# The History of the Radical Party in Parliament/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.
FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE DEATH OF CHATHAM (1760–1778).
The long reign of the Whigs was shaken by the defeat of Walpole, but it was shaken by a coalition of which Whigs like Pulteney and Townshend were leading members. It was restored apparently with all its old force under the Pelhams, but the Patriots had appealed to a power with which the party managers could not ultimately deal. That public opinion which had led to the dethronement of Walpole, afterwards forced Pitt upon an unwilling monarch and an unfriendly Cabinet; and Pitt was determined to rely not upon the placemen who merely tolerated him, but upon the people who really trusted and loved him. Throughout his whole career he declared his intention to break the trammels of party. There were occasions on which this resolution seemed to act disastrously for the interests of the nation, as when he refused to ally himself with the Rockingham Whigs. There is no doubt that Burke's argument in favour of party allegiance under a Parliamentary system is unanswerable. Representative government will be impossible if men who are generally of the same way of thinking will not consent to so far modify their individual views as, whilst preserving their principles, will enable them to agree upon the details in which those principles are to be embodied. But the circumstances of the time were peculiar, and, in Pitt's opinion, the rule of the Whig oligarchy was as much opposed to political freedom as would have been an absolute monarchy itself.
​When George III. ascended the throne, this first inroad upon Whig supremacy had been made, and the new King and his advisers soon opened an attack still more effective upon the forces of the old party. When the old struggles between Tories and Whigs had ended in so complete a triumph of the latter that there was practically no opposition, and therefore no need to appeal to the feelings or the passions of the nation, the chief machine of government became what was known as Parliamentary influence. This consisted of two or three branches. There was first the possession of pocket boroughs; then the use of bribery and of official power and corruption in constituencies; and lastly, the direct purchase of votes in Parliament itself, either by money or place. All these instruments, which had been used with such vigour by Walpole, and were employed even more unscrupulously by Newcastle, the King and his advisers began to adopt. Some of them, especially those which depended upon the possession of places and the command of public money, were as easily available to the Crown as to its ministers. The effect was soon seen in the presence in Parliament of the body of political creatures called the King's friends, who opposed in turn every minister who did not obey the royal behests, and voted not in accordance with any principle or in unison with any party, but simply in obedience to the word of command from the sovereign. There had always existed in the House of Commons a small phalanx of Tory members, representing some of the counties, who hated the Whigs and loved the prerogative. These men could not give willing service or affection to either of the two first Georges, but they had no difficulty in transferring their active allegiance from the hopeless cause of the Stuarts to an English-born king holding Tory views. Besides these, which may be called the main constitutional forces, there were to be noticed one set of men, not numerous or powerful enough to be called a party, but able always to make themselves heard and often to make themselves felt. The city of London and most of the constituencies where city influence reached, were still possessed with the same love of liberty ​which had made them the strongholds of the old enemies of despotic power. The representatives sent from these places, and the outside leaders of opinion, were sometimes men of more force than delicacy, but they had to do work from which more refined people might shrink. They were persistent alike in outside agitation and in Parliamentary duty, and they furnished a contingent which gave support to whichever section of the old party took the most advanced view on the subject of the day. They were assisted by a few of the representatives of populous counties, and there, if anywhere, could be found the germs in which might be traced the first signs of the life of the future Radical party.
In spite of all contending forces, however, the power of government had not passed, and could not for some time pass out of Whig hands. Macaulay exaggerates the case when he says, "On the day of the accession of George III. the ascendancy of the Whig party terminated, and on that day the purification of the Whig party began." For one thing, all the practical governing ability, all the knowledge of affairs, all the official experience, were in the hands of one section or other of the party. Two years after his accession the King could make Bute Premier and Dashwood Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he could not give them the ability to direct the affairs of the country or to manage the House of Commons, so that one or other Whig chief had to be called in, either Grenville or Newcastle or Rockingham, for even in its division the party was indispensable. These very divisions, manifested at a time when new political ideas were beginning to be discussed and new influences to be exercised, give to this period its especial value for our particular purpose. It is in the break-up and reconstitution of parties that we are best able to watch the manner in which these principles and influences impressed themselves upon different minds, and how they served to unite in fresh bonds, or finally to sever, men who had hitherto been connected by conditions which were now ceasing to exist.
