« PreviousContinue »
contained in schedule B, which, as our readers well know, was the principal scene of all the shifts and changes which were made in the progress of the Bills. Of the 30 boroughs included in schedule B, we might have expected to have 20 contested and 10 not contested; but what was the fact? only 13 were contested and 17 uncontested; affording a pretty strong presumption that schedule B is, in spite of all the promises and assertions of ministers, still strongly tainted with Nomination; and when we see that Arundel, Ashburton, Calne, Droitwich, Midhurst, Morpeth, Thirsk, Westbury, and Woodstock, have returned, without contest, the same persons-all reformers--that they did in the days of avowed Nomination; and that Hythe, St. Ives, and Wareham have returned, though with contests, the old Whig members; while, on the other hand, the old Tory influence has succeeded but in five or at most six places it will be admitted that the line drawn by the Whigs, and which has given them more than a double share of what once were, and still appear to be, Nomination boroughs, was either a miraculous chance or an infamous fraud. So much for Schedule B.
But let us see by what a fortunate arrangement certain boroughs were permitted to retain both their members, and survive, unmutilated, that disastrous field. The first of these that attracted attention in the House of Commons was Malton, which, by a lucky chance, just turned the corner of all the plans. We all know that Malton was the close borough of Earl Fitzwilliam, and we all remember the zealous, but no doubt honest and disinterested, support that the present Lord Fitzwilliam gave to the Reform Bill, and the pious horror of nomination which seemed to pervade all his speeches. The Fitzwilliam family had three close boroughs-Higham Ferrars—for the annihilation of which (indeed it only returned one member)—Lord Fitzwilliam voted with Spartan generosity, while with equal generosity he supported the plan that left Malton and Peterborough two members each; but in which we were told that, with a new and reformed constituency, he could have no possible interest. Now, mark. Malton and Peterborough have each returned, without a contestnot Lord Fitzwilliam's nominees—no, to be sure ! nominees are no more-but three of the self-same gentlemen who were his father's avowed nominees in the unreformed House; and the fourth, and only new member, happens to be his Lordship’s son! Patriotism, like any other virtue, is sure to be eventually rewarded; and the lucky accident of having his four friends—the ex-nominees and his son-returned to the reformed parliament, must console his Lordship for the loss of the solitary seat at Higham Ferrars. But the Bill had also other consolation in store for him. Lord Dundas possessed the nomination of two members for the close borough of
Richmond.' Now, Lord Dundas married the late Lord Fitz, william's sister, and Lord Dundas's daughter married her cousin, the present Lord Fitzwilliam—but this, to the credit of his Lordship and his friends the ministers, did not prevent Richmond being placed in Schedule B of the first Bill, but by another lucky chance, the new and impartial standard applied to the latter Bills relieved Richmond from this temporary jeopardy, and restored it to its full and undiminished franchise-and what has followed ? Why, Richmond has returned to the reformed House the identical two gentlemen who happened to be Lord Dundas's nominees in the former parliaments. Wonderful as the good luck of these and many other Whig boroughs was, truth obliges us to say that two or three Tory boroughs were still more fortunate, for, happening to be in the same neighbourhood, and absolutely in the same circumstances, it was found impossible—without a degree of risk which no true reformer could have wished the ministers to run, or indeed without great danger to the Whig boroughs themselves --to immolate the one while they were sparing the others. Northallerton, with its one member, may therefore bless its proximity to Malton, Richmond, and Thirsk; and Chippenham must be grateful for the protection of Westbury, Midhurst, and Calne. It is better that ten guilty should escape than one innocent perish. But the compassion of ministers was put to no such extremity of trial—for they had only to say, better that one Tory should escape than that three Whigs should perish.
But there was another case which created, during the progress of the Bills, particular interest, both from its own importance, and from several accessary facts. Tavistock was in the nomination of the Russell family-a small place and a close borough. When the scythe passed over that neighbourhood, and bowed down higher leads to the earth, some wondered that Tavistock should have still stood erect. Mr. Baring, generally a shrewd and sensible man, was absurd enough to exclaim, during the first debate, • that he wondered that when the noble mover of the Bill, Lord John Russell, had travelled down to Callington, he had not stopped at Tavistock.'—He wondered !! Why, did he not know that the noble mover, and his brother themselves, were members for Tavistock, and that the borough was their father's ? Wonder, indeed! But Mr. Baring's very simple wonder gave great offence -it conveyed a most unfounded and injurious insinuation against the noble, and not more noble than patriotic house of Russell. Balaam's ass once spoke on less provocation, and the dumb son of Cræsus found utterance to defend his father. Lord Tavistock found the following words (which we copy from the parliamentary debate) to repel Mr. Baring's insinuation :
The Marquis of Tavistock said, that after what had fallen from Mr. Baring, he could not avoid taking the first opportunity that presented itself of saying a few words. Mr. Baring seemed to cast a reflection on his Majesty's ministers for not having included Tavistock as well as Callington amongst those boroughs which were to be disfranchised. Now, in reply, he would say, that if the Honourable Member would bring forward a motion to have Tavistock included, it should have his cordial support.”
This conditional promise did not risk much; for how could Mr. Baring, the enemy of all disfranchisements, propose to disfranchise Tavistock? But if such a motion would have had the Noble Lord's cordial support, why did he not make it himself, or persuade his brother, Lord John, to do it spontaneously? But what followed is still more amusing :
But,' continued his Lordship, if Mr. Baring abstain from making such a motion, greatly did he (Lord Tavistock) mistake the character of (his father) the Duke of Bedford, if that nobleman could ever influence his tenants in that place as to the manner in which they should give their votes. Mr. Baring had said that “ If he (Lord Tavistock) would give him half-a-crown he would ensure the return of the two members for Tavistock.” Now, if the Honourable Member would give him half-a-crown, he would return twenty half-crowns IF EVER the Duke of Bedford made the attempt.'-Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, March 3, 1831. And his Lordship then added,
that he might also state that the town of Bedford would be also left to itself, as far as respected any influence of the Duke of Bedford.'
