SEATS FOR SALE

Evening Star, Issue 21835, 26 September 1934, Page 11

SEATS FOR SALE

BRITAIN'S PARLIAMENT WHEN ELECTORS ADVERTISED HIGH PRICES PAID Shortly about 3,500.000 electors in Australia will go to the poll and record their votes tor the election of a new Commonwealth Parliament, said a writer in the Melbourne ‘ Age ’ just before the election. In these times, when more than 90 per cent, of that proportion of the population over the age of 21 years vote at elections it is of interest to recall the passing of the Reform Act of 1832, when loss than 2 per cent, of the population possessed the right to vote at parliamentary elections. And so unevenly was the representation of the people distributed, that some small villages with half a dozen electors returned two members to the House of Commons, while thriving towns, such as Manchester, Birmingham, and heeds, had no representation in Parliament. In Yorkshire two small towns in the same parish, Aldborough and Borough bridge, which were only half a mile apart, returned two members each. In Sussex, the towns of Steyning ami Bramber returned two members each, but these small towns not only adjoined, but had only one main street between them, and only local experts could say where Steyning ended and Bramber began. In England and Wales thirty-six of the boroughs returning members of Parliament had each a population of less than twenty-five. Old Sarum, in which there was not a house nor an inhabitant, but only the debris of former houses, returned two members. When an election was held the returning officer had to put up a tent in a field to enable the seven voters of Old Sarum to record their votes for the election of two members. There were other boroughs from which the population had departed, hut which retained the right to return one or two members of Parliament. NO NEW ONES. Several factors had brought about this remarkable stale ol affairs. for over a hundred year,- no new boroughs had been created, and towns which

had grown up in the long interval were without parliamentary representation. Many of the old boroughs had lost their former importance because population had shifted. The population of England had been greater in the south than the north, but the opening of the industrial era in the latter half of the eighteenth century increased the population of northern towns, and laid the foundation of new ones. The restrictions on the borough suffrage placed the election of representatives in Parliament in the hands of a lew voters. The franchise had been granted in the Middle Ages to the possessors of feudal and freehold property, and from generation to generation these political rights were bought and sold with the properties. The electors were jealous of their political rights, because such rights added to the value of their properties; and the view that they had vested interests as voters was so ingrained that, when Pitt in 1782 proposed to sweep away thirty-six rotten boroughs and distribute the vacant seats among the counties and the metropolis, he intended to pay £1,000,000 in compensation to the disfranchised electors. Wealthy landowners acquired the control of seats m the House of Commons through the properties they owned. The Earl of Darlington had eight seats in his possession, the Duke of Norfolk and Earl Fitzwilliam returned six members each to the House of Commons, the Duke of Devonshire, the Duke of Northumberland, the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquis of Buckingham, the Marquis of Hertford, Earl of Fowls, and Lord Carrington each nominated live. Other peers controlled smaller numbers of seats. According to a petition for electoral reform presented to the House of Commons, SOU members of the Chamber were elected under the influence of peers, 171 under the influence of powerful commoners, and sixteen under the control of the Crown. So_that there remained in a House ol 608 memheis only 171 who were returned by the free votes ol electors. VOTES AND SEATS. Briberv and corruption were rampant throughout the country. Electors sold their voles to the highest bidders, and seats in Parliament were sold and bought m the most open manner. Many of the peers who controlled seats in the Commons sold them at each election. The prices ranged from about £2,000 1b £o,ooo_ for a seat. King George 111. exercised for a long period control over the House ol Commons through Ministers supported by the accnpnnts of seats that had been paid for out of the Royal purse, and by other members, whom he bribed in various ways In 1923 the Royal Historical Societv published the ‘ Parliamentary Paper's of John Robinson. 1774-1784,' which contained a long list of seats in the Commons at the disposal ol peers and others, and the prices at which they could be bought. John Robinson was senior secretary of the Treasury Board, and was the confidential agent of George HI. in the purchase of seats in the Commons. Somo seats were ni the disposal ol die borough municipal corporations, and some of those corporations publicly offered the scats for sale. The corporalion of Oxford offered the borough seat in (lie Commons to anyone who would pav C 2.000 for it. The borough of Slid bnrv advertised for a purchaser of its

seat, ami at Aylesbury the highest bidder was promised the seat. At Sboreham the electors formed a joint stock company, and elected a committee to negotiate the sale of their votes. The borough of Gatton was publicly advertised for sale by auction. This was not a case of selling its two seats for the duration of a single Parliament, but the sale of the fee simple of the whole borough, with the power of nominating at every future election two members to Parliament. ON A LARGE SCALE. Professor Pyrme, in discussing political bribery and corruption in his 1 Recollections,’ states:—“Previously to the Reform Bill of 1832, pecuniary influence had operated on the electors of many boroughs to an extent scarcely now to be imagined. At Hull and Bev - erley, and probably at many other places, it was customary after the election to give four guineas for a single vote, and two for a divided one. At Hedon, a small borough and seaport on the Humber, now disfranchised, it was usual to give twenty guineas for a vote; and ten guineas for a divided one. Before an election there was no actual promise made, but the voter could say on being canvassed; “ You will do what is usual after the election, sir, 1 suppose?" and the candidate would reply in the afiirmative. Many of the poor electors did not wait for an election, but borrowed of their member sums ol money, for which they gave a promissory note. When an election came ten or twenty guineas was receipted upon the note, the residue of which still gave the candidate a hold upon the elector for a future occasion.” Thomas Oldfield, in his ‘ Representative History,’ states that the freemen of the borough of Grampouml had been known to boast of receiving 300 guineas a man for their votes at one election. ‘ The Times ’ of June 20, 1826, in discussing the General Election of that year, said: “ During the election at Sudbury four cabbages sold for £lO, and a plate of gooseberries fetched £25. the sellers where those articles were so dear being voters. At Great Marlow, on the contrary, things were cheap, and an elector during the election bought a sow and nine young pigs lor a penny.”