with a population of fourteen thousand, had twentyone electors, of whom one only resided in the county. "At an election at Bute, not beyond the memory of man, only one person attended the meeting, except the Sheriff and the returning officer. He, of course, took the chair, constituted the meeting, called over the roll of freeholders, answered to his own name, took the vote as to the Preses, and elected himself. He then moved and seconded his own nomination, put the question, as to the vote, and was unanimously returned."1 This close system of elections had existed even before the Union: but though sufficiently notorious, the British Parliament had paid little attention to its defects. by Lord 1818,1823. In 1818, and again in 1823, Lord Archibald Hamil- Motions ton had shown the state of the Royal Burghs,-the self- Archibald election, and irresponsibility of the councillors, and Hamilton, their uncontrolled authority over the local funds. The questions then raised referred to municipal rather than parliamentary reform; but the latter came incidentally under review, and it was admitted that there was "no popular election, or pretence of popular election."2 In 1823, Lord Archibald exposed the state of the county representation, and the general electoral system of the country, and found one hundred and seventeen supporters.3 tation of burgh, In 1824, the question of Scotch representation was Represenbrought forward by Mr. Abercromby. The inhabitants Edinof Edinburgh complained, by petition, that the re- 1926. presentation of this capital city, the metropolis of the North, with upwards of one hundred thousand 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 529. 2 Sir J. Mackintosh; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 434; Ibid., 2nd Ser., viii. 735. 3 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. This petition had been presented May 5th, 1823, drawn up by Mr. Jeffrey, and signed by 7000 out of the 10,000 householders of the city.Cockburn's Mem., 404. Representation of Ireland. inhabitants,—was returned by thirty-three electors, of whom nineteen had been chosen by their predecessors in the town-council! Mr. Abercromby moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of that city, as an instalment of parliamentary reform in Scotland. His motion failed, and being renewed in 1826, was equally unsuccessful. Such proposals were always met in the same manner. When general measures of reform were advocated, the magnitude of the change was urged as the reason for rejecting them; and when, to obviate such objections, the correction of any particular defect was attempted, its exceptional character was a decisive argument against it.1 Prior to 1801, the British Parliament was not concerned in the state of the representation of the people of Ireland. But on the union of that country, the defects of its representation were added to those of England and Scotland, in the constitution of the united Parliament. The counties and boroughs in Ireland were at least as much under the influence of great patrons, as in England. It is true, that in arranging the terms of the Union, Mr. Pitt took the opportunity of abolishing several of the smaller nomination boroughs; but many were spared, which were scarcely less under the patronage of noblemen and landowners; and places of more consideration were reduced by restricted rights of election, to a similar dependence. In Belfast, in Carlow, in Wexford, and in Sligo, the right of election was vested in twelve self-elected burgesses: in Limerick and Kilkenny, it was in the corporation and freemen. In the counties, the influence of the territorial families was equally dominant. For the sake of political influence, the landowners had subdivided their estates 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., x. 455; Ibid., xiv. 107; Ibid., xv. 163. into a prodigious number of forty-shilling freeholds; and until the freeholders had fallen under the dominion of the priests, they were faithful to their Protestant patrons. According to the law of Ireland, freeholds were created without the possession of property; and the votes of the freeholders were considered as the absolute right of the proprietor of the soil. Hence it was, that after the Union more than two thirds of the Irish members were returned, not by the people of Ireland, but by about fifty or sixty influential patrons.1 members Such being the state of the representation in the Majority United Kingdom, an actual majority of the members of of the the House of Commons were returned by an inconsi- nominated. derable number of persons. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, not more than six thousand men returned a clear majority of the House of Commons.2 It was alleged in the petition of the Society of the Friends of the People, presented by Mr. Grey in 1793, that eighty-four individuals absolutely returned one hundred and fiftyseven members to Parliament; that seventy influential men secured the return of one hundred and fifty members; and that, in this manner, three hundred and seven members,-being the majority of the House, before the union with Ireland,-were returned to Parliament by one hundred and fifty-four patrons; of whom forty were peers.3 In 1821, Mr. Lambton stated that he was prepared to prove by evidence, at the bar of the House of Commons, "that one hundred and 1 Wakefield's Statistical and Political Account of Ireland, ii. 299, et seq.; Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 209-280; Infra, Vol. VOL. I. X II. 540. 2 Parl. Hist., xxi. 686. Injustice in the trial of eighty individuals returned, by nomination or otherwise, three hundred and fifty members." 1 Dr. Oldfield's Representative History furnishes still more elaborate statistics of parliamentary patronage. According to his detailed statements, no less than two hundred and eighteen members were returned for counties and boroughs, in England and Wales, by the nomination or influence of eighty-seven peers: one hundred and thirty-seven were returned by ninety commoners, and sixteen by the Government; making a total number of three hundred and seventy-one nominee members. Of the forty-five members for Scotland, thirty-one were returned by twenty-one peers, and the remainder by fourteen commoners. Of the hundred members for Ireland, fifty-one were returned by thirty-six peers, and twenty by nineteen commoners. The general result of these surprising statements is,— that of the six hundred and fifty-eight members of the House of Commons, four hundred and eighty-seven were returned by nomination; and one hundred and seventy-one only were representatives of independent constituencies. Such matters did not admit of proof, and were beyond the scope of parliamentary inquiries : but after making allowances for imperfect evidence and exaggeration, we are unable to resist the conclusion, that not more than one third of the House of Commons. were the free choice even of the limited bodies of electors then entrusted with the franchise. Scandalous as were the electoral abuses which law and custom formerly permitted, the conduct of the 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., v. 359. Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith says: "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters."—Mem., ii. 215. 2 Oldfield's Representative Hist., 1816, vi. 285—300, House of Commons, in the trial of election petitions, was election petitions. more scandalous still. Boroughs were bought and sold, ―electors were notoriously bribed by wholesale and retail, returning officers were partial and corrupt. But, in defiance of all justice and decency, the majority of the House of Commons connived at these practices, when committed by their own party; and only condemned them, when their political opponents were put upon their trial. Dat veniam corvis,-vexat censura columbas. The Commons having, for the sake of their own independence, insisted upon an exclusive jurisdiction in matters of election, were not ashamed to prostitute it to party. They were charged with a grave trust, and abused it. They assumed a judicial office, and dishonoured it. This discreditable perversion of justice had grown up with those electoral abuses, which an honest judicature would have tended to correct; and reached its greatest excesses in the reigns of George II. and George III. Originally, controverted elections had been tried by select committees specially nominated, and afterwards by the Committee of Privileges and Elections. This latter committee had been nominated by the House itself, being composed of Privy Councillors and eminent lawyers, well qualified by their learning for the judicial inquiries entrusted to them. In 1603, it comprised the names of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Thomas Fleming1; in 1623, the names of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Heneage Finch, Mr. Pym, Mr. Glanville, Sir Roger North, and Mr. Selden.2 The committee was then confined to the members nominated by the House itself; but being 1 Com. Journ., i. 149 (March 23rd, 1603). There are earlier appointments in D'Ewes' Journal. 2 Com. Journ., i. 716; Glan ville's Rep., Pref. vii. 3 Com. Journ., i. 716; Cavendish Deb., i. 508. |