tion were fictitious voters, resident in the country.1

without property, and not even

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

Mean

With a franchise so limited and partial as this, all the counties and burghs, without exception, had fallen under the influence of political patrons. A great kingdom, with more than two millions of people, intelligent, instructed, industrious, and peaceable, was virtually disfranchised. while, 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 the 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, had long retained the allegiance of members coming from the north of the Tweed.1

1 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., ix. 611.

2 Speech of Lord Advocate, Sept. 23d, 1831; Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., vii. 529.

8 Oldfield's Representative Hist. vi. 294; Edinburgh Review, Oct. 1830, Art X.

4 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

...

...

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 excep tions were always the result of local accidents. What ever 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."

" 1

Where there were districts of burghs, each town-council elected a delegate, and the four or five delegates elected the member; "and, instead of bribing the town-councils, the established practice was to bribe only the delegates, or indeed only one of them, if this could secure the majority." 2

A case of inconceivable grotesqueness was related by the Lord Advocate, in 1831. The county of Bute, with a population of fourteen thousand, had twenty-one 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

only once, in his long political life, ventured to vote according to his con science, and that he found on that occasion he had voted wrong."- Han Bard's Deb., 3d Ser., vii. 543.

1 Life of Jeffrey, i. 75.

2 Cockburn's Mem. i. 88.

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.

Motions by

bald Hamil

In 1818, and again in 1823, Lord Archibald Hamilton had shown the state of the Royal Burghs, the Lord Archi- self-election, and irresponsibility of the councillors, and 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

ton, 1818, 1823.

66

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.

-

In 1824, the question of Scotch representation was brought forward by Mr. Abercromby. The inhabitants Representation of Edin- of Edinburgh complained, by petition,* that the burgh, 1826. representation of this capital city, the metropolis of the North, with upwards of one hundred thousand inhabitants, - was returned by thirty-three electors, of whom nineteen had been chosen by their predecessors in the towncouncil! Mr. Abercromby moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of that city, ment of Parliamentary reform in Scotland. 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 mag

1 Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., vii. 529.

as an instal

His motion

2 Sir J. Mackintosh; Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 434; Ibid., 2d Ser., viii. 735.

8 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., ix. 611.

4 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.

nitude 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

land.

in the state of the representation of the people Representaof Ireland. But on the union of that country, tion of Irethe 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 selfelected 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.2

1 Hansard's Deb., 2d Ser., x. 455; Ibid. xiv. 107; Ibid. xv. 163.

2 Wakefield's Statistical and Political Account of Ireland, ii. 299, et seq. ; Oldfield's Representative Hist. vi. 209-280.

Such being the state of the representation in the United Kingdom, an actual majority of the members of Majority of the members the House of Commons, were returned by an innominated. considerable 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 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."

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 and Wales, by the nomination or influence of eightyseven peers; one hundred and thirty-seven 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, thirtyone were returned by twenty-one peers, and the remainder by fourteen commoners. Of the hundred members for Ire

1 Parl. Hist. xxi. 686.

2 Ibid. xxx. 787.

8 Hansard's Deb., 2d 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.