ment: "During the period in which I have represented this city, questions of the most vital importance, relating both to a state of warfare and of peace, have been discussed in Parliament. My voice in deciding them has been influenced by no selfish motive. I have looked only to your interests as involved in the general welfare of the empire at large. Sometimes I have been found opposed to the Crown, and at other times my vote has militated even against the opinions of my most respectable constituents. But, gentlemen, this is unavoidable, if your representative is to have an independent voice in the senate. This conduct redounds as much to your honour as it does to his credit, that he should give the most mature consideration to any important subject, and not decide upon it but through the strictest scrutiny of his conscience and his judgment." He had supported the vigorous prosecution of the war; he had been on the Committee to examine into the income and to modify and economise the expenditure of the State, as the result of which the expense of the State had been largely retrenched. He was opposed to Roman Catholic emancipation, and he was a strong supporter of the Established Church. His speeches dealt fairly well with the political questions of the day.

Protheroe, who had also been a member, had at the previous election stood on independent Whig principles, but had, in many instances, by his votes and speeches, acted in a manner directly opposed to his professions. He now made a long speech defending himself. He was a good deal "heckled" as regarded having voted for the Property tax, for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and for the Indemnity Act, but still the constituency returned both him and Davis. Altogether, the account of this election, which lasted five days, gives one a favourable impression of the genuineness of some of the elections in England at this time; but it is to be remembered that Bristol was one of the few open constituencies in the country, and was certainly one of the most intelligent.

The metropolis was, as usual, the scene of much political speaking, and here the Platform seemed to be of some real use. The constituencies were large and independent, and the electors keen and energetic. Thomas Attwood, of Birmingham, who some twelve or thirteen years later was to be one of the

most conspicuous men in England as one of the leaders of the Reform agitation, does not, however, give a very favourable description of the London electorate at this time. In a letter to his wife, written on the 30th June 1818 in London, he said: "The election makes great disturbances here. The poor wretches who clamour for Burdett and Liberty, meaning Blood and Anarchy, are far worse in ignorance and stupidity than our Birmingham mobs. But they have got rascals among them who excite them almost to madness. It is the greatest nonsense in the world to attempt to reason with them. They have their opinions because they are told so. . . . Reason has nothing at all to do with their conduct. It is all a mere question of passion, and therefore such creatures ought to have nothing to do with politics."1

The elections in London City, Westminster, and Southwark, were as keenly contested as any one could wish, and there was a great deal of speaking. For the representation of the city of London, consisting of four seats, there were six candidates, and as the election lasted many days, there were no end of meetings, and every day addresses were delivered by nearly all the candidates from the hustings.

To turn, however, from borough elections to county elections. Here contests were fairly numerous, considering the enormous expense of a county contest at this period; and at all of them we find that the Platform was very largely employed, and that many regular political speeches were made. Thus in Berkshire all the candidates spoke, and one of them, Mr. Charles Dundas, declared "That during the whole of his Parliamentary career he had been actuated by the purest motives for the public good, having never sought for personal aggrandisement, or received one shilling of Government money. He challenged the most jealous inquiry into his public conduct, and was ready to answer any question that any gentleman might think proper to put to him." Another of the candidates based his claims on the grounds that "He had uniformly upheld the cause of the people, had voted for economy and retrenchment, and was an advocate for a mild, temperate, and practicable reform in the House of Commons, though he would

1 See Life of Thomas Attwood, by C. M. Wakefield. The book was printed for private circulation only, but is to be found in the British Museum.

not support, at the hazard of universal anarchy, the rash schemes and pernicious theories of visionary and violent innovators."

In Westmoreland there was a contest, "to which the attention of the whole kingdom was directed through means of the Press." Brougham contested a seat against the Lowther interest, and wherever he was there was sure to be plenty of Platforming. He spoke several times a day for four days; most of his speeches, however, being devoted more to local electioneering points than to matters of wider interest. But all in vain was all his speaking. Great county interests were then almost all-powerful. Even Brougham was unable to overthrow them in this instance, though, as he told his supporters, he "kindled a flame that would burst from his ashes to consume their oppressors and light them to triumph.”

