was estimated at 18,000l. In vain his friends endeavoured to induce the House of Commons to order the High Bailiff to make an immediate return. That officer was upheld by Mr. Pitt, who was followed, at first, by a large majority. Mr. Fox, in his bitterness, exclaimed: "I have no reason to expect indulgence: nor do I know that I shall meet with bare justice in this House." As no return had been made, which could be submitted to the adjudication of an election committee, Mr. Fox was at the mercy of a hostile majority of the House. The High Bailiff was, indeed, directed to proceed with the scrutiny, with all practicable dispatch; but at the commencement of the following session,-when the scrutiny had been proceeding for eight months,—it had only been completed in a single parish; and had but slightly affected the relative position of the candidates. Notwithstanding this exposure of the monstrous injustice of the scrutiny, Mr. Pitt still resisted a motion for directing the High Bailiff to make an immediate return. But,-blindly as he had hitherto been followed,—such was the iniquity of the cause which he persisted in supporting, that all his influence failed in commanding a larger majority than nine; and on the 3rd of March, he was defeated by a majority of thirty-eight. The minister was justly punished for his ungenerous conduct to an opponent, and for his contempt of the law,-indignantly ascribed by Mr. Fox, to "the malignant wish of gratifying an inordinate and implacable spirit of resentment."2 But a system which had thus placed a popular candidate,— 1 By 162 against 124; Ann. Reg., 1784, xxvii. 180; Adolphus's Hist., iv. 115-118, 168. 2 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 808, 843, 846; Ibid., xxv. 3; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 542; ii. 7, 24, &c.; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 99; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 207— 211, 253. in one of the first cities of the kingdom,-at the mercy of factious violence, and ministerial oppression, was a flagrant outrage upon the principles of freedom. Parliament further marked its reprobation of such proceedings, by limiting every poll to fifteen days, and closing a scrutiny six days before the day on which the writ was returnable.1 influence In the counties, the franchise was more free and Territorial liberal, than in the majority of cities and boroughs. All in counties. forty-shilling freeholders were entitled to vote; and in this class were comprised the country gentlemen, and independent yeomanry of England. Hence the county constituencies were at once the most numerous, the most responsible, and the least corrupt. They represented public opinion more faithfully than other electoral bodies; and on many occasions, had great weight in advancing a popular cause. Such were their respectability and public spirit, that most of the earlier schemes of parliamentary reform contemplated the disfranchisement of boroughs, and the simple addition of members to the counties. But notwithstanding their unquestionable merits, the county electors were peculiarly exposed to the influence of the great nobles, who held nearly a feudal sway. Illustrious ancestry, vast possessions, high offices, distinguished political services and connections, placed them at the head of the society of their several counties; and local influence, and the innate respect for aristocracy which animates the English people, combined to make them the political leaders of the gentry and yeomanry. In some counties, powerful commoners were no less dominant. The greater number of the counties in England and Wales were 1 25 Geo. III. c. 84. Representation of represented by members of these families, or by gentlemen enjoying their confidence and patronage.1 A contested election was more often due to the rivalry of great houses, than to the conflict of political principles among the electors; but, as the candidates generally belonged to opposite parties, their contentions produced political discussion and enlightenment. Such contests were conducted with the spirit and vigour which rivalry inspires, and with an extravagance which none but princely fortunes could support. They were like the wars of small states. In 1768, the Duke of Portland is said to have spent 40,000l. in contesting Westmoreland and Cumberland with Sir James Lowther; who, on his side, must have spent at least as much.2 And, within the memory of some men still living, an election for the county of York has been known to cost upwards of 150,0007.3 Great as were the defects of the representation of Scotland. England,—those of Scotland were greater, and of more general operation. The county franchise consisted in "superiorities," which were bought and sold in the market, and were enjoyed independently of property or residence. The burgh franchise was vested in selfelected town-councillors. The constituencies, therefore, represented neither population nor property; but the narrowest local interests. It was shown in 1823, that the total number of persons enjoying the franchise was less than three thousand. In no county did the number of electors exceed two hundred and forty: in one it was as low as nine; and of this small number, a con Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 285. 2 Walpole's Mem., iii. 197. Speech of Lord J. Russell, expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting this county, were 200,000l.; while 64,000l. were subscribed for Mr. Wilberforce, but not expended.-Wilberforce's Life, iii. 324. siderable proportion were fictitious voters,-without property, and not even resident in the country.1 In 1831, the total number of county voters did not exceed two thousand five hundred; and the constituencies of the sixty-six boroughs, amounted to one thousand four hundred and forty. Thus the entire electoral body of Scotland was not more than four thousand. The county of Argyll, with a population of one hundred thousand, had but one hundred and fifteen electors, of whom eighty-four were out-voters, without any land within the county. Caithness, with thirty thousand inhabitants, contained forty-seven freeholders, of whom thirty-six were out-voters. Inverness-shire, with ninety thousand inhabitants, had but eighty-eight freeholders, of whom fifty were out-voters. Edinburgh and Glasgow, the two first cities of Scotland, had each a constituency of thirty-three persons.2 With a franchise so limited and partial as this, all the counties and burghs, without exception, had fallen under the influence of political patrons.3 A great kingdom, with more than two millions of people,— intelligent, instructed, industrious, and peaceable,— was virtually disfranchised. Meanwhile, the potentates who returned the members to Parliament,-instead of contending among themselves, like their brethren in England, and joining opposite parties, were generally disposed to make their terms with ministers; and by skilful management, the entire representation was engrossed by the friends and agents of the government. It was not secured, however, without a profuse distribution of patronage, which, judiciously administered, 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. 2 Speech of Lord Advocate, Sept. 23rd, 1831; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 529. 3 Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 294; Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1830, Art. X. had long retained the allegiance of members coming from the north of the Tweed.1 Lord Cockburn, a contemporary witness,-has given a spirited account of the mode in which elections in Scotland were conducted. He says: "The return of a single opposition member was never to be expected. . . The return of three or four was miraculous, and these startling exceptions were always the result of local accidents. . . Whatever this system may have been originally, it had grown, in reference to the people, into as complete a mockery, as if it had been invented for their degradation. The people had nothing to do with it. It was all managed by town-councils, of never more than thirty-three members; and every towncouncil was self-elected, and consequently perpetuated its own interests. The election of either the town or the county member, was a matter of such utter indifference to the people, that they often only knew of it by the ringing of a bell, or by seeing it mentioned next day in a newspaper; for the farce was generally performed in an apartment from which, if convenient, the public could be excluded, and never in the open air."2 Where there were districts of burghs, each towncouncil elected a delegate, and the four or five delegates elected the member; " and, instead of bribing the towncouncils, the established practice was to bribe only the delegates, or indeed only one of them, if this could secure the majority.": A case of inconceivable grotesqueness was related by the Lord Advocate, in 1831. The county of Bute, 1 It was said of one Scotch county member, "that his invariable rule was never to be present at a debate, or absent at a division; and that he had only once, in his long political life, ventured to vote according to his conscience, and that he found on that occasion he had voted wrong."-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 543. 2 Life of Jeffrey, i. 75. |