Those corrupted electors of Shoreham who resolved themselves into
a purchasable community on their own account, were roughly handled
by the parliamentary inquisitors, but the avowed and professional
traffickers in venal boroughs seemed to conduct their trade openly,
and, with the great parliamentary lights, unadmonished and unexposed.
They were generally the agents of those who had secured the influence
in the seats by various methods--some by inheritance, others by
patronage, sometimes by purchase _en bloc_, but generally _en détail_.
Men invested in boroughs and cultivated them for sale, secure of a
profitable mart when the proper season arrived; the burgage-houses
were bought and accumulated; “shambles on old foundations” carrying
voting qualifications were secured; burgage tenures were bought up;
voters were pensioned from year to year, the process varying according
to the nature of the suffrage. As in the case of Sheridan’s expenses
at Stafford, the independent electors were retained at a settled price
per head. Sheridan’s cost him five guineas per burgess; Wilberforce
found four guineas the price at Hull for a plumper. Southey says it
rose to £30 a vote at Ilchester, Somerset, where the burgesses had a
direct control over their borough; although the tariff ran high, the
four candidates who recklessly bribed the constituents in 1774 lost
their pains and money, petitions and counter-petitions establishing
that the members returned and those who alleged they were unjustly
rejected were alike so palpably culpable of corruption that the
election was declared void. In 1826, Ilchester is given in the “Manual”
as under the patronage of Sir W. Manners. Irrespective of the local
and lesser bargains made with the mayors and burgesses, there was the
“big business” conducted on behalf of the actual individual landholders
of the place--those magnates set down in the election lists of
constituencies as “patrons” of boroughs, the dispensers of seats.
For an instance of the facility which characterized the _modus
operandi_, though “the prices ruled high” owing to extraneous demands,
see the “Letters” of that skilled courtier, Lord Chesterfield, deeply
versed in political chicanery and combination. In a passage of a letter
dated Bath, December 19, 1767, he writes to that hopeful youth who by
“Chesterfield’s Letters” was to be polished into a fine gentleman, and
for whom a place in Parliament was a desirable opening--
“In one of our conversations here this time twelvemonth I
desired my Lord Chatham to secure you a seat in the new
parliament. He assured me he would, and, I am convinced, very
sincerely.... Since that I have heard no more of it, which
made me look out for some venal borough; and I spoke to a
borough-jobber, and offered five and twenty hundred pounds for
a secure seat in parliament; but he laughed at my offer, and
said that there was no such thing as a borough to be had now,
for the rich East and West Indians had secured them all, at
the rate of three thousand pounds at least, but many at four
thousand, _and two or three that he knew at five thousand_.
This, I confess, has vexed me a good deal.”
Much has been said about “Old Sarum” (Wilts) as being typical of the
unabashed and confirmed borough-mongering and corruption which existed
not only in the last century, but, in fact, until the larger measure
of Reform carried in 1832. Representative government, conducted on the
principles which prevailed in “hole-and-corner boroughs” until the
passing of that bill against which even Sir Robert Peel protested as a
dangerous innovation, certainly, for the most part, had but a theoretic
existence, as a review of the facts sufficiently demonstrates. Amongst
the statistics given in Stockdale’s “Parliamentary Guide” (1784), Dr.
Willis writes that the borough of Old Sarum was then reduced to _one
house_. It returned members in 23 Edw. 1, and then intermitted until
34 Edw. 3, since which time representatives were returned until its
disfranchisement. These were at first elected in the county-court,
as was then customary; from 1688, the right of election was in “the
freeholders being burgage-holders” and the number was _seven_. In 1826,
when the last parliament of George IV.’s reign assembled, this state
of things was unaltered, the patron was the Earl of Caledon, and the
mysterious seven remained. New Sarum, otherwise Salisbury, which had
taken the place of “Old Sarum,” received its privileges by letters
patent, 2 Hen. 3, which conferred on the bishops and canons _tanquam
proprium dominicum_; afterwards confirmed by charter 34 Edw. 1. In
1784, there were about fifty-six voters; the right of election being
“in the select number, that is, the mayor and corporation.” The Earl
of Radnor and G. P. Jervoise were the patrons in 1826, when Viscount
Folkestone and Wadham Wyndham were returned by the fifty-four electors
then set down as the suffrage-holders.
Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, was another scandalous and typical
“pocket-borough” which obtained notoriety, especially at the time
of the passing of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill, Sir Charles Wetherell
being turned into satiric capital by Doyle (HB), in his versions
of the “Last of the Boroughbridges.” The right of election was in
the burgage-holders--a “pocket-borough” tenure, thus denounced by
Charles James Fox: “If a man comes into parliament as the proprietor
of a burgage tenure, he does not come there as the representative
of the people,” as explained in the eloquent speech of the great
Whig chief, on Grey’s motion for Reform, 1797. The Duke of Newcastle
was the patron, and sixty burgage-holders returned two members. The
constituency of Helston, where the franchise was originally invested in
a corporation, under the Old Charter, had in 1790 dwindled down to one
elector, to whose lot it fell to nominate two representatives.
The case of a “controverted election” at Hindon, Wilts, where the
right of election was of an easy order, viz. “inhabitants of houses
within the borough, being housekeepers and parishioners, not securing
alms,” raised an altogether pretty scandal in the way of revelations on
corrupt treating. The sitting members, returned in 1774, being Richard
Smith and T. Brand Hollis, the unsuccessful candidates, James Calthorpe
and Richard Beckford, were the petitioners on the ground that the
former, by the bribery of themselves and their agents, had procured an
illegal return. On the hearing of the petition it was discovered that
all or the major part of the voters for all four candidates had been
bribed, and the committee pronounced the election void. The candidates
themselves had not only bribed, but thirteen electors, acting as
agents, had also been employed to corrupt their fellow-voters. The
committee resolved to disfranchise these electors:--
“A bill was then ordered to incapacitate from voting at
elections of members of parliament 190 persons, besides the
thirteen above-mentioned, out of 210 who had polled at the
election.”
