he had given had proved fallacious. Yet, for those very declarations, and notwithstanding their failure, we had called him a wise minister; though no event he had foretold had been verified, we had continued to behold him as the oracle of wisdom; but in the only instance in which he really predicted what had come to pass, we had treated him with stubborn incredulity! But the gentlemen on the opposite side of the house tell us that a reform in the representation of the people is not called for by the country; and though petitions have come up for the dismissal of ministers, they have not expressed a wish for reform. In answer to this argument it was only necessary to observe that the restrictions recently laid on meetings of the people, and on popular discussions, accounted for the question of reform not being mixed with that which was the subject of their immediate consideration. The purpose of the meeting was necessarily specified in the requisition to the sheriff; and if any other business was attempted to be brought forward, the sheriff would have the power of dispersing the meeting. This had actually been experienced; for at a meeting of a respectable county in Ireland (Antrim), after the business for which they had assembled was transacted, that a petition for the dismissal of the minister, and Catholic emancipation

and reform, should be presented, a motion was made for thanks to earl Moira and himself, on account of the steps taken to induce government to attend to the critical state of that kingdom; but the sheriff declared he could not put the question, not because he personally objected to it, but because it did not make part of the business mentioned in the requisition. Mr. Fox said he did not mean to complain of this refusal as wrong, but to show the power of the sheriff in such a case; and it was an example to prove, that, however well the people might be disposed to parliamentary reform, they could not introduce the matter into petitions agreed upon by meetings called for a dif ferent purpose: but granting that the people did not yet call for a reform, was it not probable that the universal demand for it, which had just burst from the people of Ireland, would be speedily communicated to England? The nearness of the two countries, the sympathetic interest, the similarity of language, of constitution, almost of suffering, made it likely that one nation would catch the disease of the other, unless we interposed a seasonable cure, or rather a preventative, of the malady. France was the phantom that was continually held out to terrify us from our purpose: let us then look at France; it would not be denied that she stood upon the broad basis of free representation: whatever other views its government might exhibit, and which might afford just alarm to other nations, it could not be denied that her representative system had proved itself capable of vigorous exertion; that it had given her, in truth, gi gantic strength. Europe felt it too sensibly for denial. Mr. Fox avowed, that he had no wish we should

imitate

imitate France: yet we ought to take example of what was good in it; and if it was demonstrated beyond the power of subterfuge to question, that genuine representation alone conferred solid power, and that, in order to make government strong, the people must make the government; we ought then to act on this grand maxim of political wisdom thus demonstrated, and call in the people, according to the original principles of our system, to the strength of our government. In doing this we were not innovating, we did not imitate, we only should recur to the genuine constitution of England. When we looked at the democracies of the ancient world, we were compelled to acknowledge their oppressions to their dependencies, their horrible acts of injustice and ingratitude to their own citizens; but they compelled us to admiration by their vigour, their constancy, their spirit, and their exertions in every great emergency in which they were called to act*. We could not deny that it gave power of which no other form of government was capable. Why? Because it incorporated every man with the state; because it aroused every thing which belonged to the soul as well as to the body of man; because it made every individual creature feel that he was fighting for himself and not another; that it was his own cause, his own safety, his own concern, and his own dignity on the face of the earth, and his own interest on the identical soil, which he had to maintain; and accordingly we find, that whatever may be ascribed, whatever be objected to the turbulence of the pas

sions which they engender, their short duration, and their disgusting vices, they have exacted from the common suffrage of mankind the palm of strength and vigour. Ought Britons to refuse to take advantage of this invigorating principle? refuse to accept the benefit which the wisdom of our ancestors had resolved it should confer upon our constitution?—with the knowledge too, that it could be re-infused into our system without violence, and without disturbing any of its parts? Without disguising the vices of France, without overlooking the horrors that had been committed, it could not be denied that they had exemplified the doctrine, that if you wish for power you must look to liberty. Let us then try the people, said Mr. Fox, by the only means which experi ence demonstrates to be invincible; let us address ourselves to their love; let us identify them with ourselves: let us make it their own cause as well as ours. To induce them to come forward in support of the state, let us incorporae them in it; and when we have given them a house of commons which shall be the faithful organs of their will; when we have made them feel and believe that there can be but one interest in the country, we never should call upon them in vain for exertion. Could this be the case as the house was now constituted? Could they review the administra tion of the right honourable gentleman, without being convinced that the present representation was a shadow and a mockery? He then took a review of the circumstances under which the minister came in

