m that time the custom of beginning the regular session
before Christmas has been discontinued.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL._]

As Pitt had already twice brought forward motions for parliamentary
reform, in 1782 and 1783, the friends of the cause looked to him to
promote it as head of the ministry. The question was not at that time
exciting much public interest. The king was personally opposed to
reform, and it was not until March, 1785, that Pitt obtained his assent
to the introduction of a bill. He promised the king that if it was
rejected he would not resign, unless "those supposed to be connected
with government" voted against it. George took the hint, and while he
expressed dislike of the bill to Pitt, assured him that he would not use
any influence against it. Pitt did his best to insure the success of his
bill, and even persuaded his friend Wilberforce to return from abroad to
support it. He brought forward his motion on April 18. After defending
himself from the charge of innovation by pointing out that in past ages
changes had frequently been made in the representation, he laid down
that the representation of boroughs should depend not on locality but on
the number of voters. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six decayed
boroughs, and to add their seventy-two members to the representation of
counties and of London and Westminster. The boroughs were to be
disfranchised at their own request, which was to be obtained by the
purchase of their franchise from a fund provided by the state. In the
future any other borough which was, or became, so decayed as to fall
below a standard fixed by parliament, was to be allowed to surrender its
franchise for an adequate payment, and its right would be transferred to
populous towns. He further proposed to extend the franchise to
copyholders, and in towns to householders.

According to his plan L1,000,000 sterling was to be set aside for
compensation; 100 members would eventually be chosen by free and open
constituencies instead of by individuals or close corporations, and some
99,000 persons would receive the franchise. North spoke ably against the
motion, dwelling on the coldness with which the country regarded the
question; only eight petitions for reform were presented, and none came
from Birmingham or Manchester. Fox opposed it on the ground that the
franchise was a trust, not a property, and that to offer to buy it was
contrary to the spirit of the con