The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-16 00:00:00

TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Lama 11.
MY LorD,
Having acquired cheap bread and cheap law, the
people of England now seek cheap elections. Some!
old whig, I dare say, will OSK himself, " Arc cheap!
elections advantageous ?" I reply to that by an-
other question " Are electoral corruptions advanta-
I geous ?" Because, my lord, be it always borne
lin mind that expensive elections are corrupt elec-
tions; and as expensive elections can be borne
only by the few, it follows that corrupt elections
are always elections in which the choice of the
electors is narrowed and restricted. What I deduce
from this is, that although expensive elections may
answer the purposes of party; though they may serve
occasionally the objects of wealthy individuals; they
are in all their effects the most disadvantageous to the
liberties and independence of the people. It so, it it
not to be wondered at either that an old whig should
rejoice in them, or that the people should demand
that you prevent them?
My lord, in 1831, you told the people that you
were about to introduce a bill which would put a
check on the expenses of elections. That promise
was a great inducement to the people to accept the
measure you proposed for the Reform of Parliament.
Because, my lord, at that time the expense of elec-
tions in a certain class of boroughs was something
quite enormous. There were towns in those days
in which the right of voting was possessed by
a number of non-resident freemen, scattered over all
parts of the country; and it was the practice to
bring those freemen from every quarter of the empire
to vote in the town of which they were free, entirely
at the expense of the unfortunate candidate who re-
quired their support! The corruption which was
occasioned by this system, the tricks that were
played off at the candidate's expense, the enormous
cost which was entailed upon him in bring-
ing down these voters, maintaining them
during their stay, and sending them all back
again ; the injustice done to the resident
elector, whose voice was swamped by some one who
perhaps had not been near the place for thirty
years preceding these abuses, coupled with the
consideration that the system placed a serious re-
striction upon the choice of the electorates, induced
your lordship to endeavour to reform the practice
altogether, even at the great and scarcely con-
stitutional sacrifice of every non-resident freeman's
franchise.

Wel', my lord, what I now propose to make the
subject of inquiry is, how far the operation of the
Reform Act has limited and restricted the expenses
of elections? So universally concurrent is the opinion
that so fur from limiting. the Itelbrm Act has abso-
lutely increased the expenses of elections, that a num-
ber of persons will think this inquiry unnecessary. I
rather hope, however, before I conclude, to be able to
throw some light upon the causes and consequences
of these expenses, and if I do that, I shall be better
able hereafter to show by what process they may
best be avoided and prevented.
My lord, the first fruits of the Reform Act
were decidedly satisfactory, so far as regarded
the expenses of elections. The general election of
1832 was, beyond all doubt, the cheapest election
known in Enghind since 1688. There were no
fewer than 172 contests; but if you examine the
polls, you will find that, except in the counties and
a certain class of old boroughs, they were for the
most part hollow elections, the constituencies having
made their choice either from among their own
leading men, or under the influence of the strong
political feelings of the time, and hat big stood by the
candidates of their selection with a great amount of
firmness and integrity. Let me recall to mind what
were the character of the returns in the larger
boroughs in 1832. Birmingham returned without
woeition Mr. Thomas Attwood and Mr. Joshua
lieholefield, two of the most influential ma-
nufacturers of the borough, and leaders of
the reform movement there during the crisis
pending the passing of the bill. Manches-
ter returned Mr. Mark Phillips, by a majo-
rity, and with him Mr. Poulctt 'Thompson,
afterwards so distinguished as Lord Sydenham.
Glasgow selected two of its own merchants, out of a
list of six who presented themselves, and the two
elected were returned by very great majorities.
Brighton sent two of its residents. Edinburgh, which
had previously been a close borough, sent to parlia-
ment Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Abercrombie, two of the
most distinguished men ever united in one repre-
sentation, and they came in with only so much oppo-
sition as provedthefutilityofopposing them. Finsbury
returned Mr. Grant by a majority of 2,000, and sent
Serjeant Spankie with him. Lambeth sent Mr.
'Tennyson and Mr. Hawes, the first a useful, an the
second a consistent politician in those days, though,
now, alas, neither can answer to the character.
Ilarylebone sent Mr. Portman, an ardent reformer
and its greatest proprietor, and returned with him
your then Attorney-General, Sir Wm. Horne, who
soon ceased to be remembered. At Oldham Mr.
Feilden and Mr. Cobbctt were returned, two men
whose opinions were coincident, and shared
by the constituency, who selected them unani-
mously. Stoke-upon-Trent sent its two leading
manufacturers, Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Davenport.
Walsall sent its leading banker, Mr. Forster ; Wake-
field its most esteemed citizen, Mr. Gasket' ; Wol-
verhampton, a neighbouring landowner, and that ex-
cellent man and sound political economist, Mr. Fryer,
who though almost forgotten now, may be truly called
the father of corn law repeal. All these were returned
without opposition, and whatever prejudice may
have surmised or circulated at the time, looking back
upon the records of the past with perfect freedom
from party spirit, the conclusion must be arrived
at that better, or purer, and in most cases sounder,
selections rarely have been made.
What were the exceptional cases in 1832 ? In the
counties there were several severe struggles for
ascendancy between the landed aristocracy of the two
great parties. Mr. Western and Sir John Tyrell
fought hand in hand for their respective partite in
North Essex; the Grosvenor family were assailed by
the tories in South Cheshire; your lordship was a
party to a struggle not unattended with difficulty in
South Devon; the great county families disputed
hotly both divisions of Gloucestershire, and there
was even a "county gentleman" opposed to the
united forces of the Lambtons and the Williamson,
in Durham. But the only election of this period
that was spoken of as attended with remarkable
expense was the contest in Berkshire, in which Mr.
Walter, avowedly as one of the promoters of reform,
succeeded in establishing himself as member for the
county, against all the county interest arrayed
for Mr. Pusey. That, no doubt, was an expensive con-
test; but as for the rest of the contests at that gene-
ral election, whether they were for counties or for
those old boroughs in which the out-freemen being
disfranchised the electorates were of consequence
contracted and parties more equally divided—as for
these, there were only about half-a-dozen in which
corruption was alleged, and it is most observable
that there were only two of them that were suc-
cessfully impugned before the House of Commons.
I say, my lord, that this is a very remarkable cir-
cumstance. But allow me to proceed. In 183.1
there was a Scree struggle for ascendancy between
the two great parties in the state. It was necessary
that the conservative party in their endeavour to
hold power, should contest every seat there was the
remotest probability of obtaining. At this election
boroughs were invaded which, for an entire
century preceding, bad returned some member
of one family without a semblance of opposi-
tion. Well, my lord, tho election of 1832
had produced two successful petitions against
candidates guilty of corruption : how many did the
election of 1833 produce? There was the case of
Ipswich, a case rendered very scandalous by the
conduct of certain parties engaged in it ; and there
was the case of Canterbury, in which one of the
Ling members was unseated for corruption. The ear
turn for Windsor was impugned, but it was on odor
grounds. This is the entire list of ewes de-
cided upon unfavourably by the Hesse ef Oar
mons, and arising: out of the general election of 1835.
Now, my lord, I am far Prom saying that that else.
lion was a pure one ; compared with 1832 it was
exceedingly corrupt. But what Ido say is this, that
there was at that time far less corruption than has
since become the regular attendant at elections, and
that the parliament of England—as was shown In
the cases of Stafford and of Ipawich--entertained a