Rights of election House of Rights of election, so uncertain and confused, were determined founded upon the last determinations of the House of by the Commons, which, however capricious, and devoid of Commons. settled principles,--had a general tendency to restrict the ancient franchise, and to vest it in a more limited number of persons.1 small bo roughs. In some of the corporate towns the inhabitants paying scot and lot, and freemen, were admitted to vote; in some, the freemen only; and in many, none but the governing body of the corporation. At Buckingham, and at Bewdley, the right of election was confined to the bailiff and twelve burgesses: at Bath, to the mayor, ten aldermen, and twenty-four common-councilmen : at Salisbury, to the mayor and corporation, consisting of fifty-six persons. And where more popular rights of election were acknowledged, there were often very few inhabitants to exercise them. Gatton enjoyed a liberal franchise. All freeholders and inhabitants paying scot and lot were entitled to vote, but they only amounted to seven. At Tavistock, all freeholders rejoiced in the franchise, but there were only ten. At St. Michael, all inhabitants paying scot and lot were electors, but there were only seven.2 Number of In 1793, the Society of the friends of the people were prepared to prove that in England and Wales seventy members were returned by thirty-five places, in which there were scarcely any electors at all; that ninety members were returned by forty-six places with less than fifty electors; and thirty-seven members by nineteen places, having not more than one hundred 1 Glanville's Reports; Determinations of the House of Commons concerning Elections, 8vo., 1780; Introduction to Merewether and Stephens, History of Boroughs; Male's Election Law, 289, 317; 2 Parl. Return, Sess. 1831-32, No. 92. electors. Such places were returning members, while Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester were unrepresented; and the members whom they sent to Parliament, were the nominees of peers and other wealthy patrons. No abuse was more flagrant than the direct control of peers, over the constitution of the Lower House. The Duke of Norfolk was represented by eleven members; Lord Lonsdale by nine; Lord Darlington by seven; the Duke of Rutland, the Marquess of Buckingham, and Lord Carrington, each by six.2 Seats were held, in both Houses alike, by hereditary right. Where the number of electors in a borough was Bribery at sufficient to ensure their independence, in the exercise of the franchise, they were soon taught that their votes would command a price; and thus, where nomination ceased, the influence of bribery commenced. Bribery at elections has long been acknowledged as one of the most shameful evils of our constitutional government. Though not wholly unknown in earlier times, it appears,-like too many other forms of corruption, to have first become a systematic abuse in the reign of Charles II.3 The Revolution, by increasing the power of the House of Commons, served to enlarge the field of bribery at elections. As an example of the extent to which this practice prevailed, it was alleged that at the Westminster election, in 1695, Sir Walter Clarges, an unsuccessful candidate, expended 20007. in bribery in the course of a few hours.* elections. These notorious scandals led to the passing of the The BriAct 7 William III. c. 4. Bribery had already been bery Act of recognised as an offence, by the common law 5; and III. 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 789. vi. 286. 3 Macaulay's Hist., i. 236. 4 Ibid., iv. 615. 5 Burr., iii. 1235, 1388; Dougl., iv. 294; Male's Election Law, 339 -345. William had been condemned by resolutions of the House of Commons; but this was the first statute to restrain and punish it. This necessary measure, however, was designed rather to discourage the intrusion of rich strangers into the political preserves of the landowners, than for the general repression of bribery. It seems to have had little effect; for Davenant, writing soon afterwards, spoke of "utter strangers making a progress through England, endeavouring by very large sums of money to get themselves elected. It is said there are known brokers who have tried to stock-job elections upon the Exchange; and that for many boroughs there was a stated price."2 An act of parliament was not likely to touch the causes of such corruption. The increasing commerce of the country had brought forward new classes of men, who supplied their want of local connexions, by the unscrupulous use of riches. Political morality may be elevated by extended liberties: but bribery has everywhere been the vice of growing wealth.3 The prizes to be secured through seats in Parliament during the corrupt administrations of Walpole and Pelham, further encouraged the system of bribery; and early in the reign of George III. its notoriety became a public scandal. 