he was at the poll, by riots and open violence, or defrauded the public-houses were thrown open; and drunken- ster elec The most conspicuous example of all the abuses Westminof which the old electoral system was capable, was that tion, 1784. of the Westminster election, in 1784. Mr. Fox had incurred the violent resentment of the government, by his recent opposition to Mr. Pitt, and the Court party. It had been determined, that all the members who had supported the Coalition should be opposed, at the general election; and Mr. Fox, their ablest leader, was the foremost man to be assailed. The election,-disgraced throughout by scenes of drunkenness, tumult, and violence', and by the coarsest libels and lampoons,—was 1 In one of the brawls which arose during its progress, a man was killed, whose death was charged against persons belonging to Mr. continued for forty days. When the poll was closed, Mr. Fox was in a majority of two hundred and thirtysix above Sir Cecil Wray, one of the Court candidates. But he was now robbed of the fruits of his victory by the High Bailiff; who withheld his return, and commenced a scrutiny into the votes. By withholding the return, after the day on which the writ was returnable, he denied the successful candidate his right to sit in Parliament; and anticipated the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, by which court alone, the validity of the election could then properly be determined. This unwarrantable proceeding would have excluded Mr. Fox from his rightful place in Parliament; but he had already been returned for Kirkwall, and took his seat, at the commencement of the session. Apart from the vexation and injustice to which Mr. Fox had been exposed, the expense of the scrutiny 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. Nothwithstanding this ex posure 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, --prompted, to use the words of Mr. Fox, by "the malignant wish of gratifying an inordinate and implacable spirit of resentment. But a system which had thus placed a popular candidate,-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. 2 influence in counties. In the counties, the franchise was more free and Territorial liberal, than in the majority of cities and boroughs. All 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 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 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 connexions, 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 represented by members of these families, or by gentlemen enjoying their confidence and patronage.' 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 nearly 150,000. 1 Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 285. 2 Walpole's Mem., iii. 197. 3 Speech of Lord J. Russell, March 1st, 1831; Hansard's Deb., 3rd Ser., ii. 1074. tation of Great as were the defects of the representation of RepresenEngland,―those of Scotland were greater, and of more Scotland. 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 considerable 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, 1 Hansard's Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. 2 Speech of Lord Advocate, Sept. 23rd, 1831; Hansard's Deb., 3rd |