Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/124

 iio History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1807- and the earnestness of their own purpose. On the subject of Parliamentary reform they continued the old half-hearted policy, not content to leave it alone, and not prepared to go for anything really effective. On the 8th of May this year Mr. Brand had moved for leave to bring in a bill to entitle copyholders to vote for knights of the shire. The proposal was not calculated to elicit much enthusiasm, and leave was refused, but eighty-eight members voted for it. On questions of economy and purity of administration the Whigs had, since the days of Burke, assumed to take a leading part. On this point they suffered this year not only defeat, but humiliation. They had carried, even against ministers, a bill for abolishing many sinecure places, but when economy threatened to touch the members of their own great houses they had to draw back. After the success of Bankes's Sinecure Bill, Mr. Creevy said that they should not be content with small savings, but should strike at great ones, and he proposed to deal with the two tellerships of the exchequer. This was striking at high game, for these offices were worth, it was estimated, about 26,000 a year each. But the holder of one of these very desirable places was the Marquis of Buckingham, who was the uncle of the great Whig magnate, Lord Grenville, and had been as Mr. George Grenville a Whig Premier himself. Lord Grenville gave it to be understood that he should regard support of the proposal as a personal attack upon himself, for he also held a lucrative sinecure. It was all very well to be economical in general terms or in small matters, but to touch the sacred houses was too much. So the Whigs who wanted to serve their chiefs joined with the Tories who opposed all reform or retrenchment, and even an inquiry into the circumstances of the case was refused by 148 votes to 40. Whitbread was again faithful to the popular cause, and so was Brougham. This kind of public spirit was not qualified to produce any popular enthusiasm to counteract the increasing Toryism of the borough-mongers and landlords. It was clear, however, that, what with the vote on Catholic emancipation and that on Bankes's Sinecure Bill, the existing Parliament was not to be