​Three subjects now come up for consideration of not merely temporary importance, but raising questions affecting the authority of Government, the rights and liberties of individuals, and the true source of political power. The first and in every way the most important of these three subjects was the struggle between England and the North American Colonies. This contest involved constitutional questions of the gravest character, the ultimate issue being nothing less than the authority to deal with the properties, rights, and liberties of a people by any government not chosen by and directly representing them. Much ingenuity has been employed in discussing whether or not the taxation of the colonies was technically justified by the English law and custom of the time. But the case was one which went too deep for the letter of law and precedent to settle; it was one of fundamental right in accordance with which laws have to get themselves made, and not one which could be answered by mechanical law. If we look not only at the vital consequence of the issue, but at the vehemence and heat by which its discussion was soon surrounded, it is astonishing to see with what absolute indifference its first introduction was attended. The Stamp Act was passed in 1765, with scarcely any discussion at all in Parliament. Colonel Barré was one of the very few members of the House of Commons reported by the Parliamentary History as having spoken against it. But the manner in which it was received in America put another complexion upon the matter. In 1766 it was found necessary to repeal the Act, and the discussions which then ensued, and the views taken by different sections of politicians, are characteristic and instructive.
There were three main lines on which opinions ran. In the first place, there was the doctrine of the absolute authority of the Imperial Government over the lives and liberties of its subjects either in America or elsewhere. This was, of course, the view taken by the King, by the King's friends, by the Tories, and by all, in fact, to whom the principle of authority—more or less tinctured with the flavour of divine right—was ​accepted as the basis of their policy. But the people named were not alone in maintaining this opinion, or, at all events, in supporting the course of action to which it pointed: the two Grenvilles, Lord Temple and his brother George, were both strongly against repealing the Stamp Act, and they were supported by other Whigs.
The second position was, that Parliament had of right the power of taxing the colonies, but that it was inexpedient and practically unjust to do so. This was essentially the Whig doctrine, and it was held by the Ministry, which proposed at the same time the repeal of the Stamp Act, and the passing of a declaratory Act saving the whole power of the English Parliament. The two parts of the proposition were supported with different degrees of earnestness by the several members of the Government. Burke always dwelt upon the folly and wickedness of exercising the power, which he yet acknowledged to exist, and the very ablest and noblest of his contributions to political philosophy were devoted to this subject. The Duke of Grafton, when introducing the Declaratory Resolution, announced his opinion to be "that the Americans were as liable to be taxed as any man in Great Britain."
The third view taken of the question was, that it was a violation of fundamental and constitutional right for the English Government to tax the Americans, who were not represented in Parliament. Pitt strongly maintained this position. Speaking on the 14th of January, 1766, he says distinctly, "It is my opinion that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies." His great friend and follower, Lord Camden, was quite as definite. With regard to the Stamp Act, he said, "In my own opinion, my lords, the legislature had no right to make the law." This may be fairly called the Radical doctrine; it was held by a minority only in either House, but it was the only ultimate logical reply to the Tory creed of an inherent authority in Government to rule its subjects in accordance with its own will. Pitt, it is true, made a distinction between this right of taxation and ​all other powers of Government which he maintained to be possessed by England over the colonies; and he either suggested, or at all events supported, the idea of a Parliamentary declaration of these powers when the Stamp Act was repealed. The declaration actually made, however, was not in accordance with his avowed opinions, which were expressed in the House of Lords by Camden, who said, "The resolution now proposed is in my opinion too general, as it gives the legislature an absolute power of laying a tax on America."
The Annual Register of 1766, at that time conducted by Burke, recognized and set out the three sets of opinions which were held by different parties on the American question, and especially alluded to Pitt as denying the rights of Parliament to tax the colonists. Pitt and his friends assisted Rockingham in obtaining the repeal of the Stamp Act, but the difference between doing this in obedience to a broad constitutional principle which denied the right to tax an unrepresented people and doing it as an act of political expediency, was soon fatally manifest. The distinction which Pitt raised between the taxing power and the other powers of Government was scarcely definable, and not at all capable of practical maintenance. The next year, when the great minister—then Earl of Chatham—was in office, duties were levied on glass, paper, and pasteboard, red lead and colours, and tea, and the signal thereby given which led to the war and the independence of the colonies. This was in the first stages of that long illness which seemed to shroud the mind as much as it prostrated the body of the minister; but he was evidently more impressed with the duty of asserting the general power of government than of sustaining the constitutional right on which he had before insisted, and the place that he left was not filled on this occasion by any other champion, so that the new Act was passed as easily and with as little opposition as that which had been recently repealed.
