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.

Motions by

bald Hamilton, 1818, 1823.

In 1818, and again in 1823, Lord Archibald Hamilton had shown the state of the Royal Burghs, the Lord Archi- self-election, and irresponsibility of the councillors, and 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

66

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

Representa

In 1824, the question of Scotch representation was brought forward by Mr. Abercromby. The inhabitants tion of Edin- of Edinburgh complained, by petition, that the burgh, 1826. representation of this capital city, the metropolis of the North, with upwards of one hundred thousand inhabitants, was returned by thirty-three electors, of whom nineteen had been chosen by their predecessors in the towncouncil! Mr. Abercromby moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of that city, ment of Parliamentary reform in Scotland. 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 mag

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., vii. 529.

as an instal

His motion

2 Sir J. Mackintosh; Hausard's Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 434; Ibid., 2d Ser., viii. 735.

3 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., ix. 611.

4 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.

nitude 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 Representa

land.

of Ireland. But on the union of that country, tion of Irethe 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 selfelected 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 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.2

1 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., x. 455; Ibid. xiv. 107; Ibid. xv. 163.

2 Wakefield's Statistical and Political Account of Ireland, ii. 299, et seq.; Oldfield's Representative Hist. vi. 209-280.

Majority of

Such being the state of the representation in the United Kingdom, an actual majority of the members of the members the House of Commons, were returned by an innominated. considerable 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.1 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 fifty-seven 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.2 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 eighty individuals re. turned, by nomination or otherwise, three hundred and fifty members."

"8

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 eightyseven 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, thirtyone were returned by twenty-one peers, and the remainder by fourteen commoners. Of the hundred members for Ire

1 Parl. Hist. xxi. 686.

2 lbid. xxx. 787.

8 Hansard's Deb., 2d 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.

land, 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 fiftyeight 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.1 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 intrusted with the franchise.

Injustice in

election peti

Scandalous as were the electoral abuses which law and custom formerly permitted, the conduct of the House of Commons, in the trial of election peti- the trial of tions, was more scandalous still. Boroughs were tions. 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 dishonored 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 Com1 Oldfield's Representative Hist. 1816, vi. 285-300.

mittee 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 intrusted to them. In 1603, it comprised the names of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Thomas Fleming;1 in 1623, the names of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Heneage Finch, Mr. Pym, Mr. Glanville, Sir Roger North, and Mr. Selden. The committee was then confined to the members nominated by the House itself; but being afterwards enlarged by the introduction of all Privy Councillors and Gentlemen of the Long Robe, it became, after 1672, an open committee, in which all who came were allowed to have voices. This committee was henceforth exposed to all the evils of large and fluctuating numbers, and an irresponsible constitution; and at length, in the time of Mr. Speaker Onslow, a hearing at the bar of the House itself, which in special cases had already been occasionally resorted to, was deemed preferable to the less public and responsible judicature of the committee. Here, however, the partiality and injustice of the judges were soon notorious. The merits of the election, on which they affected to adjudicate, were little regarded. To use the words of Mr. Grenville, "The Court was thin to hear, and full to judge.” 4 Parties tried their strength, - the friends of rival candidates canvassed and manoeuvred, - and seats corruptly gained, were as corruptly protected, or voted away. The right of election was wrested from the voters, and usurped by the elected body, who thus exercised a vicious self-election. The ministers of the day, when they commanded a majority, sustained their own friends; and brought all their forces to bear against the members of the Opposition. This flagitious cus

1 Com. Journ. i. 149 (March 23d, 1603). There are earlier appointments in D'Ewes' Journal.

2 Com. Journ. i. 716; Glanville's Rep., Pref., vii.

8 Com. Journ. i. 716; Cavendish Deb. i. 508.

4 This had been previously said of the House of Lords, by the Pr Argyll.