of represented by members of these families, or by gentlemen enjoying their confidence and patronage.1 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 upwards of 150,0007.3 Represen- Great as were the defects of the representation of tatif England,—those of Scotland were greater, and of more 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 con 1 Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 285. 2 Walpole's Mem., iii. 197. Speech of Lord J. Russell, expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting this county, were 200,000l.; while 64,000l. were subscribed for Mr. Wilberforce, but not expended.-Wilberforce's Life, iii. 324. siderable 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, all the counties and burghs, without exception, had fallen under the influence of political patrons.3 A great kingdom, with more than two millions of people,intelligent, instructed, industrious, and peaceable,was virtually disfranchised. Meanwhile, the potentates who returned the members to Parliament,-instead of contending among themselves, like their brethren in England, and joining opposite parties, were generally disposed to make their terms with ministers; and by skilful management, the entire representation was engrossed by the friends and agents of the government. It was not secured, however, without a profuse distribution of patronage, which, judiciously administered, 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. 2 Speech of Lord Advocate, Sept. 23rd, 1831; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 529. 3 Oldfield's Representative Hist., vi. 294; Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1830, Art. X. had long retained the allegiance of members coming from the north of the Tweed.1 Lord Cockburn, a contemporary witness,—has given a spirited account of the mode in which elections in Scotland were conducted. He says: "The return of a single opposition member was never to be expected. . . The return of three or four was miraculous, and these startling exceptions were always the result of local accidents. Whatever this system may have been originally, it had grown, in reference to the people, into as complete a mockery, as if it had been invented for their degradation. The people had nothing to do with it. It was all managed by town-councils, of never more than thirty-three members; and every towncouncil was self-elected, and consequently perpetuated its own interests. The election of either the town or the county member, was a matter of such utter indifference to the people, that they often only knew of it by the ringing of a bell, or by seeing it mentioned next day in a newspaper; for the farce was generally performed in an apartment from which, if convenient, the public could be excluded, and never in the open air." 2 Where there were districts of burghs, each towncouncil elected a delegate, and the four or five delegates elected the member; " and, instead of bribing the towncouncils, the established practice was to bribe only the delegates, or indeed only one of them, if this could secure the majority." "3 A case of inconceivable grotesqueness was related by the Lord Advocate, in 1831. The county of Bute, 1 It was said of one Scotch county member, "that his invariable rule was never to be present at a debate, or absent at a division; and that he had only once, in his long political life, ventured to vote according to his conscience, and that he found on that occasion he had voted wrong."-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 543. Life of Jeffrey, i. 75. with a population of fourteen thousand, had twentyone electors, of whom one only resided in the county. "At an election at Bute, not beyond the memory of man, only one person attended the meeting, except the Sheriff and the returning officer. He, of course, took the chair, constituted the meeting, called over the roll of freeholders, answered to his own name, took the vote as to the Preses, and elected himself. He then moved and seconded his own nomination, put the question, as to the vote, and was unanimously returned." 1 This close system of elections had existed even before the Union : but though sufficiently notorious, the British Parliament had paid little attention to its defects. by Lord 1818,1823. In 1818, and again in 1823, Lord Archibald Hamil- Motions ton had shown the state of the Royal Burghs,-the self- Archibald election, and irresponsibility of the councillors,-and Hamilton, their uncontrolled authority over the local funds. The questions then raised referred to municipal rather than parliamentary reform; but the latter came incidentally under review, and it was admitted that there was "no popular election, or pretence of popular election."2 In 1823, Lord Archibald exposed the state of the county representation, and the general electoral system of the country, and found one hundred and seventeen supporters. Represen tation of burgh, In 1824, the question of Scotch representation was brought forward by Mr. Abercromby. The inhabitants Edinof Edinburgh complained, by petition, that the representation of this capital city,-the metropolis of the North, with upwards of one hundred thousand 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., vii. 529. 2 Sir J. Mackintosh; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 434; Ibid., 2nd Ser., viii. 735. 3 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611. This petition had been presented May 5th, 1823, drawn up by Mr. Jeffrey, and signed by 7000 out of the 10,000 householders of the city.— Cockburn's Mem., 404. 1826. Representation of Ireland. inhabitants,—was 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 a decisive argument against it.1 Prior to 1801, the British Parliament was not concerned in the state of the representation of the people of Ireland. But on the union of that country, the defects of its representation were added to those of England and Scotland, in 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 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., x. 455; Ibid., xiv. 107; Ibid., xv. 163. |