In 1780, a bill to disqualify revenue officers was proposed by Mr. Crewe, and though rejected on the second reading, it met with much more support than Mr. Dowdeswell's previous measure.1 It was again brought forward in 1781, with less success than in the previous year. But the time was now at hand, when a determined assault was contemplated upon the influence of the crown; and in 1782, the disqualification of revenue officers,-which had hitherto been an opposition measure,—was proposed by the ministry of Lord Rockingham. Its imperative necessity was proved by Lord Rockingham himself, who stated that seventy elections chiefly depended on the votes of these officers; and that eleven thousand five hundred officers of customs and excise were electors.3 In one borough, he said that one hundred and twenty out of the five hundred voters, had obtained revenue appointments, through the influence of a single person. This necessary measure was now carried through both Houses, by large majorities, though not without remonstrances against its principle, especially from Lord Mansfield. It is not to be denied that the disqualification of any class of men is, abstractedly, opposed to liberty, and an illiberal principle of legislation; but here was a gross constitutional abuse requiring correction; and though many voters were deprived of the rights of citizenship,-these rights could not be freely exercised, and were sacrificed in order to protect the general liberties of the people. Had there been a franchise so extensive as to leave the general body of electors free to vote, without being overborne by the servants of the crown, it would have been difficult 1 The numbers were 224 to 195; Parl. Hist., xxi. 403. 2 The numbers being 133 to 86; Parl. Hist., xxi. 1398. June 3rd, 1782; Parl. Hist., xxii. 95. Vexatious contests in populous cities. to justify the policy of disfranchisement. But with a franchise so restricted that the electors were controlled by the crown, in the choice of their representatives, the measure was necessary in the interests of freedom. Such being the dependence and corruption of the smaller boroughs, and such the government influence in many of the larger towns,-there were still a few great cities, with popular rights of election, whose inhabitants neither landowners nor government could control, and which were beyond the influence of corruption. Here, at least, there might have been a free expression of public opinion. But such were the vices of the laws which formerly regulated elections-laws not designed for the protection of the franchise,- that a popular candidate, with a majority of votes, might be met by obstacles so vexatious and oppressive, as to debar him from the free suffrage of the electors. If not defeated at the poll, by riots and open violence,—or defrauded of his votes, by the partiality of the returning officer, or the factious manoeuvres of his opponents,-he was ruined by the extravagant costs of his victory. The poll was liable to be kept open for forty days, entailing an enormous expense upon the candidates, and prolific of bribery, treating, and riots. During this period, the public-houses were thrown open; and drunkenness and disorder prevailed in the streets, and at the hustings. Bands of hired ruffians,- armed with bludgeons, and inflamed by drink,-paraded the public thoroughfares, intimidating voters, and resisting their access to the polling places. Candidates assailed with offensive, and often dangerous missiles, braved the penalties of the pillory; while their supporters were exposed to the fury of a drunken mob. Even now, a contested election, which lasts but a day, is often a reproach to a civilised people. What then must it have been before any of its worst vices had been controlled, and when it continued for upwards of a month? ster elec tion, 1784. The most conspicuous example of all the abuses of Westminwhich the old electoral system was capable, was that of the Westminster election, in 1784. Mr. Fox had incurred the violent resentment of the government, by his recent opposition to Mr. Pitt, and the court party. It had been determined, that all the members who had supported the coalition should be opposed, at the general election; and Mr. Fox, their ablest leader, was the foremost man to be assailed. The election,-disgraced throughout by scenes of drunkenness, tumult, and violence1,-and by the coarsest libels and lampoons,-was continued for forty days. When the poll was closed, Mr. Fox was in a majority of two hundred and thirtysix above Sir Cecil Wray, one of the court candidates. But he was now robbed of the fruits of his victory by the High Bailiff, who withheld his return, and commenced a scrutiny into the votes. By withholding the return, after the day on which the writ was returnable, he denied the successful candidate his right to sit in Parliament; and anticipated the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, by which court alone, the validity of the election could then properly be determined. This unwarrantable proceeding would have excluded Mr. Fox from his rightful place in Parliament; but he had already been returned for Kirkwall, and took his seat, at the commencement of the session. Apart from the vexation and injustice to which Mr. Fox had been exposed, the expense of the scrutiny 1 In one of the brawls which arose during its progress, a man was killed, whose death was charged against persons belonging to Mr. was estimated at 18,000l. In vain his friends endeavoured to induce the House of Commons to order the High Bailiff to make an immediate return. That officer was upheld by Mr. Pitt, who was followed, at first, by a large majority. Mr. Fox, in his bitterness, exclaimed: "I have no reason to expect indulgence: nor do I know that I shall meet with bare justice in this House." As no return had been made, which could be submitted to the adjudication of an election committee, Mr. Fox was at the mercy of a hostile majority of the House. The High Bailiff was, indeed, directed to proceed with the scrutiny, with all practicable dispatch; but at the commencement of the following session,-when the scrutiny had been proceeding for eight months, it had only been completed in a single parish; and had but slightly affected the relative position of the candidates. Notwithstanding this exposure of the monstrous injustice of the scrutiny, Mr. Pitt still resisted a motion for directing the High Bailiff to make an immediate return. But,-blindly as he had hitherto been followed,—such was the iniquity of the cause which he persisted in supporting, that all his influence failed in commanding a larger majority than nine; and on the 3rd of March, he was defeated by a majority of thirty-eight. The minister was justly punished for his ungenerous conduct to an opponent, and for his contempt of the law,-indignantly ascribed by Mr. Fox, to "the malignant wish of gratifying an inordinate and implacable spirit of resentment.”2 But a system which had thus placed a popular candidate,— 1 By 162 against 124; Ann. Reg., 1784, xxvii. 180; Adolphus's Hist., iv. 115-118, 168. 2 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 808, 843, 846; Ibid., xxv. 3; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 542; ii. 7, 24, &c.; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 99; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 207— 211, 253. in one of the first cities of the kingdom,-at the mercy of factious violence, and ministerial oppression, was a flagrant outrage upon the principles of freedom. Parliament further marked its reprobation of such proceedings, by limiting every poll to fifteen days, and closing a scrutiny six days before the day on which the writ was returnable.1 influence In the counties, the franchise was more free and Territorial liberal, than in the majority of cities and boroughs. All in counties. forty-shilling freeholders were entitled to vote; and in this class were comprised the country gentlemen, and independent yeomanry of England. Hence the county constituencies were at once the most numerous, the most responsible, and the least corrupt. They represented public opinion more faithfully than other electoral bodies; and on many occasions, had great weight in advancing a popular cause. Such were their respectability and public spirit, that most of the earlier schemes of parliamentary reform contemplated the disfranchisement of boroughs, and the simple addition of members to the counties. But notwithstanding their unquestionable merits, the county electors were peculiarly exposed to the influence of the great nobles, who held nearly a feudal sway. Illustrious ancestry, vast possessions, high offices, distinguished political services and connections, placed them at the head of the society of their several counties; and local influence, and the innate respect for aristocracy which animates the English people, combined to make them the political leaders of the gentry and yeomanry. In some counties, powerful commoners were no less dominant. The greater number of the counties in England and Wales were 1 25 Geo. III. c. 84. |