Page images
PDF
EPUB

ART. VI. History of the Original Constitution of Parliaments, from the Time of the Britons to the present Day; shewing their Dura tion and Mode of Election, the various Innovations and Altera. tions which have taken place in the State of the Representation of the People in the Reigns of the several Kings and Queens of England, the Periods at which Cities and Boroughs respectively first sent Members; the Times of their discontinuing to exercise that Privilege, their Restoration, &c. to which is added the present State of the Representation; containing an impartial Account of the several Contests which took place at the last Election, Names of Proprietors and Patrons of Boroughs, contradictory Rights of Election, Charters and Local Privileges, Number of Voters, State of Factions in Cities and Boroughs, &c. By T. H. B. Oldfield, Author of the History of Boroughs. 8vo. PP. 548. 7s. 6d. Boards. Robinsons. 1797.

T

HIS ample title-page is of itself an analysis of the contents of the work; the object of which is to prove the absolute necessity of reform in the second great council of the nation. The present system of parliamentary representation is demonstrated to be faulty, not only from the abuse of, but a total deviation from, the original constitution. The author combats the assertion of able lawyers, "that our parliaments were first held in the 49th of Henry III." by evidences that the ninth of the same reign was the true æra. The Britons are here said to have convened parliaments; and the Saxon "witenagemote," or representation of the people by the wise men, in preference to the "mickle gemote," or general assembly, affords sufficient proof of the fundamental right of universal suffrage.

Every unconstitutional restriction or infringement seems to owe its origin to the feodal system introduced by our Norman ancestors. The counties and certain cities sent four members each, prior to Edward I.; (a privilege reserved to London only;) the 23d year of whose reign exhibited the first partial representation of the people.

A view of the several parliaments convened, in which the right of being represented during successive reigns had been granted or denied to different boroughs, presents us with much Interesting information.

The mode of choosing county members by freeholders, instead of householders, was introduced by act of parliament in the 8th of Henry VI.; and the practice of electing members for cities and boroughs by exclusive bodies, or corporations, is an innovation of a more modern date. Edward IV. first created boroughs by charter. Henry VIII., departing from the precedents of his ancestors, empowered the principality of

Wales

Wales to send twelve knights for the twelve counties; and forty of the boroughs were then privileged to elect twelve burgesses by act of parliament; the very mode by which the advocates for parliamentary reform have recommended a renovation or at least an amelioration of the present corrupt system, and which the enemies of that measure affect to deprecate as an innovation.' As a corollary to his history of parliament under different reigns, he observes:

Thus the state of the representation of the people has been suffering innovations and alterations from the forty-ninth year of Henry the Third, till the death of Charles the Second, including a period of four centuries and now, since some boroughs are totally annihilated in every thing but the name, and the major part of them reduced to a few houses or cottages, and become the property of individuals, we are told it is never to be altered. Can there be more injustice in taking the right of electing members from a borough that has not a house, or a single inhabitant to exercise that right, than in depriving the most populous towns of any representation at all? or can there be more danger in restoring the whole people to their just rights, than there is in with-holding them? I shall leave it to the ingenuity of the enemies of reform to resolve these questions.

If the exclusive right of a few boroughs to choose the representatives for the whole people of Great Britain can be defended upon any principle, that part of them which has been omitted to be sum moned in different reigns, and have not yet been restored, are at least entitled to their share in that exclusive right. If the argument of "once a borough, always a borough," is to be persevered in, there are no less than seventy of that description which have been discontinued at different periods since the commencement of the exclusive system, and have not so far got into favour in any of the restoring reigns as to get back their share of this right. Manchester and Leeds would then have an equal right with Midhurst and Old Sarum, which have neither houses nor inhabitants; and the opponents of equal representation would have the satisfaction of knowing that their own system, as far as it goes, had the merit of being compleat.'

It is asserted that the House of Commons, even since the passing of the Grenville Act, which established committees for the decision of contested elections on petition, have varied so frequently in their judgments concerning the same point, as to leave the real power and extent of franchises in their original obscurity.

The account of Cricklade introduces the following pertinent reflections:

This borough was convicted of the most gross and general corruption before a committee of the house of commons in 1782, on the petition of Samuel Petrie, Esq. against the return of Paul Benfield, Esq, and Sir John Macpherson; on which occasion an act of parliament was passed to disqualify those electors

who

who had accepted bribes, and to extend the right of voting for the future to the free-holders of the several hundreds of Highworth, Staple, Cricklade, Kingsbridge, and Malmesbury. This act has operated as an effectual check to corruption in this borough, as it has also done at Shoreham in Sussex, where a similar act has had the same effect, and is an incontrovertible proof that a parliamentary reform, upon the most liberal and extensive basis, would effectually eradicate that systematic corruption which has for so many years obtained the overwhelming influence of the boroughs, and now threatens the destruction of the whole political fabric. This is the infected spring that contaminates all the branches, and lufuses its deadly poison into the heart of the constitution. The time, however, seems to be rapidly approaching that will unite all opinions upon the immediate necessity of restoring the representative system to its original purity.'

Of the shameless bribery and peculation so successfully practised, we have two notorious instances:

Shaftesbury.It is no part of the plan of this work to enter into the system of bribery practised in any of the boroughs, as it would be injustice to mark out any particular place when that practice is become so general: and those who are in possession of the mode of bribing voters in one or two cases may apply it to all the rest, and he will not be very incorrect in his knowledge of the whole.

In 1774, Sir Thomas Rumbold, and Sir Francis Sykes, two nabobs, were returned to represent this borough. A petition was presented by Hans Wintrop Mortimer, Esq. complaining that the two sitting members, by themselves and their agents, had been guilty of many gross and notorious acts of bribery and corruption.