In Wiltshire there was also a contest. "We do not find much conflict of political feeling in the progress of the contest; the question was not, whose political feelings best suit the county, but whether certain family connections are to be perpetuated in it. Both during the canvass and the progress of the poll the county was kept in a state of great irritation. . Mr. Bennett could not obtain a hearing during the poll, whose continuance was marked by daily personal altercations between the partisans of the rival candidates. Mr. Wellesley sometimes obtained a hearing (it depended upon the possession of the hustings) when employed in refuting the idea of the county being carried by his long purse."

In Somersetshire there was also a contest which lasted for four days. On the day of the nomination there was "one of the largest assemblages of persons ever known in the city of Wells," and there was much speaking.

In Kent, at the contest, numerous political speeches were made, including references to Catholic claims and Parliamentary reform, and there was a good deal of "heckling," so much so that one of the candidates wanted to have all the questions blended together, "so that he might know when he was done being catechised." His principal questioner retorted that he had no more questions to ask, but he conceived candidates came for the purpose of being catechised."

In Devon there was a contest which lasted six days, all the

candidates speaking every evening after the close of the day's polling; but it was only at the end of the second day's election. apparently that there was any reference to politics. Lord Ebrington having then declared, "If it be a crime to oppose the measures of Ministers who have done more than any other to ruin the country, I plead guilty to the cause.' Sir T. Acland complainingly remarked, "I suppose I must follow the noble lord's example, and have a word or two of politics." At the end of the sixth day Sir T. Acland retired, and from the speech he then delivered he appeared to be sensible of several causes of discontent on the part of his late constituents which led to his defeat.

In Lincolnshire the contest may be fairly said to have been one of political opinions, and "was conducted throughout with a determined spirit, but in a most gentlemanly and courteous manner." The speeches were regular political ones, the respective candidates basing their claims for support on concurrence in the ministerial policy and measures, or in condemnation of them.

It is clear from these examples, that in contested county elections the Platform was very largely used; but it is to be remembered that at this period the polling took place altogether at the county town, and, therefore, its use was thus confined to the one spot.

As regards the county elections, however, its use was not confined to those counties where contested elections were fought; but in several counties, where there was no contest, the candidates made regular political speeches at the time of the nomination, though this, however, was but a small matter in comparison with a prolonged contest.

Thus, at Norfolk, Mr. Coke made a vehement political speech on the iniquities of Ministers, and in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, and other counties speeches, of a sort, were made. This was the case also in some of the borough elections where there was no contest.

Thus at Newcastle-upon-Tyne one of the candidates who had been the member made a good political speech; he referred to his conduct in Parliament as the plea on which he grounded his claim to their support, he recalled to them his opposition to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and

to the Indemnity Act, and he declared himself in favour of Parliamentary reform, though averse to annual Parliaments and universal suffrage.

As another illustration I may mention the case of Shrewsbury, though the candidates' speech was a short one. "Gentlemen-My political conduct is before you. I have supported the Administration when I approved of their measures, and I have decidedly opposed them when I thought them wrong. I briefly promise to you, that the same course I shall continue to pursue, if you do me the honour to re-elect me."

Reviewing the proceedings at this general election not merely in contested counties and boroughs, but in the non-contested also, it is, I think, evident that considerable use was made of the Platform in England by the candidates. It must, however, be also remarked that with one or two notable exceptions, the speeches were not of a high order, nor, if we omit the cases of the larger constituencies, was there much of argumentative style about them. I have said "in England" because, in Scotland, the electoral Platform, even, had no existence at all. There were over 2,000,000 inhabitants in Scotland, and there were about 2500 electors. In the counties the electors were very few in number, but they elected their members. In the boroughs they did not even do that. The towns (except Edinburgh) were grouped into districts consisting of four or five towns, and each district was allowed one member. The corporation of each of the towns in the district elected a single delegate, and the four or five delegates thus elected met together, and elected the member. As an illustration of the working of the system the case of Glasgow may be cited. Though one of the most opulent cities of the kingdom, with a population of some 80,000, instead of electing a member, it only elected a delegate, and this delegate was chosen, not by the people of Glasgow, but by the Corporation of thirty-two persons, who were self-elected. This delegate had only one voice of four in the choice of the member of Parliament, in common with the delegates of three little towns, the inhabitants of which were not more than 2000.

Under this condition of things evidently there was no scope for the electoral Platform in Scotland. The so-called contests were mere farces, and though a few candidates made speeches,