posed the state of the county representation, and the general electoral system of the country, and found one hundred and seventeen supporters.' In 1824, the question of Scotch representation was brought forward by Mr. Abercromby. The Represeninhabitants of Edinburgh complained, by Edinburgh, petition, that the representation of this 1826. capital city-the metropolis of the North, with upwards of one hundred thousand inhabitantswas returned by thirty-three electors, of whom nineteen had been chosen by their predecessors in the town-council! Mr. Abercromby moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of that city, as an instalment of parliamentary reform in Scotland. His motion failed, and being renewed in 1826, was equally unsuccessful. Such proposals were always met in the same manner. When general measures of reform were advocated, the magnitude of the change was urged as the reason for rejecting them; and when, to obviate such objections, the correction of any particular defect was attempted, its exceptional character was а decisive argument against it.3 tation of Prior to 1801, the British Parliament was not concerned in the state of the representation Represenof the people of Ireland. But on the union Ireland. of that country, the defects of its representation were added to those of England and Scotland, in 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. 2 This petition had been presented May 5th, 1823, drawn up by Mr. Jeffrey, and signed by 7.000 out of the 10,000 householders of the city. Cockburn Mem., 404. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., x. 455; Ibid., xiv. 107; Ibid., xv. 163. the constitution of the united Parliament. The counties and boroughs in Ireland were at least as much under the influence of great patrons as in England. It is true, that in arranging the terms of the union, Mr. Pitt took the opportunity of abolishing several of the smaller nomination boroughs: but many were spared, which were scarcely less under the patronage of noblemen and landowners; and places of more consideration were reduced, by restricted rights of election, to a similar dependence. In Belfast, in Carlow, in Wexford, and in Sligo, the right of election was vested in twelve self-elected burgesses in Limerick and Kilkenny, it was in the corporation and freemen. In the counties, the influence of the territorial families was equally dominant. For the sake of political influence, the landowners had subdivided their estates into a prodigious number of forty-shilling freeholds; and until the freeholders had fallen under the dominion of the priests, they were faithful to their Protestant patrons. According to the law of Ireland, freeholds were created without the possession of property; and the votes of the freeholders were considered as the absolute right of the proprietor of the soil. Hence it was that after the union more than two thirds of the Irish members were returned, not by the people of Ireland, but by about fifty or sixty influential patrons.1 I Wakefield's Statistical and Political Account of Ireland, ii. 299, et seq.; Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 209-280; Infra, Chap. of the nominated. Such being the state of the representation in the United Kingdom, an actual majority of the Majority members of the House of Commons were members returned by an inconsiderable number of persons. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, not more than six thousand men returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. It was alleged in the petition of the Society of the Friends of the People, presented by Mr. Grey in 1793, that eighty-four individuals absolutely returned one hundred and fifty-seven members to Parliament; that seventy influential men secured the return of one hundred and fifty members; and that, in this manner, three hundred and fifty-seven members, being the majority of the House, before the union with Ireland,—were returned to Parliament by one hundred and fifty-four patrons; of whom forty were peers. In 1821, Mr. Lambton stated that he was prepared to prove by evidence, at the bar of the House of Commons, 'that one hundred and eighty individuals returned, by nomination or otherwise, three hundred and fifty members.' 3 Dr. Oldfield's Representative History furnishes still more elaborate statistics of parliamentary patronage. According to his detailed statements, no less than two hundred and eighteen members were returned for counties and boroughs, in England 1 Parl. Hist., xxi. 686. 2 Ibid., xxx. 787. 3 Haus. Deb., 2nd Ser., v. 359. Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith says: The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters.'-Mem., ii. 215. and Wales, by the nomination or influence of eighty-seven peers: one hundred and thirty-seveli were returned by ninety commoners, and sixteen by the Government; making a total number of three hundred and seventy-one nominee members. Of the forty-five members for Scotland, thirty-one were returned by twenty-one peers, and the remainder by fourteen commoners. Of the hundred members for Ireland, fifty-one were returned by thirty-six peers, and twenty by nineteen commoners. The general result of these surprising statements is, that of the six hundred and fifty-eight members of the House of Commons, four hundred and eighty-seven were returned by nomination; and one hundred and seventy-one only were representatives of independent constituencies.1 Such matters did not admit of proof, and were beyond the scope of parliamentary inquiries: but after making allowances for imperfect evidence and exaggeration, we are unable to resist the conclusion, that not more than one third of the House of Commons were the free choice even of the limited bodies of electors then entrusted with the franchise. Injustice in the trial of election petitions. Scandalous as were the electoral abuses which law and custom formerly permitted, the conduct of the House of Commons, in the trial of election petitions, was more scandalous still. Boroughs were bought and sold, electors were notoriously bribed by wholesale and retail, returning officers were partial and corrupt. But, in defiance of all justice and decency, the Oldfield's Representative Hist., 181C, vi. 285-300. majority of the House of Commons connived at these practices, when committed by their own party; and only condemned them, when their political opponents were put upon their trial. Dat veniam corvis,-vexat censura columbas. The Commons having, for the sake of their own independence, insisted upon an exclusive jurisdiction in matters of election, were not ashamed to prostitute it to party They were charged with a grave trust, and abused it. They assumed a judicial office, and dishonoured it. This discreditable perversion of justice had grown up with those electoral abuses, which an honest judicature would have tended to correct; and reached its greatest excesses in the reigns of George II. and George III. Originally, controverted elections had been tried by select committees specially nominated, and afterwards by the Committee of Privileges and Elections. This latter committee had been nominated by the House itself, being composed of Privy Councillors and eminent lawyers, well qualified by their learning for the judicial inquiries entrusted to them. In 1603, it comprised the names of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Thomas Fleming;' in 1623, the names of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Heneage Finch, Mr. Pym, Mr. Glanville, Sir Roger North, and Mr. Selden. The committee was then confined to the members nominated by the House itself: but being afterwards enlarged by the introduction of all Privy Councillors 1 Com. Journ., i. 149 (March 23rd, 1603). There are earlier ap pointments in D'Ewes' Journal. 2 Com. Journ., i. 716; Glanville's Rep., Pref. vii. • Com. Journ., i. 716; Cavendish Deb., i. 508. |