to power; it was against the sense of the majority of the then house of commons, and armed with the corrupt power of the crown, he stood, and accessfully re isted the house of commons. He then declared it was not the representative of the people-that it did not (for it opposed him) speak the sense of the nation. What was the doctrine here promulgated? That the house of commons, so long as it obeyed the will of the minister, Was the genuine representative of the country; but the moment it presumed to be the censor of government, it became nothing! Ministers had affirmed that the present war was popular at the Commencement; the same had been said of the American war; por would he deny, that through the artful machinations of ministers a clamour had been raised, which they called the voice of the nation: but whatever had been the case in the outset of both, the progress in the public opinion had been the same in each; it had ndisputably changed, though no change had been produced by the reneral election in the American war, and the present war had been popular for the two last years in England, though its voice had not peen heard in the choice of representatives. Mr. Fox then pointed out the conduct of the candidates populous places, on both sides, caring the elections. The opposi tion boasted of having reprobated this war, and resisted every one of the measures by which government bad brought the country into their present situation. The ministerial party apologized for their past offence in supporting it; they used whining, canting explanations; they described alarms, and misrepresent

1797.

ed facts: such was the sentiment conveyed by the general election, affording conviction to every candid mind, that if the representative system had been perfect, or the practice pure, the new parliament would decidedly have voted against the continuance of the war. How could the people have confidence in the house that had countenanced misrepresentation through the whole course of it! He gave it as his opinion, that however averse gentlemen might be to any specific proposition of reform, if they were friendly to the principle they ought to vote for the question, that it might be freely discussed in the committee, in hopes that the united wisdom of the house might shape out something which might be generally acceptable. There was

enough of enterprise and vigour in the plan to restore order, and not enough to produce confusion. Mr. Fox thought the best and most advisable plan of reform was to extend the right of election to house. keepers; it was the most perfect recurrence to the first known and recorded principles in our constitution, according to the celebrated Glanville, in all cases where no particular right intervened. The common-law right of paying scot and lot was the right of election in the land; but it had been id, extending the right of voting to housekeepers might in some respects be compared to universal saffrage: he himself had always deprecated universal suffrage, not so much on account of any confusion to which it might lead, as because we should in reality lose the object we desired to obtain: it would embarrass and prevent the deliberate voice of the country from being heard, and would draw forth numbers who,

without

without deliberation, would implicitly act on the will of others. The best plan of representation was that which should bring into activity the greatest number of independent voters-it would be a defective system which would bring in regiments of soldiers, of servants, and of persons whose low condition necessarily curbed the independence of their minds; universal suffrage would extend the right to three millions of men, but there were not more than seven hundred thousand houses which would come within the plan proposed; and he begged that gentlemen would detide whether it would not be sufficiently extensive for deliberation on the one hand, and sufficiently limited for order on the other. But would this reform protect us against bribery and corruption? He dared not say that it would. We had, alas! for a course of years, habituated the people to that sordid vice, and we certainly could not wonder that a poor man should not scruple to take five guineas for his vote, when he knows that the noble lord in his neighbourhood took four or five hundred; but it might be hoped, that when this baneful encouragement was removed, these regulations would tend to diminish, if not remove, the evil. Contracting the duration of parliament would be one strong corrective, and this would be easy by the scheme on which elections would be made. Mr. Fox then adverted to a question often discussed, both within and without those walls, "how far representatives ought to be bound by the instructions of their constituents." He acknowledged that he inclined to the opinion (though he did not entirely espouse it), that having to legislate

for the empire, they ought not altogether to be guided by instructions dictated by local interests--yet he could not approve of the ungracious manner in which he sometimes had heard expressions of con tempt for the sentiments of constituents; they were made with a bad grace in the first session of a septennial parliament, especially if they should come from individuals who had not scrupled to court the favour of the very same constituents, by declaring that they voted against their conscience in compliance with their desire, as was the case of an alderman of the city of London. There was one class of constituents, indeed, whose instructions it was considered as the implicit duty of members to obey. When gentle. men represented populous towns and cities, then it was disputable whether they ought to obey their voice, or follow the dictates of their own conscience; but if they represented a noble lord or duke, it be came no longer a question of doubt; he was not a man of honour who would not obey the orders of a single constituent, he was to have no conscience, no liberty, no discre tion of his own; he was sent here by a lord or duke, and if he would not follow the instructions he had received, he could be no gentleman. Mr. Fox warmly reprobated this conduct. Is a gentleman (said; he) to act in opposition to the sentiments of the city of Westminster, or London, or Bristol, with impunity; and if he ventures to disagree with a nobleman, whose representative he is, must he be regarded as unfit for the society of men of honour? It was, he observed, the tyranny of corruption, the conse quence of a number of peers pos sessing an overweening interest in

the