 | A sketch of old England |  |
LETTER XX.
You may form some notion of the resemblance, in point
of substantial reality, between the House of Commons here,
and our House of Representatives, which, in running the parallel
between the two systems of government, have been compared
to each other, by the fact, that fifteen thousand voters
return a majority in the former body. There is one nobleman
who sends twelve members, and there are at Birmingham and
Manchester, containing between them upwards of two hundred
thousand inhabitants, that send none. Counties, containing
from one to three or four hundred thousand inhabitants, have
no more weight in the House of Commons, than a borough in
which there are some half-a-dozen voters, who return two
members. Nay, the members from the rotten boroughs are
actually of more consequence in the house, from being notoriously
articles of sale, and at the command of the highest
bidder; whereas, those from the counties, being sometimes
men of independence and principle, are listened to quietly and
indifferently, and suffered to take their own way, from a conviction
that there is no use in tampering with them.
The representatives of the boroughs, on the contrary, are
either, for the most part, the proprietors of the boroughs
themselves, their sons, brothers, &c. or they are mere creatures
of the proprietor; or they are persons who can afford to
bribe high, because they mean to be bribed high in turn; or
lastly, they are persons of political talents, who can get into
parliament only through the patronage of some borough-holder,
who is either a partisan of the minister, and wishes to furnish
him an able supporter, or who expects to make himself of
consequence by setting his great mastiff to bark at him. The
opportunity thus afforded, of getting men of talents into the
House, who would otherwise perhaps not attain a seat, has
been made one great ground of defence to the boroughsystem.
There is nothing approaching to, or resembling an equality
approaches to an apportionment of the number of representatives
to the number of freeholders; there is nothing, in short,
in the system, adapted to those changes which time and circumstances
produce in every nation, and according to which
its government ought to be modified. Boroughs without trade
or importance, and almost without inhabitants, return members
to parliament, because they possessed all these some centuries
ago; while vast cities, which have grown up into
wealth, importance, and numbers, are denied the privilege of
representation, because some centuries ago they were not in
existence. No government, and, least of all, any system of
representation can be applicable to the situation of a people,
where changes of this kind are totally disregarded.
There have been vast and learned dissertations, of late, as
to the question of who voted, and who did not vote, for members
of parliament in the reign of Henry the Third. The advocates
of a general distribution of the right of suffrage lay
great stress upon certain equivocal authorities, on which they
found the doctrine of universal suffrage, as respected the freeman
of England. But then, who were the freemen of England
at that time? As nothing is settled here according to the enlarged
principles of human rights, or in accordance with those
changes which time inevitably produces in men and things,
resort is always had to ancient precedents, many of them
entirely inapplicable to the present state of England, and to
laws and customs questionable in their existence, or, if not
questionable, no longer founded in reason or expediency. A
jury of antiquaries now decide on the rights of Englishmen.
Hence, it is considered of infinite importance to ascertain the
fact, whether the first parliament of England was originally
the delegated representative of all the freeholders of England.
That this was actually the case appears, both from the very
origin of that assembly, as well as from various other authorities.
The peers represent themselves; but as it would be manifestly
impossible for the people to sit collectively and legislate
for themselves, they delegated their powers to their representatives.
Hence, the common language of the early writers
on the constitution is the unqualified assertion, that every
Englishman is present, either by himself or his representative,
in the English parliament. If this does not mean, that every
English freeholder has a voice in the election of his representative,
it means nothing but mockery and nonsense.
The Wittenagemot, the Saxon parliament, and the original
of the English one, was unquestionably an assembly modelled
on those free principles common at that time, and from the
were all governed by their own consent alone—De minoribus
rebus principes consultant, de majoribus omnes. Xephiline
also, speaking of the Britons, tells us, apud hos, populus
magno exparte principatum tenet. It is true, the feudal system,
which succeeded, subverted the ancient freedom of
British and Saxon institutions, yet this does not impeach the
validity of the people's claim to a fair representation in parlialiament,
especially in a country where antiquity supersedes
every thing; since the freedom, spoken of by Tacitus and
Xephiline, was far more ancient than the feudal system, which
was established by force and fraud upon its ruins.
What is called radicalism here, consists principally in advocating,
not exactly universal suffrage, but in giving the right
of voting for members of parliament to all “resident householders,”
paying taxes, as they generally do, to an amount which
one would think fairly entitles them to a vote for those who
enact them. This, you will perceive, is little more than putting
the right of voting for members of parliament on the same footing
with the right of voting for a member of congress, in most
of the states, at least in very many of them. The great objection
to this, even with those who think parliamentary reform
indispensably necessary to the security of the government, is,
that it will make the House of Commons a democratic body.
It appears to me, that if that house is not the representative of
the commons, or the people, or the democracy of England, it
is worse than nothing; for it was originally, beyond doubt,
essentially the democratic branch of the government. Be this
as it may, the cry of radical, or democrat, will set even the
most liberal of these patriots legislating against the people with
all his might.
I happened to be present, not long since, when Lord John
Russell made his motion for extending the right of representation
in parliament, to certain of the great towns, and taking it
away, or buying it, of some of the most contemptible of the
boroughs. He stated various instances of corruption in the
elections for boroughs, alluding to them by name, and explicitly
maintained, that, in the present state of things, where,
in a vast many cases, some twenty, ten, or perhaps fewer
electors, “little better than paupers,” were to return one or
two members, it was next to impossible to prevent these beggarly
voters from selling, and some rich purchaser from buying,
a seat. All the acts of parliament, he said, for preventing
this system of corruption, were evaded by dexterous dealers in
boroughs; and the practice of selling votes was now as comnon
as that of selling wool, or cheese, or any marketable commodity.
proprietors, who either represented them in person, or bargained
for them with the minister, that about three hundred
members were returned to the house.
Lord John called upon the Marquis of Londonderry to deny
these facts, and challenged denial from any member. His
lordship did not deny them, for it is not many years since a
case of this kind was brought home to himself. Nobody
denied them; and, in fact, it seemed as if it were a matter of
too little consequenee to call for denial. He might just as well
have complained of a notorious strumpet for selling her favours,
to the young members who were lounging about, yawning
most piteously at such stuff, or nodding in their seats, half
asleep, till roused by the noble marquis, whose profound, or
rather perplexed, eloquence, every now and then waked them
up, and caused them to cry “hear! hear!” with vast vociferation.
You will perceive, from the foregoing details, that there is
nothing more than a mere outside resemblance, between the
House of Commons here, and the House of Representatives at
home. The latter really represents the people of the United
States; the former represents the mere paper money and patronage
of the government. A large proportion of the members
of parliament only represent a few paupers, whose votes
they have purchased, and the numbers of these representatives
actually counterbalance, and outvote, the representatives of
the merchants, manufacturers, and agriculturists combined.
The price of a borough, which returns two members, is enhanced
sometimes four, six, ten, twenty fold, by that privilege
—can we wonder, then, if the purchaser is anxious to make
the most of such an expensive bauble? So, when a man buys
the votes of a borough at a high price, is it not to be expected
he will sell his own to the highest bidder? The whole system
is fraught with corruption. It leads men into temptation precisely
where there is the greatest danger of falling, and where
a fall is accompanied with the most extensive evils.
| A sketch of old England | |