1 Com. Journ., ix. 411, 517. 2 Essay on the Balance of Power; Davenant's Works, iii. 326, 328. See also Pamphlets, "Freeholder's Plea against Stock-jobbing Elections of Parliament Men;" "Considerations upon Corrupt Elections of Members to serve in Parliament," 1701. "The effect produced by the rapid increase in wealth upon political morality [in Rome] is proved by the frequent laws against bribery at elections, which may be dated from the year 181 B. C. In that year it was enacted that any one found guilty of using bribery to gain votes should be declared incapable of becoming a candidate for the next ten years."-Dr. Liddell's Hist. of Rome. These laws are enumerated in Colquhoun's Roman Civil Law, § 2402. In France and America, bribery has been practised upon representatives rather than electors. · De Tocqueville, i. 264, &c. election in bobs." The very first election of this reign, in 1761, was General signalised by unusual excesses. Never perhaps had 1761. bribery been resorted to with so much profusion.1 One class of candidates, now rapidly increasing, consisted The “Naof men who had amassed fortunes in the East and West Indies, and were commonly distinguished as "Nabobs." Their ambition led them to aspire to a place in the legislature :—their great wealth gave them the means of bribery; and the scenes in which they had studied politics, made them unscrupulous in corruption. A seat in Parliament was for sale, like an estate; and they bought it, without hesitation or misgiving. misgiving. Speaking of this class, Lord Chatham said: "Without connexions, without any natural interest in the soil, the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist.” 2 - To the landed gentry they had long since been obnoxious. A country squire, whatever his local influence, was overborne by the profusion of wealthy strangers. Even a powerful noble was no match for men, who brought to the contest the "wealth of the Indies." Nor were they regarded with much favour by the leaders of parties; for men who had bought their seats, and paid dearly for them,-owed no allegiance to political patrons. Free from party connexions, they sought admission into Parliament, not so much with a view to a political career, as to serve mere personal ends,-to forward commercial speculations, to extend their connexions, and to gratify their social aspirations. But their independence and ambition exceeded, that of candidates.". Walp. Mem., i. 42. 1 "Both the Court and particulars went greater lengths than in any preceding times. In truth, the corruption of electors met, if not 2 Jan. 22nd, 1770. Parl. Hist., xvi. 752. Bribery Act of 1762. Sale of boroughs. well fitted them for the service of the court. The king was struggling to disengage himself from the domination of party leaders; and here were the very men he needed,-without party ties or political prepossessions, -daily increasing in numbers and influence, and easily attracted to his interests by the hope of those rewards which are most coveted by the wealthy. They soon ranged themselves among the king's friends; and thus the court policy,-which was otherwise subversive of freedom, became associated with parliamentary corruption. - The scandals of the election of 1761 led to the passing of an act in the following year, by which pecuniary penalties were first imposed for the offence of bribery.1 But the evil which it sought to correct, still continued without a check. Where the return of members was left to a small, but independent body of electors, their individual votes were secured by bribery; and where it rested with proprietors or corporations, the seat was purchased outright. The sale of boroughs, an abuse of some antiquity2, and often practised since the time of Charles II.,-became, at the commencement of this reign, a general and notorious system. The right of property in boroughs was acknowledged, and capable of sale or transfer, like any other property. In 1766, Lord Hertford prevailed upon Lord Chatham's ministry to transfer to him the borough of Orford, which belonged to the Crown.3 And Sudbury, infamous for its corruption until its ultimate disfranchisement, publicly advertised itself for sale.5 1 2 Geo. III. c. 24. 2 In 1571, the borough of Westbury was fined by the House of Commons for receiving a bribe of 47.; and the mayor was ordered to refund the money.-Com. Journ., 3 Walpole's Mem., ii. 361. |