It appeared in evidence, on the trial of this petition, that money to the amount of several thousand pounds had been given among the voters, in sums of twenty guineas a man, and that the persons who were intrusted with the disbursement of this money, and who were chiefly the magistrates of the town, devised very singular and absurd contrivances to conceal through what channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person, concealed under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name of Punch, was placed in a small apartment, and through a hole in the door delivered out to the voters parcels containing twenty guineas each; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the same house, where they found another person, called Punch's Secretary, who required them to sign notes for the value received: these notes were made payable to an imaginary character, to whom was given the name of Glenbucket. Two of the witnesses swore that they had seen Punch through the hole in the door, and that they knew him to be Mr. Matthews, an alderman of the town.'

• Shoreham.-It appeared from the defence made by the officer, that a majority of freemen of this borough had formed themselves into a society under the name of the Christian Club, and that under the sanction of piety and religion they made a traffic of their oaths and consciences, and set the representation of the borough to sale to the highest bidder.

< The

.

The members of the society were bound to secrecy by oaths, writings, bonds with large penalties, and all the ties that could! strengthen the compact; and they carried on their traffic by means of a select committee, who, under pretence of scruples of conscience, never appeared or voted at any election themselves; but having sold the borough, and received the stipulated price, they gave directions to the rest how to vote; and by this complicated evasion, the employers and their agents, having fully satisfied their consciences, shared the money as soon as the election was over without any scruple.

This case being proved before the committee, they reported the whole matter to the house: a bill was thereupon brought in to inca.. pacitate eighty-one freemen of Shoreham by name, from voting at elections of members to serve in parliament, and for preventing bribery and corruption in that borough by extending the right of election to all the freeholders of the Rape of Bramber, one of the six" divisions of the county of Sussex. This bill was passed into a law, and received the royal assent the last day of that session.

Here is another instance of parliamentary reform, added to that of Cricklade, and had the right of voting been extended to the resident inhabitant house-holders, instead of the freeholders, it would have had the effect of resisting influence, as well as corruption: but where the right of suffrage is annexed to property instead of persons, we invariably see influence prevail.'

From the whole we learn that, out of 558 members, 243. are returned by the influence of, or nominated by, Peers; 159 by Commoners; and 22 by the Treasury; so that there are only one hundred and thirty-four members of the whole House freely and fairly elected ! ! !

To remedy this evil, Mr. O. approves the simple but efficacious plan of Mr. Granville Sharp as promising superior success:

The number of houses in Great Britain are, according to the house-tax, twelve hundred thousand. Let these be divided into primary assemblies, of ten each, to be denominated by their ancient term of tythings; each of them,electing annually their conservator of the peace, or tything-man. Let ten of these tythings form the hundred court, agreeable to ancient usage, and elect annually their constable of the hundred. Ten of these hundreds, again, should form the court of the thousand, and elect annually their Elderman or magistrate; and two thousand should form the elective district to choose a representative for the parliament. This mode would esta, blish a system of representation perfectly fair and equal, and would be effected without the least departure from the plan agreed upon by the society of the Friends of the People. It is only an organization of that plan upon the antient practical principles of the constitution, and might be effected in the following regular progression

1,200,000 house-keepers.

120,000 tything-men.
12,000 constables.
1,200 magistrates.
600 representatives.

• Should

Should the plan for universal suffrage be adopted, the same system will be equally practicable, though on a more extensive basis.

The objections made by the opponents of reform, and those who are interested in the abuses existing under the present form of repre. sentation, on the ground of impracticability, are fully refuted by the actual existence of this excellent system, till it was overturned by Norman violence. It is only our object to recur to the original principles of the constitution, to purify it from its abuses and corruptions, and to restore it to its native beauty and splendor.'

The style of this performance is not unexceptionable in respect to correctness; and the author's impartiality in some instances may be questioned: but its design and its principles are good. Considering the present depravity in the system of borough management, we cannot but allow,

"Pudet hac opprobria nobis

Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.”

ART. VII. Archeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity, &c. Vol. XII. &c.

T

[Article concluded from the last Month, p. 304.]

HE 23d number of this volume is of great length, occupying eighty pages, and consisting of extracts from a MS. intitled, "The Life of Mr.Phineas Pette, one of the Master Shipwrights to King James the first, drawn up by himself:" it is communicated by the Rev. S. Denne. In the eleventh volume of this work, is a "Memoir on British Naval Architecture, by Ralph Willet, Esq. *" This gentleman very naturally introduced Mr. Pette in his memoir, and suggested that there were of this family persons in a regular line of descent, who were ship-builders of eminence in the service of the crown from the reign of Henry the sixth to the end of the reign of William the third. This conclusion he founded on an extract from the description of the ship called the Sovereign, (not Royal-Sovereign, as it has been sometimes styled, but Sovereign of the Seast,) given by Heywood the historian; who, having said that the prime workman and overseer is Mr. Phineas Peite, adds that his ancestors have continued, in the same name, ollicers and architects in the royal navy for the space of two hundred years and upwards. Mr. Denne controverts this opinion, and produces some authorities which seem to weaken it: the name of Pette has, however, been long distinguished in these valuable exertions of human

*Article XVIII. See also M. Rev. for Oct. 1796. vol. xxi. N. S. p. 152.

+Mr. Denne justly suspects another ship to be mis-named by Mr. Willett, viz. More Honour, more properly Mer Hontur-the Sea's Glory or Honour.

ability.

« EelmineJätka »