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 that—
“the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster, gave voices in the said election, contrary to an express resolution of the House; that peers and lords unduly interfered and tampered with the voters; that during the election, after the teste and issuing out of the writ, Lord Percy and Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, by themselves or agents, were guilty of bribing, corrupting, and entertaining the voters, (who must have made a fairly good thing of the contest); and that they allowed to the electors, and several persons who had or claimed a right to vote, money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision; and that by those, and other undue means, a majority of votes was procured for Lord Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, so that they were returned, and the petitioners prayed such relief as upon examination should appear just.”