The history of the unhappy conflict which ensued has not to be dealt with here; it is sufficient to notice the failure of the efforts in which, on his recovery, Chatham joined with the ​Rockingham Whigs to undo the mischief which had been done. It became evident to all earnest Liberals that the colonists were upholding not only their own cause, but the cause of freedom in the whole of the British dominions. They were fighting not on behalf of the wise policy of the Whigs, but for the right of subjects to be taxed only with their own consent, and governed only by their own representatives. The circumstances attending the first discussions raised the all-important questions, and they point clearly to the existence among active politicians of opinions which could never form part of the official Whig or Tory programmes, and must therefore lead sooner or later to the growth of a third party in the State. During this period questions very vitally affecting home liberties divided with the American question the attention of the country and Parliament, and at times aroused passions in a manner which only feelings of personal animosity could account for. Freedom of the subject as affected by the right of Government to issue general warrants; freedom of the press as secured by the right of juries to decide on law as well as on fact, in cases of libel, and as affected by the power of publishing the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament; freedom of election threatened by the assumption of the Commons, that by their sole resolution they could declare any particular person to be ineligible for election;—all these great subjects were raised, directly or indirectly, through the conduct of one man, who, however unworthy either by character, position, or ability to take the lead in a national movement, must certainly be regarded as an instrument by which valuable results were achieved.
John Wilkes was one of those reckless people who rush with delight into positions from which more delicate natures shrink, and by their very extravagance irritate the powers they attack into violent proceedings that must end in failure in any country where law is more powerful than personal authority. However personally unpleasant such men may be, they often furnish the only possible method of testing the justice of an administration of law which aims merely at preserving the ​respectabilities of social life. Wilkes shocked a great many worthy people when he attacked the King's favourite, the King's mother, and even the King himself, and the shock was the more severe because it was administered by a man who was known to be loose in his moral character; but the same issues could never have been raised by mild speaking and gentle criticism. He has been accused of having taken up politics only as a resource when his fortunes were ruined and his character lost; but niceness of morality and purity of political motives were not universal in the public men of the time, and Wilkes, at all events, sought to serve not the class who were dispensers of wealth and honours, but that great body of the people who were too frequently regarded by placemen and party managers as machines to be used and property to be disposed of. Throughout the term of his active political career, Wilkes, although violent in his language, and affected and histrionic in his proceedings, was yet consistent in the advocacy of a really liberal policy, which should protect popular liberties and extend popular rights.
Throughout this continuous and most important struggle the Whig party was divided, and there was the greatest confusion in the ranks. Burke and some of the Rockingham section were earnest in their defence of constitutional rights and individual liberty, but there was no definite acknowledgment of principles which could bind the whole party. George Grenville, the Duke of Bedford, and Lord Sandwich, were in the government which issued the general warrant; and the Duke of Grafton and Lord Weymouth were amongst the ministers who proposed and carried the resolutions disqualifying Wilkes from serving, and declaring Luttrell duly elected. Grenville on the last occasion was in opposition, and strongly resisted the disqualifying proposal; and, indeed, many of the party leaders took different views on the same kind of questions, according as they were in or out of office. Chatham was throughout, on these as on all great constitutional questions, on the side of freedom; but Chatham would not call himself a Whig, and would not act as a member of the ​party. The last of these struggles—that which was waged over the right of publishing the debates of Parliament—was marked by similar circumstances. Chatham, Burke, Grenville, and many of the Whigs, were on the popular side, but they could not rally the strength of the party, and the majorities by which the right of printing was opposed were much larger even than those usually obtained by the Government.
