Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/341

1846.] Sir Robert Peel's -Administration. 327 there seemed to be less complete and active sympathy between the popular reform movement outside and the response to it inside Parliament. It was not that the Radicals in the House of Commons failed to recognize, or hesitated to express, the necessity for reform ; but there were causes which gave to their action in this matter a perfunctory character. The violence and folly of one section of the Chartists had con- tributed to this result Unfortunately, Feargus O'Connor and his followers, who called themselves physical-force Chartists, had obtained the command of the largest following, and their direct incitements had led to riots which could do nothing but injury to the cause of reform. There were others who, like Joseph Sturge and William Lovett, entered a constant protest against this irrational and mischievous policy ; but their voice was not potent enough to allay the tumult, and it suited the enemies of all reform to associate the name of Chartist with the ravings and the conduct of the violent leaders and their misguided followers. During the autumn of 1842 there had been riotous proceedings in many counties, and in the spring Assizes of 1843 there had been trials and committals of Chartists in Lancashire, Staffordshire, and Warwickshire. It was not easy for a Parliamentary party to work in unison with agitators of this kind. Another reason was to be found in the pre-occupation and that constantly increasing of the minds and energies of the most earnest Radicals in the great work which they had undertaken of setting free the food of the people, which up to this time was, as we have seen, an essentially Radical movement Yet Parliamentary reform was not entirely neglected in the House ; enough was done to keep up a perpetual protest, although there was no appearance of forcing the question into immediate prominence. On the 1 8th of May Sharman Crawford moved for leave to bring in " a bill to secure the full representation of the people, and to shorten the duration of Parliament" His object was, he explained, to obtain extended suffrage, annual Parliaments, the abolition of property qualification, the payment of members, and the ballot Leave was refused by 101 votes to 32 ; but on