member. In the choice of the other the freemen are very eccentric." 1 He had, it will be remembered, contested it in 1812 against Brougham, and therefore he was familiar with the nature of the work. He spoke often, but there is not to be found in his speeches any trace of an idea that he could in any way influence other elections than that which he was fighting by any speeches which he could make. It was not until the election was over that he delivered a speech which was meant for a larger audience than the people of Liverpool.

Thus then, out of the six Cabinet Ministers who were in the House of Commons, one alone faced the ordeal of an appeal to a large constituency. Evidently, therefore, the electoral Platform played but a small part then in ministerial calculations. This same conclusion in confirmed if we investigate the cases of some of the minor members of the Government that is to say, those who were not in the Cabinet. Lord Palmerston, the Secretary of War, was returned for Cambridge University without a contest, and without a speech. Charles Long, the Paymaster of the Forces, was returned for Haslemere, a pocket borough with 64 voters, the property of the Earl of Lonsdale. Wallace, Vice-President of the Board of Trade, was returned for Weymouth, where the few voters that there were, were "the property of an individual, and their decision entirely at his pleasure."

The Attorney-General was returned for Dorchester, where, though there were 200 electors, the Earl of Shaftesbury had the nomination of one member; and the Solicitor-General was returned for Eye, where the nomination of Lord Cornwallis "was implicitly submitted to."

Charles Grant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, sat for Inverness-shire, of which county constituency he was the "Patron," and could therefore return himself, which he did. There was no contest, and as there were but 55 electors in the county, many of whom would not attend the election, speechifying was scarcely to be expected. Mr. Grant, however, made a speech, which was quite thrown away so far as electors were concerned, but which for us throws much light on the inner workings of the minds of some of those holding high official 1 Oldfield's Representative History, vol. iv. p. 107.

position at this period, and explains how readily they gave themselves to the repressive measures of the previous session. "With respect to the necessity, the indispensable duty of maintaining the Constitution in all its parts, and of transmitting it unimpared to our posterity, we are one and indivisible. Against those pernicious maxims of modern times, which, under the pretext of correcting, would subvert the Constitution; against that system, if anything so vague in its notions, and so irregular in its movements can be called a system— against that system, as false in policy as it is spurious in philosophy, as absurd in theory as it is foul and bloody in practice against that system, which has for its object spoliation, and for its means impiety and anarchy, which would teach us that government, as such, is oppression; that social order and tyranny are synonymous terms; that the law of property is the law of robbery; that there is nothing sacred in morals, nothing venerable and adorable in religion,—against this system I am persuaded that we are prepared, heart and hand, to contend even to the last gasp. We love the Constitution— that Constitution which is equal to the rich and the poorthat Constitution which was the cradle that sheltered our infancy, is now the magnificent temple in which our manhood is consecrated to virtue and renown."1

From this review of the position of the leading members of the Government as regarded constituencies it is evident that, excepting Canning, not one single member of the Government in the Cabinet, or out of it, need have been influenced in Parliament in any way by a regard to the views of his constituents, or be under any necessity of appealing to them from the Platform for their judgment and approval. The fact is a most important one, and meant much. Ministers and subministers, in fact, took very good care of themselves so far as constituencies were concerned, and were practically completely independent of any electoral control whatever. No wonder then that they objected to Parliamentary reform. Their example was followed by as many ordinary or non-official members of Parliament as possible.

2

Oldfield, in his Representative History, written about 1815-17, stated that in England and Wales 16 members were

1 The Late Elections, p. 451.

2 Vol. vi. p. 292.

returned by Government nomination, 218 members were returned by the nomination of 87 peers, and 137 members by the nomination of 90 commoners, or a total of 371 members in England and Wales were returned practically by nomination. Allowing for some exaggeration in his calculation, though there is no reason to suppose that he exaggerated the evil state of so-called Parliamentary representation, it is evident enough that the scope for Platform work at election time was by no means so considerable as at first sight might be thought. A detailed though brief account of some of the elections will enable us, however, to form a clearer idea.