Tolerably clear, and very explicit! Tavistock (perhaps by the effect of this very solemn assurance) preserves its two members— and who are the two members returned ?-Lord Russell, the nephew of Lord John Russell, the grandson of the Duke of Bedford, the son of Lord Tavistock himself;—and Colonel Fox, the son of Lord Holland, who had, and could have, no other recommendation to that constituency than the influence of the Duke of Bedford! And as if to render this case still more astonishing, Colonel Jones has lately published a letter, in which he repudiates the friendship of Mr. Hume, and alleges as one of the chief grievances against that gentleman, that he had instigated Sir Charles Knowles to oppose the Duke of Bedford's friends at Tavistock : and Lord Tavistock himself has gone to the House of Peers; and his brother, Lord Charles James Fox Russell, has taken his place in the county of Bedford ; and in the town of Bedford, in which Lord Tavistock volunteered a promise that the Duke of Bedford would also refrain from exerting any influence, two gentlemen have been returned—the one the very saine nephew of Lord Grey who sat under the old system, and the other also a friend, as it is stated,
of the self-denying Duke. It seems impossible, after all this, to add a touch to such a picture—yet we think what follows will be the crowning wonder.
It will be recollected that places were avowedly selected for utter disfranchisement, or for half or whole representation, by the proportion of electors which they were likely to furnish. Three hundred was the minimum, which a place must have to retain one member, and the travelling commissioners were directed to carve and parcel out the several boroughs accordingly; and Mr. O'Connell, who generously undertook the defence of Tavistock, said, that the Bill threw open that borough, and created 1000 electors, when there at present were but 24.-(Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, March 8, 1831.) Mr. O'Connell here made a slight mistake : Tavistock was a close borough, but not so close as he represented it; he probably thought it was a corporation when he assigned to it 24 electors, but it was in fact one in which freeholders voted, and we find in the Parliamentary Registers that the old constituency had sometimes amounted to 115. But, thanks to Mr. Hume and his envoyé Sir C. Knowles, we have positive proof of the number of electors in the emancipated borough :-a thousand as Mr. O'Connell promised ? Oh, no! What, only five hundred ? Guess again! No doubt they at least amounted to three hundred and eighty, the number calculated by the commissioners ? Not quite ! Well, to be sure, they at least exceed Lord John's own minimum of three hundred? No such thing! there polled at the reformed election for Tavistock For Lord Russell
159 For Colonel Fox
119 For Sir C. F. Knowles
64 So that, supposing every elector who voted for Sir Charles Knowles to have given him a plumper, the total number of electors cannot exceed the amount who voted for him and Colonel Fox, namely one hundred and eighty-three !* So the Reform Bill appears to have increased the constituency of Tavistock neither by 1000, nor even by 300, but by 68 ; and Tavistock retains its two members, and these members are the nominees of the Duke of Bedford
* In those places where there were two candidates, it is impossible (on account of plumpers and split votes) to determine, from the number of votes, the exact number of electors; but we have, all through this paper, added the votes of the lowest successful and of the highest unsuccessful candidate, and calculated that the result approximates to the real number of electors. In the few instances in which we happened to know the exact numbers, we find that this mode of calculation gives a number greater than the real one; so that if there be any error, it probably is against our argument, and in favour of the bill. Where there was but one Member to be elected, the sum of the votes given must be the total number of electors.
The dext'rous art is shown Amidst a kingdom's wreck to save one's own !! Can impudence go farther? Yes, a great deal! There is scarcely one of the mutilated towns in Schedule B which has not produced a greater constituency than Tavistock. There is hardly an annihilated borough in Schedule A which might not have produced as many. Buckingham, which was in Schedule A of the first bill, polled (calculating the numbers on the same principle as Tavistock) 295. Warham, also totally disfranchised by the first bill, 315; and a long list of places, restricted to one member, have polled double the number that Tavistock has produced! The result of all is, that this self-denying, self-immolating House of Russell, which had, in the parliament of 1830, one vote in the House of Lords, and four in the Commons, viz.--two for Tavistock, one for Bedfordshire, and one for Bedford Town-appears now to have obtained two in the Lords, and five in the Commons-viz., one for Devonshire, two for Tavistock, one for Bedfordshire, and two for Bedford.
This case of Tavistock leads us to make a few observations on the effect of the bill in other less favoured places; and, as a proof of the fairness and equity with which it has operated, we subjoin a list of the number of electors polled at ten places which send but one member, contrasted with the numbers which in ten others return two :Sending One Member.
Sending Two Members. Clitheroe 279 Bodmin
219 Grimsby 456 Chippenham
. 172 Hythe 415 Cockermouth
227 Monmouth 746 Devizes
• 260 Northallerton 365 Harwich
• 183 Rye .
207 St. Ives
. 183 Shaftesbury 428 Marlborough
. 163 Wareham 315 Tavistock
193 Wallingford 367 Totness .
Electors of ten members. 4270 Electors of twenty members 1978 !!
We do not wish to embarrass our present discussion with too many details; but in trying the Reform Bill by the evidence of facts, the two last names Wallingford and Totness-offer a very curious consideration, The third bill, as presented and printed, placed Totness in Schedule B, and Wallingford was left with its two members ; but when Lieutenant Drummond's celebrated calculations came to be applied, it appeared that, by them, Wallingford was to be reduced to Schedule B, and Totness promoted beyond the break. On the discussion of Schedule B in the com