Throughout the whole of this series of efforts to obtain and to secure the liberty of the press, the strength of the Liberal side lay not with the ordinary leaders in Parliament, but with the popular feeling outside, represented by a few determined men in the House. It was in the City of London especially that the fight was most vehemently maintained. The Corporation was always ready, either by petitions, by addresses to the King, or by popular demonstrations, to keep up the excitement. The lord mayor and aldermen did not hesitate to oppose the House of Commons, to resist its orders, to imprison its messengers, and generally to defy its authority. Behind the whole of this agitation, exciting its spirit and directing its movements, was the indefatigable Wilkes. The question with regard to the law of libel and the rights of juries was settled in the law courts; but with respect to the disqualification of members, and the publishing of reports, the nature of the triumph itself was plainly indicative of the means by which it had really been gained. Chatham and Burke, and other great Parliamentary leaders, had thundered against the disqualification of Wilkes, and against the exclusion of reporters and the imprisonment of printers. But they had protested against other things, which either went on all the same under the protection of great ministerial majorities or were settled by formal votes in Parliament. In these two' cases there was no victory gained in divisions. Wilkes took his seat, and the debates were reported, not because the opposition obtained a majority, but because neither ministers nor Parliament could resist the outside opinion which found expression in the House of Commons, through the small group of men who worked in the city with Wilkes, and in the ​Lords through Chatham and his immediate friends, who would own no allegiance to the Whigs. It was the early working of a spirit of devotion to the popular cause, and of independence of old Parliamentary traditions, which ultimately developed itself into the form of a new party.
The same observations apply exactly to the movements for Parliamentary reform which began during this period. Here, indeed, the political weakness of the Whigs was most manifest. Burke and many of the Rockinghamites, who were firm on the other questions which have been under consideration, were, as we have before seen, opposed to any constitutional change. On the other hand, the Duke of Richmond advocated universal suffrage and annual Parliaments. Chatham himself was more undecided on this than on any other great subject with which he had to deal; but through all his irresolution as to details, he was always ready to make some change which should give more definite and powerful expression to the honest public opinion of the country. His favourite plan—and one which he actually submitted to Parliament—was to give a larger share of representation to the counties, those being the constituencies in which he thought bribery, intimidation, and other forms of corruption had least influence. As to the shortening of the duration of Parliaments, he wavered from time to time, but his latest opinion seems to have been in favour of such a proposal as tended to make members more alive to their responsibilities towards their constituents. There was, however, a fixed and growing determination to agitate for reform on the part of the city men, and of some other earnest members of the Commons. And here it was early felt that if any advance was to be made, it must be the result of the efforts not of the people who owned or worked or represented the corrupt and limited existing constituencies, but either of those who were returned by the independent counties or cities, or of people and places who were excluded from all share in elective privileges. It was this feeling that led to the formation of associations and the holding of public meetings for discussing ​political questions, which Mr. Herbert Spencer and his collaborateurs hold to be one of the distinguishing features of the period 1768–70.
In the House of Commons, Alderman Sawbridge began the system of annual motions on popular subjects, by moving every year, from 1771 to 1778, for leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments; and in 1776 Wilkes asked leave to introduce a measure, by which he proposed to increase the number of representatives for the metropolis, the counties of Middlesex and York, and other populous counties, and to give members to the great trading and manufacturing towns, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and Leeds. The demand for reform was largely based on the corrupt power of the Crown in Parliament, and attempts were made to remedy the evil by the disqualification of placemen and officers in the public departments. It was on this point of endeavouring to purify the existing institutions rather than to re-construct them, that Burke separated himself from the reformers. Throughout the country, however, reform became a popular cry, and the large counties joined the city in active agitation for its adoption. This system of combined public and Parliamentary action was still further developed in the next following period, and it was then supported by a man who, from the splendour of his abilities as well as for his ardour on behalf of liberty, was worthy to take the place which Chatham was so soon to vacate. Charles James Fox, who was for a few years a member of Lord North's administration, and in that capacity opposed some of the earlier efforts to obtain reforms, left the Tory party in 1774, and soon became the great Liberal champion.
During the period which has now been under review, we can clearly trace the influence of principles which the King and the Tories hated, and which the official leaders of the Whigs could not accept; and we can see also the action of men who either, like Chatham, refused to be bound by party traditions, or, like Wilkes, were regarded as political incen​diaries. This position was recognized and acknowledged by Chatham himself in the often-quoted letter to Calcraft, in which, speaking of Lord Rockingham and his friends, he says, "The Marquis is an honest and honourable man, but that 'Moderation! moderation!' is the burden of the song among that body. For myself I am resolved to be in earnest for the public, and shall be a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of the grove, the moderate Whigs and temperate statesmen." Not a bad foreshadowing this of the character which would be assumed by, or given to that Radical party, to the origin of which the great orator certainly contributed.
* ↑ Second Essay on Chatham.
* ↑ "Descriptive Sociology—England," table v., and notes thereon.