These persons appealed against the bill, and there being technical
objections to the petitioners “being parties to and alike defendants
in an indictment,” it was argued they “could not, without overturning
the known rules of law and justice, be received as witnesses in this
case.” By a tacit agreement the unfortunate cross-petitions were
dropped the ensuing session, and two new writs were issued; meanwhile
the attorney-general, on separate informations, proceeded against the
four candidates (June, 1775) for bribery at elections, held to be a
crime at common law independent of any statute against it. All the four
informations were tried at the Lent assizes in the county of Wilts,
March, 1775, before Baron Hotham. The two petitioners who were in the
first instance responsible for this scrutiny were acquitted; Smith and
Hollis, who had been returned, were found guilty, and were brought
up to the Court of King’s Bench to receive judgment: this was on the
20th of May, the last day of the term, and the judges desiring time to
consider the proper punishment, they were committed till the next term
to the King’s Bench prison. Meanwhile, previous to this commitment, the
new election for Hindon had taken place (May 16th), and Mr. Richard
Smith was again returned. On the 7th of June, Smith and Hollis were
again brought up for judgment, when they were each fined 1000 marks[57]
and sentenced to prison for six months, and until they paid their
respective fines; and it was ordered that Richard Smith should give
security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in the sum of
£1000, and two sureties each of £500.
A flagrant instance of boroughmongering was exposed during a
parliamentary investigation into a case of controverted election at
Milborne Port, Somerset, where the right of voting was, amongst others,
in the capital bailiffs and their two deputies. The petition proposed
to disqualify eleven votes upon the score of “occasionality,” and to
object to eleven who voted for the sitting members and were disabled
by a corrupt bargain made between Mr. Medlycott, the senior member,
and Loyd, an agent of Lord North’s. There were nine bailiwicks in the
borough, with a bailiff appointed for each. Mr. Medlycott had long
been in possession of four of these, and the remaining five belonged
to the family of Walters. A remarkable example of downright trading
appeared as the case developed. In February, 1770, Loyd arrived at
Milborne Port as the friend of Lord North. A meeting was held at Yeovil
between the agent and the patron, two or three others being present, at
the house of one Daniel; where a contract was duly drawn up, signed,
and witnessed, by which Medlycott agreed to sell the borough, and to
throw out his old friend, the Hon. Temple Luttrell, who was one of
the persons presenting the petition, which revealed the underground
workings of administrative jobbery. The writing drawn up at Yeovil
purported to be the “memorandum of an agreement to defray the expenses
of procuring a seat in parliament for any friend of Lord North, whom
his lordship or Loyd should recommend.” To this end Loyd agreed to
deposit fifteen hundred pounds in Daniel’s hands, to be employed in
purchasing the family interest of the Walters in the remaining five
bailiwicks for the use and at the risk of Medlycott, who stipulated
to pay Loyd five per cent. for the money so advanced, until such time
as Lord North’s friend should be seated peaceably fourteen days in
parliament--the time allowed for petitioning. The paper was put into
Lord North’s hands, who returned it to Daniel, without committing
himself to any observation. On the faith of this instrument--
“The Walters’ property in the voters was transferred; the five
bailiffs were nominated, and consigned to Medlycott’s interest,
thus purchased by Loyd. But the patron of the borough, on
assuming the undivided influence therein, in the spirit of
friendship wrote to his colleague Luttrell on the subject,
acknowledged this foul transaction, and urged the wretched
excuse _that his poverty, and not his will, consented_.”
The counsel for the petitioners further said they would give evidence
of the bribery, and several offers made, also of the _treats_ given
to influence the voters. The ministerial influence seems to have been
paramount on this occasion; as the committee determined, in the face
of the absolute documentary evidence, and other proofs of bribery,
treating, illegal voting, and refusal to register legitimate votes
on behalf of the petitioners, that the gentleman who had sold the
seat in the borough to Lord North was--with the second ministerial
nominee, brought in by his venality--duly elected. This borough of
Milborne Port seems to have been a snug haven for nominees: in 1826
the patronage was at the joint disposal of the Marquis of Anglesea
and Sir W. Coles Medlycott, and returned the Hon. Berkeley Paget and
Lord Graves--proving the utility of “a stake in the country.” The
warming-pan constituency was swept away, with similar anomalies, by the
Reform Bill carried by Lord Grey.
In the general election of 1774 the contest for Westminster was marked
by the unblushing exertion of much undue influence. Not only did two
ducal houses bring all the weight of their purses and ministerial
influence, adding to almost limitless resources such strong inducements
as the Duke of Northumberland, with his metropolitan patronage, and
the Duke of Newcastle, with his placemen, pensions, and ministerial
patronage, could bring to bear for the return of younger scions of
the two houses concerned; the royal authority was freely used, and
the king’s servants, without, it was shown, any qualifications as
voters, were allowed to record their voices for the return of the
Court candidates. The famous election of 1784, although stronger in
incident, must have been tame by comparison. Not only members of the
royal household, but divers peers of the realm and lords of parliament
publicly canvassed, and otherwise unduly interfered in the election,
contrary to several express resolutions of the House. The candidates
stood thus at the close of the poll:--Earl Percy, 4995; Lord Thomas
Pelham Clinton, 4744; Lord Mountmorres, 2531; Charles Stanhope, Lord
Mahon, 2342; and Humphrey Cotes, 130. A petition was presented by Lord
Mountmorres and several electors of the city and liberty of Westminster
against the return of Earl Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, seeing tha
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기