I "Here is but one house," fays Willis, A. D. 1750. I have been told that now there in no houfe. was therefore going to charge the two Old Saram Senators to nobody. But as Willis fays, the Lord of the Borough appoints a Bailiff and fix Burgeffes, to whom he gives his conge d'eliere, I have called them bis Reprefentatives. And furely he, and the Lord of the Borough of Newton, in the Isle of Wight, ought to be contented with the representation they have in Parliament. Brought over 4359 Bewdley fends 2 mem.chof.by 8 I ftate Bewdley at 8, the majority of 14, as the other 20 are appointed by the 14. Knaresborough, Y. Scarborough Boroughbridge New Malton 202 2 2 2 2 2 Haftings, cinq, port 2 The Members are elected by the Corporation only, which are a Mayo and two Bailiffs. 5723 254 From this extract we fee, that 254 Members are actually elected by 5723 votes; now the most numerous meeting of the Commons ever known, was on occafion of the debate about Walpole, A. D. 1741. There were then 502 in the Houfe. Therefore 254 comes very near a majority of the Houfe, or the whole acting and effici26 ent number. And the greatest part of these illuftrious 5723 who have the power of conftituting law-givers over 42 the property of the nation, are themfelves perfons of no property. 20 101 33 51 23 In North Britain the number of fouls is about 1,500,000. The males 38 between 16 and 56 are 300,000. :AlThis town and Boroughbridge are lowing one third part to be their own both in one Parish, the only fingle Pa- mafters, and to be above receiving rifh in England that fends 4 Members. charity, no Scotch Member ought to North Allerton 91 be elected by fewer than a majority 101 of 2000 votes. But there are many 26 inftances of Members elected in North Britain by almoft as fmall a number as in England. The truth of the mat. ter is, that in North Britain, though the country be nothing as to riches, compared with England, yet there are fewer beggars. Almost all are housekeepers, though a great number of thofe houses are wretched hovels. So that almoft all adult males ought to be voters in North Britain. 2 New Romney, do. 2 Rye 17 51 21 21 13 I 41 41 72 The Corporation confifts of 36, who make what Burgeffes they pleafe. They being probably at the command of the Corporation, are hardly to be accounted free Electors. Let us, however, add 36 to the Corporation, which will make the majority of Electors 72. Wotton Baffet Shaftesbury Marlborough 2 2 -246 Lord Talbot, in his fpeech in the House of Peers, A. D. 1739, suppofes, that 50,000 elect the majority of the House. And he justly ex-, claims against that number, as utterly difproportionate, which it undoubtedly is, if the due number be 410,000 or 639,000. What would 2 his Lordship have faid, had he known that little more than a tenth part of 76 151 his 50,000 fend in the majority of our law-makers? Taking the whole reprefentative for South and North Britain, the Members for Counties are only 131 of the 558, of which 131, 42 are for Scotland and Wales. The Members, therefore, for the Boroughs and Cinque Ports, which ought not to be 1 in 10, compared with thofe for the Counties, are 382, above four times as many. So that for one Member, who may be fuppofed to come fairly into the Houfe, four (if we except a few for the great Cities) are fent by the poorest of the people, directed by Court-influence. It has been proved, that, dividing the right of voting as it ought to be, no Member should be elected by fewer than the majority of 800 votes. But we find, that not one Member of all thefe 256 is elected by a number fo high as 300; and a multitude by a number below 20. If we take the places, where a majority of the electors comes below 20, it is fhameful what a proportion of the 513 is fent into the Houfe by a handful, and that handful moftly people in low circumftances, and therefore obnoxious to bribery, or under the power of their fuperiors. Leftwithiel Truro fends 2 mem.chof. by 13 2 2 14 19 15 7 364 Here we fee 56 Members (about a ninth part of the whole for England) are fent into the houfe of Commons by 364 votes, which number ought not to fend in one Member. For no Member ought to be elected by fewer than the majority of 800, upon the most moderate calculation, according to Dr. Price, in order to give 410,000 voters their due and equally diftributed share of legislative power, without which equal distribution the majority of the men of property are enflaved to the handful of beggars, who, by electing the majority of the Houfe of Commons, have fo great an overbalance of power over them, as to be able to carry every point in direct oppofition to their opinion, and to their intereft. Here we fee (monftrum horrendum, ingens!) two perfons, the Lord of the pitiful town of Newton, in the Isle of Wight, and him of Old Sarum, Wilthire, where there is not a houfe, 10 fend in as many members as the ineftimable wealth of the City of London, 14 in which the Livery, who are the le16 gal Electors, are 8,000; and the per14 fons, who ought to have votes, are 14 probably 30,000, and upwards. Here two individuals have equal weight in 17 the flate with 30,000! 17 17 II Maldon 17 13 1 The following counties, A. D. 1693 to 1697 on an average, paid annually as follows, each refpectively fo many parts in 513 of the land-tax and fubfidy; and fent Members as follow: Land-tax. Subfidy. Memb.. Land-tax. Subfidy. Memb. I 5 4 44 Weftmoreland I independency to Parliament, than petitioning him to diffolve that which was then fitting. What point could have been gained by that measure ? It is a handful of beggars, bribed, or awed, by the Court, or the grandees, that fends the majority of the Members into the Houfe. Would not they have fent back the fame men? Did they dare to fend any others? If it be faid, that the diffolution of the Parliament then fitting would have redresfed all grievances, it muft follow, that a new Parliament would; but how many new Parliaments, have we seen fince the Revolution? Yet we have now ftanding armies, feptennial Parliaments, rotten boroughs, placemen in the Houfe, excifes, &c. Men of large property ought likewife to have more votes, than those, who have lefs to