CHAP. X

INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATIVES

and who had been member for that constituency, said: "I now call on any and every man, who may think he has just cause to complain of my conduct while I was his representative, to state his complaints publicly, and to meet me here fairly, and in the face of day, with all he feels towards me of objection or reproach, I am here prepared, not less in inclination than in duty, to meet and to answer him."

Many of the candidates condescended to give some promises, or rather some general statement of their views. Several of them avowed their intention to support the existing Constitution in Church and State, a few of them referred to the questions of Parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation, but most of the speeches were very vague and wordy.

As a candidate at one of the elections very truly remarked: "I am well aware that nothing can be more idle than the professions which are generally made by those who stand in the And candidates had an evident situation you now see me.' aversion to pledging themselves towards any liberal measures or policy.

Mr. Bennett, at Shrewsbury, was an exception. He had been member, and was re-elected, and in his final speech he said: "I here pledge myself to devote my life to your service. As I have not made you hitherto any promise which I have broken, I shall act to the best of my judgment, except when I am instructed by you, and in those cases in which I shall receive your instructions, I am resolved to do one of two things-either to obey your voice, or if I should unfortunately differ from you in opinion, surrender into your hands the trust you have reposed in me.”

This was the most extreme case. Most of the candidates took a highly independent tone. "I accepted your invitation," said, or rather wrote, one, "upon principles of perfect independence." "I will not go into Parliament shackled," wrote another.

At Aylesbury Lord Nugent, speaking on the subject of a previous pledge being given by a candidate, declared: "Chosen or rejected, I will retain to myself, unfettered and unbiassed, the exercise of my own discretion, according to my judgment, and according to my conscience.”

At Bristol Protheroe, who had been in Parliament, said he "had been sent to Parliament as an independent man, who

told you beforehand that he should be proud to have his judgment enlightened by yours upon all subjects, but that upon public questions he could acknowledge no direction but his own conscience. It is not a delegate, gentlemen, but a representative, that you send to Parliament."

In Gloucestershire Sir W. Guise said: "He should always feel pleasure in attending to the wishes of the freeholders of this great manufacturing county, at the same time reserving to himself the right of exercising his own judgment in the consideration of all subjects of importance."

In Kent Sir E. Knatchbull, when questioned about Parliamentary reform, said: "I shall be in my place, and will attend to the question, and whatever may be my honest opinion upon it, I will give my vote accordingly. . . . If I were to pledge myself to one thing or the other, I should pledge myself not to have the liberty of giving my vote according to my conscience, and nothing on earth shall ever deter me from giving my vote agreeably to the dictates of my honest conscience.”

In Somersetshire Colonel G. Langton said: "The representation of this county is the highest end and aim of my ambition, but even this honour may be purchased too dearly by the loss of integrity. I therefore will never accept it, but as its free and unrestrained representative."

Even the advanced Liberals of the time showed a dislike of restraint on their freedom in Parliament. Thus Waithman, a Radical, who stood for the city of London said: "As to the doctrine of instructions he would not push it too far; he would not be for fettering representatives"; but in returning thanks for his election, he said, "It would be his endeavour to represent their opinions and feelings, to which he should always consider himself bound to conform when they were expressed by them legally assembled for that purpose."1

1 Speaking in 1806, Waithman had said: "I never was so silly on any occasion as to maintain that it was the duty of the representative on every occasion to come and ask for instructions from his constituents. This would indeed be ridiculous. What I shall ever maintain is this-that on great, important, leading constitutional questions, it is the duty of the representative to listen to the voice of his constituents; and when their opinions are fully, fairly, and distinctly expressed, they ought implicitly to be obeyed. In ordinary cases representatives are to be guided in their vote by their feelings. On such grand occasions as those I have alluded to, I shall ever maintain that they are peremptorily bound to act in obedience to those from whom they derive their right to give any voice in Parliament."

