CHARLES JAMES FOX.

143

the promoters of the triennial scheme the first declared offenders against the unanimity which the conference of deputies was intended to promote, and urged his readers never to forget that they had already been betrayed by a triennial Parliament. Some counties, in their petitions to Parliament, mentioned no limit, but contented themselves with calling for the shortening of Parliaments. Other counties and the City of London unhesitatingly adopted the Idemand for annual Parliaments.

Charles James Fox took an active part in this movement. He was chairman of a meeting in the King's Arms Tavern on March 20th, 1780, at which a report of a sub-committee, presided over by Sheridan, was read in favour of annual Parliaments, and at which a resolution was passed declaring septennial Parliaments to be subversive of the constitution and a violation on the part of the representatives of a sacred trust reposed in them by their constituents.

When, in this year, Sawbridge brought on his annual motion, Fox, after stating that he had for years voted against the bill for shortening Parliaments, now declared his intention to vote for it. He believed the action of those who passed the Septennial Act to be justifiable, but recognizing that the people of England called for the shortening of the duration of Parliament, he held himself bound to comply with their requisition. Horace Walpole was alarmed at the progress of the petitioning associations, and was not complimentary to Fox. Walpole objected to alterations of the constitution, and wrote to Horace Mann concerning the propositions then made-" Lord Shelburne and Charles Fox push them impetuously, though at first both opposed them, but the first will stick at nothing to gratify his ambition, and the latter must stick at nothing, so desperate is his situation." But two years afterwards, when Fox was in office, and was

WILLIAM PITT.

145

challenged during the debate on Sawbridge's annual motion to say why he had not been present at one of the Westminster meetings as on former occasions, it is recorded that he spoke for an hour in support of the question before the House. He said he was certain this reform was the wish of the people, and was a measure they would have.

William Pitt, in 1782, gave his adhesion to the supporters of Sawbridge's motion, and the people for a time were in great hopes that from him and Lord Shelburne, whom they had publicly thanked for bold declarations in their cause, the rights demanded would be received. But the lesson they learned was that they must not put their trust in ministers. In 1792 the nation was practically unrepresented in Parliament; the revolutionary proceedings in France strengthened the hands of opponents of reform; Mr. Grey's motion for the reform of the representation was opposed by Mr. Pitt; and the

L

popular societies were roused to indignation by a royal proclamation against seditious writings. On behalf of one of the societies whose members considered

themselves threatened by this proclamation—“The Friends of the People”— Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey warmly attacked the proclamation, and, with a severity which would hardly be possible in present-day debates, denounced the conduct of Pitt. If there was a man in the House who delighted more in sinister practices than Pitt, Mr. Grey had never heard of him. The minister's life had been a tissue of inconsistencies. Never had he kept his word with the public. He had studied the arts of captivating popularity without ever intending to deserve it. He had contemptuously postponed the dearest rights and privileges of the people. He was a complete public apostate. The minister's defence was first undertaken by Mr. Secretary Dundas. At the end of the American War, he said, the clamour

for reform had come from such a variety of quarters that Pitt had been one of those who, thinking it was the general opinion of the people, had been a good deal staggered upon the subject. His right honourable friend was then young and engaged to no party. But he clearly saw that the present was not a time for a wise and prudent man to agitate the question of reform. Fox sarcastically observed that Pitt might be thought to have a patent for retraction and a monopoly of change. Then Pitt entered into his own defence, of which, from such record of it as is preserved, the main point was conveyed in his question whether, in the then state of affairs, there was not serious cause of alarm. Grey, Fox, Lauderdale, and Lansdowne were the defenders of the popular societies in this debate. Richmond, the champion of manhood suffrage and annual Parliaments, had at last gone over to the enemy. A portion of his letter to Colonel Sharman was quoted in the debate; and between