At this election there were 95 contests in Great Britain, of which 75 were in English boroughs and 10 in English counties, 5 in Scotch boroughs and 5 in Scotch counties. Many of these contests were quite unimportant, from the Platform point of view. Thus at Camelford, in Cornwall, the successful candidates got 13 votes, and the unsuccessful 10,1 but then a "contest for a Cornish borough has nothing to do with political principles so far as votes were concerned," and both sets of candidates were in the ministerial interest. At Ilchester, where there were 60 electors, there was a personal and not a political contest; at Cardiff "a friendly opposition to save some other"; at numerous other places the contests were mainly for family influence. Thus at Chester, "The contest does not appear to be founded upon the merit or demerit of any of the candidates, or in favour of any particular political opinions, but solely to rest upon personal like and dislike to one particular family"; and of the contest at Evesham our anonymous author wrote: "This, and similar contests, do not assume so much the character of political as of personal opposition, for possibly the candidates opposed to each other may accord in political opinions, but in their persons is determined the question of who shall be the organ of those opinions'?" It was quite an exception if among the small boroughs the contests developed any Platforming. Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire, was one of the exceptions. Here a Mr. Lawson contested the seat in avowed opposition to the influence of the Duke of Newcastle, and he spoke a good deal, and to such purpose, that he actually succeeded in getting a 1 The Late Elections, p. 55. 2 Ibid. p. 72. 3 Ibid. p. 117.

majority of votes. In the course of one of his speeches he graphically describes the state of more boroughs than Boroughbridge. He spoke of disturbing the tranquillity of the borough. "A tranquillity like the tranquillity of the grave, full of rottenness, if not of corruption—a tranquillity forgetful of its own existence, a dormant apathy of spirit, a stagnant insensibility to all vigorous and energetic virtue-a tranquillity not resembling that of the calm summer sky, but rather the gloom of the dull and cloudy atmosphere, and which nothing but a violent concussion of the elements can restore to its native and elastic purity.'

" 1

It must have been a startling novelty at Boroughbridge to hear any candidate speak, for our anonymous author tells us: "Owing to the quiet way in which elections had been conducted there for some time, much in the same way as vestry meetings, a member had not thought it necessary to show his face for several elections. The two late members had never been near the place."

The larger and the more popular the constituencies, the more use do we find made of the Platform by the late members for justifying their past conduct; the more do we find them and the new candidates discussing from the Platform the principal political events or tendencies of the time. Thus, at Hereford, where there were 1200 electors, and where there had not been a contest since 1784, all the candidates made speeches, the two late members referring to their past conduct, and the new candidate entering into a long statement of his political views, declaring that his political principles had for their basis the most sincere attachment to the established constitution of our country in the Church and State. At Ipswich, where there were over 600 electors, one of the candidates declared "that he should support Protestant ascendency to the utmost of his powers, and that he was against dangerous principles." Speech was, however, of little value here, as we are told that in reality "the contest was more one in the amount of corruption than for political principle." At Preston, where there were 2200 electors, and at Southampton, where there were 700 electors, political speeches were also made. At Colchester Mr. Wildman spoke, saying, "That he

1 The Late Elections, p. 14.

H

still remained a strong, zealous, and unchangeable supporter of the Protestant ascendency both in Church and State, and pledged himself to oppose the Catholic claims. He was in favour of the measures of the present Ministers, and he professed his own personal independence." At Canterbury there was a "spirited" contest, the candidates being a Mr. Lushington (a Treasury Secretary), Mr. Baker, who had represented the city for twenty years, on opposition principles, and Lord Clifton, an Irish peer. The election is solely remarkable for a most unblushing speech by the Treasury Secretary. He began by boasting of the happy termination of the war, and then referred to his having accepted office. "It is," he said, "an erroneous idea of some people, that a member holding an emolument under Government is not at liberty to exercise his free discretion. . . . For my part, I am a strenuous supporter of the elective franchise. It is, I conceive, a sight highly calculated to impress the mind with the value of British liberty, to see the colours waving and the cockades flying in all directions; and I think myself justified in asserting, that I never stood for any reasonable expense. An expensive election I do not conceive a desirable relish for any member, but I trust I have always acted with a degree of liberality and spirit, which will entitle me to the respect of my brother freemen. . . . I have always endeavoured to serve my friends and constituents to the best of my ability, and only regret that applications were made to me which were not in my power to comply with. I hope I shall have it in my power to do more for you than I have hitherto done." At Bristol, where there was a large constituency, there was a good fight, and much Platforming. "The election for this city," says our anonymous compiler, "though in its outset one of the most vacillating, presents in its progress and termination the character of the best principled contest, and the greatest political victory in the kingdom." There were three candidates-Mr. Davis, Mr. Protheroe, and Colonel Baillie. The latter never appeared on the hustings or the Platform at all, and his cause was left to his friends to fight. The others, however, spoke frequently and very fully. Davis was a Tory, and had represented the constituency in the defunct Parlia

ment.

At his nomination he recounted his work in Parlia