Parliamentary Reform. 127 called to order, and obliged to apologise.' We find Mr. Fox threatening that Lord North's ministry should expiate their crimes upon the scaffold, and insinuating that they were in the pay of France.2 Nay, transgressing the bounds of political discussion, and assailing private character, he went so far as to declare that he should consider it unsafe to be alone with Lord North, in a room;3 and would not believe his word. Even of the king, he spoke with indecorous violence.5 ness. rages of in recent There have since been altercations of equal bitterThe deepest wounds which sarcasm Rarer outand invective could inflict, have been un- decorum sparingly dealt to political opponents. times. Combatants have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adder's poison is under their lips.' But good taste and a stricter order in debate, have restrained the grosser outrages to decency. The weapons of debate have been as keen and trenchant as ever but they have been wielded according to the laws of a more civilised warfare. The first years of the Reformed Parliament threatened the revival of scenes as violent and disorderly as any in the last century: but as the host of new members became 1 Feb. 22nd, 1852; Parl. Hist., xxii. 1050. Wraxall Mem., ii. 134. 2 Nov. 27th, 1781. Lord Brougham's Life of Lord North; Works, iii. 56. 4 20th March, 1782; Parl. Hist., xxii. 1216. 5 Wraxall's Mem., ii. 255-258, 517. 6 Mr. Sheil and Lord Althorp, 5th Feb., 1834.-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxi. 146. Mr. Rigby Wason and Lord Sandon, 12th March, 1834.—Ibid., xxii. 116. Mr. Romayne and Mr. O'Connell, 6th May, 1834. Ibid., xxiii. 614. Mr. Hume and Mr. Charlton, 3rd June, 1835.-Ibid., xxvii. 485, 22nd July, 1835.—Ibid., 879. disciplined by experience, and the fierce passions of that period subsided, the accustomed decorum of the House of Commons was restored. Indeed, as the Commons have advanced in power Increased authority of the Chair. and freedom, they have shown greater selfrestraint, and a more ready obedience to the authority of the Speaker. They have always been more orderly in their proceedings than the Lords; and the contrast which the scenes of the first twenty years of George III. present to those of later times, can scarcely fail to strike an attentive student of Parliamentary history. What would now be thought of such scenes as those enacted in the time of Sir John Cust, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Mr. Cornwall,-of rebukes and interruptions,' of unseemly altercations with the Chair,-of the words of the Speaker himself being taken down, and of a motion that they were disorderly and dangerous to the freedom of debate?2 In concluding this sketch of Parliamentary oratory, a few words may be added concerning the general standard of debate in the House of Commons. If that standard be measured by the General standard of debate. 1 Scenes between Mr. Rigby and the Speaker, Sir John Cust, in 1762. Cavendish Deb., i. 342. And between Sir J. Cavendish and the same Speaker, March 9th, 1769.-Ibid., 567. Mr. Burke and the same, April 15th, 1769.-Ibid., 878. Scenes with Sir Fletcher Norton, Dec. 14th, 1770.-Ibid., ii. 168.-March 12th and 27th, 1771.-Ibid., ii. 390, 476. General Tarleton and Mr. Speaker Addington, 16th Nov., 1795.- Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 7. Even so late as March 16th, 1808, there was an altercation between the Chair and Mr. Tierney, which ended in a resolution affirming the impartiality of Mr. Speaker Abbot.-Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 142. 2 Feb. 16th, 1770; Parl. Hist., xvi. 807. excellence of the best speakers at different periods, we have no cause to be ashamed of the age in which our living orators and statesmen have flourished. But judged by another test, this age has been exposed to disparaging criticisms. When few save the ablest men contended in debate, and the rank and file were content to cheer and vote, a certain elevation of thought and language was, perhaps, more generally sustained. But, of late years, independent members,-active, informed, and businesslike, representing large interests, more responsible to constituents, and less devoted to party chiefs,living in the public eye, and ambitious of distinction, have eagerly pressed forward, and claimed a hearing. Excellence in debate has suffered from the multiplied demands of public affairs. Yet in speeches without pretensions to oratory, are found strong common sense, practical knowledge, and an honesty of purpose that was wanting in the silent legions of former times. The debates mark the activity and earnest spirit of a representative assembly. At all times there have been some speakers of a lower grade, without instruction, taste, or elevation. Formerly their common-place effusions were not reported: now they are freely read, and scornfully criticised. They are put to shame by the writers of the daily press, who discuss the same subjects with superior knowledge and ability. Falling below the educated mind of the country, they bring discredit upon the House of Commons, while they impair its legislative efficiency. But worse evils than these have been overcome; and we may hope to see this abuse of free discussion eventually corrected, by a less tolerant endurance on the part of the House, and by public reprobation and contempt. 131 CHAPTER VIII. INFLUENCE OF PARTY ON PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT:-PRINCIPLES AND ORIGIN OF ENGLISH PARTIES:-WHIGS AND TORIES:-SKETCH OF PARTIES FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE AMERICAN WAR: THE COALITION:-TORY PARTY UNDER MR. PITT:-EFFECT OF FRENCH REVOLUTION UPON PARTIES:-STATE OF PARTIES FROM 1801 To 1830; AND THENCE TO 1860:-CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER AND ORGANISATION OF PARTIES. party in ary govern We have surveyed the great political institutions by which the state is governed; and ex- Influence of amined the influence which each has exer- Parliamentcised, and their combined operation. That ment. a form of government so composite, and combining so many conflicting forces, has generally been maintained in harmonious action, is mainly due to the organisation of parties, an agency hardly recognised by the constitution, yet inseparable from parliamentary government, and exercising the greatest influence, for good or evil, upon the political destinies of the country. Party has guided and controlled, and often dominated over the more ostensible authorities of the state: it has supported the crown and aristocracy against the people: it has trampled upon public liberty: it has dethroned and coerced kings, overthrown ministers and Parliaments, humbled the nobles, and established popular rights. But it has protected the fabric of the government from shocks which threatened its very foundations, |