fecure. Property ought in all ftates to have its proportional weight and confequence. In the Eaft-India act of 1773, which was heavily complained of for its injuftice, there is yet one very equitable regulation, and worthy of imitation, viz. That every Proprietor of 3000l. ftock fhall have two votes : of 600ol. 3; and of 10,000l. 4 votes at elections of Directors. The British Government, there fore, taking it according to its avowed state, is neither abfolute monarchy, nor limited monarchy, nor ariftocracy, nor democracy, nor a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy; but may be called a ptochocracy (the reader will pardon a new word) or government of beggars. For a few beggarly boroughs do avowedly elect the most important part of the government, the part which commands the purfe. It is true, this is only the oftenfible state of things. The British Government is really a juntocracy (I doubt the reader will now think I prefume upon his good nature) or Government by a Minifter and his crew. For the Court directs the beggars whom to chufe. Is this the univerfally admired and univerfally envied Britifb conftitution? How much more proper would a Petition have been from the Friends of Liberty to the King, to fet himfelf at the head of a plan for restoring Though I have not the least idea of wishing fo great a change in the conftitution, as would exclude King and Lords from Parliaments; yet I may, I think, be allowed just to mention, that the great power by our conftitution vested in a small number of individuals, which will always make an inequality, and an unbalancing, ought to make us the more defirous of reducing, if poffible, one of our three eftates at leaft, to fomewhat a little nearer to adequate, than it is at prefent. Representation in the Houfe of Commons is inadequate in other refpects befides thofe already mentioned. In ancient times, when Parliaments were first established, there was no property but that of land. Therefore all powers, and all honours, were heaped on the landed men. The confequence was, that the landed intereft was too well reprefented, to the detriment (in our times) of the mercantile and monied. This is an occafion of various evils. For many of our country-gentlemen are but bad judges of the importance of the mercantile intereft, and do not wifely confult it in their bills and acts. Of this kind are the Game Act, the Dog A&t, and taxes on every neceffary of life, which give our rivals in trade a great great advantage over us. And Minifters, to curry favour with the House of Commons, are tempted to burden commerce with taxes, for the fake of eafing the landed intereft. See the art of Walpole to this purpofe, by propofing to eafe the land of one fhilling in the pound, and laying a duty on falt for three years, to make up the deficiency. It was objected to this propofal, That the falt-duty was always reckoned a grievous burden upon the manufacturing poor, and was therefore taken off, and that it was a ftrange paradox, that the landed gentlemen were poorer than the poor, and therefore in more need of relief from a heavy tax. It is the overbalance of the power in the hands of the landed men, that has produced the bounty on exportation of corn, which increases the manufacturer's expence of living, and difcourages the exportation of our manufactures. This is, in the end, hurtful to the landed intereft. But fhort-fighted and felfish men do not fee it in that light; nor will feem to understand, that the land-tax, while nominally three fhillings in the pound, is not really nine-pence. The time was, when land in England might have been purchased for a 50th part of its prefent value. What has given it the 49 parts additional worth? Can any one imagine the difference is owing to any thing but our trade and manufactures? A. D. 1773, a Parliament being called it was exprefsly mentioned in the writ, that from every burgh there fhould be sent two burgeffes," the "most difcreet and futhcient, who "had the greatest skill in thipping "and merchandifing." There was a claufe in the Election Bill in King William's time for rendering merchants eligible into Parliament, making oath that they were worth 5000l. "When the young nobility and gentry (fays Davenant) employ their time and thoughts carefully to infpect and confider the kingdom's foreign April, 1774. traffic, they will evidently fee how much their landed intereft depends upon it; they will find, that as trade brought land from 12 to 25, the general rental from 6 to 14 millions, and the kingdom's capital from 72 to 252 millions, reckoning lands, tenements, hereditaments, and perfonal eftates, 18 years purchase at a medium; fo it may bring land from 25 to 50 years purchafe, and lands, tenements, hereditaments, &c. from 18 to 26 years purchase, the general rental from 14 millions to 28 millions, and the kingdom's capital from 252 to above 1000 millions, if by industry and prudent management it can be rendered more extensive." It was owing to a want of merchants in the House, that the Bill for reftraining paper-credit in America was brought in. And it was no fmail difgrace to the Houfe, that there were Petitions against it pre.. fented from moft of the agents for the colonies, as an imprudent and hurtful fcheme. Poftlethwayte in his Dict. of Comm. and Brit. true Syft. has made many remarks on the advantage of merchants in the House of Coinmons; to whom I must refer the Reader. Is not an ariftocracy, a government in the hands of a few, or of one clafs, or one intereft, excluding the body of the people of property from their due weight in government? Is not our Houfe of Peers wholly, and our Houfe of Commons chiefly, filled with men whofe property is land? Is not therefore the government of this mercantile and manufacturing country in the hands of the landed interest, to the exclufion of the mercantile and manufactural? Does not then the government of this country tend too much to aristocracy? The eldest fons of Scotch Peers are declared incapable of fitting in the Houfe of Commons. But the sons of English Peers may fit, fo that ten individuals out of one family may be Legislators. Is not this too ariftocratical? D d |