Joseph Hume's views on the subject are also interesting," though he represented one of those Scotch boroughs, as regarded which the whole system of election and representation. was a farce. He said: "Anxious as he should always be to attend to the instructions and representations of his constituents, he took this opportunity to repeat, that he should in no instance consider himself bound to vote as they wished, unless his own conviction went with them. It often happened that measures of a public nature, when viewed with the eye of limited information, which must of necessity be often the case in parts distant from the metropolis, appeared very different to those whose superior means of information and experience in the capital extend their views. Such might be the case with his constituents and him. . . . He could assure them he never would support any measure in the House of Commons that he could not defend before them here.”

These quotations from the speeches of candidates at this election, most of whom were successful in their candidature, convey to us a sufficiently clear idea as to the amount of independence which candidates thought they might lay claim to at this period without endangering their chances of success. But there were unpleasant signs and portents in the political sky that such independence, however much it might be claimed, would not for ever be conceded.

Thus, in London city, Sir William Curtis (who had already served in six Parliaments as a representative of the city) said: "He should say one word on the doctrine of the right of constituents to instruct their representatives. Whenever the

rights of the city of London came under the consideration of Parliament, he should constantly stand up for them, and would only on such occasions attend strictly to the wishes of the Livery. On questions, however, which related to the interests of the nation at large, he claimed the right of judging for himself." He was not re-elected.

In Sussex one of the previous members was opposed because he was not thought a fit person to represent the county, as he had not attended to his Parliamentary duties; and in Southwark one of the members was unseated because he had voted contrary to the opinions and hostile to the interests of the people.

• See The Examiner, 1818, pp. 386, 407.

From a consideration of the details of this general election we may, I think, form certain reliable conclusions as to the position of the Platform at all general elections about this period. Viewing, then, the Platform as used by Ministers, or by candidates in counties or boroughs at contested or uncontested elections, one must acknowledge that one is not im↑ pressed with the amount of power it possessed. Certainly it could not be in any way yet regarded as an instrument of real political force in the nation. Ministers practically ignored it. What was termed an appeal to the electorate was in reality only an appeal to those who controlled the constituencies, to the great families of influence or faction in London, to the patrons of county constituencies, and to the owners of boroughs or boroughmongers. To keep these persons in perpetual leading-strings was the abiding aim and policy of Government, and not the winning of popular applause and esteem by a regard to the interests of the people.

A majority of these persons won over, either from considerations of self-interest, or by promises, or intrigues, or judiciously bestowed patronage, the result of the election was a foregone conclusion. From London issued forth the nominees of Ministers, and their friends and followers, to go through the form of election.

There was no need, therefore, for Ministers to make any appeal to the country from the Platform, to present any definite policy to the electorate. The whole thing was manipulated and arranged by them long previous to the arbitrament of the poll. Thus it resulted that, in a large number of constituencies, especially rotten ones, the Platform had no existence, and that in many others the form only of election, and not the substance, was to be found.

Again, in several of the constituencies where the Platform was a good deal in evidence, its influence was entirely subordinate to wholesale bribery and corruption.

In some of the counties, however, where one great family interest would be sometimes pitted against another, it was often of great service; but it was only in the few large civie constituencies, which were too large to be bribed, or too numerous to be intimidated, that the Platform was a rea! genuine power. These constituencies, however, were so few,

that though the Platform was a power in them, it was not a power in the State.

Much of the cause of this weakness of the electoral Platform was due to the limited number of the electorate. There were not enough electors to make the expression of their opinion really formidable to their rulers, for the great bulk of the mass of the people was wholly outside the electorate. Something of the weakness too was the result of the difficulty of communication still existing, the difficulty of collecting the people together for political purposes.

The Platform as a political power at general election time was, in fact, not much more than in its infancy, but it was the infancy of a Hercules, with vast promise of development. It might be weak now, but the ingrained spirit of Liberty and self-government in the race was soon to burst forth with irresistible strength into sovereign power, and the electoral Platform was to be the means for making the popular will supreme in the government of the country.