This House [the Commons] is not representative of the people of England.
- William Pitt |
Parliamentary boroughs which had declined in importance continued to send members to parliament, in some cases for centuries.
Old Sarum in Wiltshire serves as a good example. Occupied during the Roman occuaption and possibly earlier, it was an important medieval town with a castle and cathedral, the spiritual heart of ancient Wessex. In the 12th century the clerics removed to New Sarum (modern Salisbury) and the military left in the 14th throwing the hilltop site into deleriction save for a few houses and causing Lord John Russell to describe it as "a green mound and a wall with two niches in it". Despite this, the "Borough" continued to return two members of parliament. So valuable was the right to nominate two members considered to be that ownership of this small estate was said to have changed hands for the staggering sum of £60,000.
No less than thirty-five other constituencies with hardly any voters returned seventy members to the House of Commons.
The landowners who controlled the "pocket" or "rotten" boroughs sent most of the members of the House of Commons; in 1793, the Duke of Norfolk alone returned eleven members and 154 such patrons returned 307 members.
The towns, whose populations had been swelled (often manyfold) by the industrial revolution and increases in trade often had no representation at all; London and the county of Middlesex returned eight members; large and important industrial towns such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester sent no MPs.
The franchise itself was very imited and based on no uniform system. The county franchise was limited to 40s. freeholders.
The roll of county electors for Scotland of October 1811 shows that eight counties each had less than thrty voters while only nine had more than a hundred.
The borough franchises were very much restricted and varied from borough to borough;
in scotland it was usual for voters to be restricted to holders of corporate office
freemen of the borough
payers of scot or lot (imperial & national taxes)
holders of certain houses (e.g.: at Richmond)
at Taunton, it was restricted to "potwallers" - resident men who had obtained a parochial settlement (whether owners or lodgers)
Bribery and corruption were rife. Most boroughs were sold either by their "patrons" or by the small number of voters whose voting rights were valuable.
The Indian "Nabobs" who sought to improve their social position by securing a seat in parliament inflated the sums paid.
The cost of elections was huge. The election for the county of York cost £200,000 in 1807 while one election in Northampton cost east of the three candidates £30,000. Members who had paid out large sums to ensure their election to parliament sought to recoup the money by selling their votes.
The ability to "buy" MPs allowed King Geroge III (who controlled the Crown patronage) to form the party of "King's Friends".
REFORM
In 1766, Chatham proposed to weaken the influence of the owners of the "rotten boroughs" by increasing the number of county members and, in 1785, Pitt proposed to disenfranchise the corrupt boroughs and increase the number of members of parliament for London and the counties. A number of factors conspired to prevent electoral reform during the first two decades of the 19th century; distate for the French Revolution; preoccupation with the Napoleonic Wars; voilence of extremist reformers and the Cato Street Conspiracy.
The growing determination of the middle classes to be represented in parliament, moderate reformers led by Burdett and the support of the Whigs (especially Lord John Russell) caused a revival of interest in parliamentary reform during the 1820's and saw the formation of Reform Associations, particularly the Union of Birmingham.
Grampound, a notorious rotten borough in Cornwall, was disenfranchised and its votes given to Yorkshire in 1821 while proposals in 1828 to transfer the representation of Penryn to Manchester failed. The "July Revolution" in Paris and accession of Louis Phillipe as a constitutional monarch greatly strengthened the cause of the reformers in England.
In 1830, Wellington denied the need for parliamentary reform and asserted his opposition to any such measures although the personally popular William IV acceeded to the throne in June and favoured reforms. Wellington resigned in November, Lord Grey becomming Prime Minister and Lord Althrop the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons.
The first Reform Bill was introduced into the Commons on March 1st, 1831, by Lord John Russell. It passed the second reading by a majority of only one but thrown out in Committee. Parliament was personally dissolved by William IV. Feelings on the issue rose during the lection campaign, "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill" becomming a slogan and a majority favourable to reform was returned.
