chise should be marked with great irregularities. These, together with the anomalies in the qualifications of borough electors, and their venality or dependence on powerful patrons in many cases, have for centuries been the subjects of frequent complaints.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the succeeding reign (as we have seen), the allowance to members for their expenses having for the most part ceased, many boroughs which, to avoid those expenses, had discontinued sending representatives, again began to send them. Many of these boroughs had become very small places at the time when they resumed their privilege. In a debate, in the third Parliament of Queen Elizabeth, upon the subject of Parliamentary reform, it was contended that decayed boroughs ought to be disfranchised, and instances were cited of attempts at nomination by noblemen and the Queen's Council; and it was proposed that there should be a penalty of £40 on every borough that made election at the nomination of any nobleman. Shortly afterwards, a fine was imposed by the same House of Commons on a borough which had sold a place in Parliament for £4(a).

One of the subjects of the representation of Fairfax and his army to the Long Parliament, A.D. 1647, was that the franchise should be distributed "according to some rule of equality," and that burgesses "should be taken off poor and inconsiderable towns, and additions made to counties "(b).

In the second Parliament under the Commonwealth, A.D. 1654, writs were omitted to be sent to many of the small boroughs. A large proportion of the members for

(a) Parry's 'Parliaments,' 218–222. Complaints of the nomination of members of the House of Commons by the Crown were made at a much earlier date. One of the articles exhibited against Richard II. in Parliament, 1 Hen. IV., alleged that Richard, "that in his Parliaments he might be able more freely to accomplish the effects of his headstrong will, did very often direct his commands to his sheriffs that they should cause to come to his Parliaments, as knights of the shire, certain persons by the said King named." (1 State Trials, 145.)

(b) Parry's Parliaments,' 478.

H

the counties and cities were nominated by Cromwell and his officers (a).

In the second Parliament of Charles II. a bill was brought in, in 1669, to prevent abuses and extravagancies in electing members (b). Again, information is given in the House of Commons, January 18, 1671, of endeavours to forestal a free election by papers, in the nature of warrants; and the House resolved that this is a violation of the rights of election. Again, in 1674, complaint is made in the same Parliament of the expense of elections, and that some are carried "by awe and force, and some by ability and expense," and that a number of decayed boroughs are revived since they are not burdened with the expenses of their members. In the following year it is said in debate, that "exorbitant corruption exists;" the bribing of men by drinking is designated lay-simony, and it is resolved that the giving meat and drink, exceeding £5 in value, to electors, shall void an election (c). Another resolution for avoiding elections on the ground of bribery or treating was passed by the same House of Commons in 1677(d).

The Bill of Rights is very indefinite on the important subject of Parliamentary elections. It is recited that the late King violated the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament, and it is declared, (Art. 8) "That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;" (Art. 13) "That for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently." These are the only provisions of that great statute referring to Parliamentary elections.

In the reign of William III., Parliamentary corruption continued to be common. The House of Commons, elected corruptly, was itself corruptible. Sir John Trevor, Speaker of the House of Commons, made an agreement with the King to buy off votes of members. Burnet says he re(a) Parry, 513. (b) Ibid., 559; Clerk's Law of Elections, 111. (c) Parry's 'Parliaments,' under the respective dates. (d) Parry, 580; Clerk, Law of Elections, 111.

monstrated with the King, who replied that he hated this method, but that it was unavoidable(a). In 1695, in consequence of the abuses of elections, which were grown to intolerable excesses (b), an Act was passed for voiding all the Parliamentary elections where the elected had been at any expense in meat, drink, or money to procure votes. The first Act of Parliament against treating at elections is this statute. For some years previously many elections had been avoided on petition, but principally on the ground of misconduct of the returning officers, and in some cases for bribery; but it is remarkable that in no case was an election questioned on account of treating, or, as it was then called, debauchery at elections, though unquestionably the abuse had extensively prevailed(c).

These references suffice to show the antiquity of abuses of our electoral system. To come nearer to our own times, we may advert to the efforts made by Mr. Pitt in the commencement of his career to procure reform in Parliament. These efforts commenced before he became Prime Minister. In 1785, upwards of a year after his accession to that office, he brought in a bill to amend the representation, proposing an extensive redistribution of the franchise and disfranchisement of small boroughs. A part of his plan was the compensation in money of the proprietors of these boroughs (d). The compensation of the possessors of small boroughs had formed part of a previous scheme of the Duke of Richmond, for a most extensive change of the constitution of the House of Commons (e). Mr. Pitt's Reform Bill was rejected in the House of Commons by a large majority.

(a) Burnet, Hist., A.D. 1690. Our Parliamentary history has been tainted with this disgrace from the reign of Charles II. far into that of George III. (1 May's Constitutional History,' 312.)

(b) Burnet, A.D. 1695.

(c) Clerk, Law of Elections, 113.

(d) Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, vol. ii. ch. 24; Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ch. 7.

(e) See Letter of Duke of Richmond to the Delegates of Volunteers in Ireland, August 15, 1783. (24 State Trials, 1048.)

A few years afterwards, when much public excitement had peen caused in this country, a number of political societies sprang up, having for their object the reform of the House of Commons. The proceedings of the principal of these societies-the Constitutional Society and the London Corresponding Society-led to a remarkable series of prosecutions of some of their members, including Horne Tooke and Hardy for high treason in 1794. These trials, and similar trials about the same time in Ireland and Scotland, disclosed the organization of a very widely extended agitation in all parts of the United Kingdom for Parliamentary reform (a). Among other remarkable statements made on those trials respecting the state of the representation, it was alleged, apparently on sufficient authority, that at that time almost one-half of the House of Commons was returned by the influence of about 200 persons (b).

In the early part of the present century the agitation for Parliamentary reform was renewed, and Sir Francis Burdett became conspicuous among its leaders, and in the House of Commons multitudes of petitions for the amendment of the representation were from time to time presented by him and others (c). From 1820 to the passing of the Reform Acts, the cause of reform was continually advocated in Parliament by Lord John Russell. At length, in 1831, Lord Grey being then Prime Minister, Lord John Russell brought forward the first of the series of bills for the reform of Parliament, the last of which, after many vicissitudes, was enacted in the following year. The first of these Reform Bills was defeated in the House of Commons, and immediately afterwards Parliament was dissolved. In the succeeding House of Commons the second Reform Bill was carried by a large majority, but it was defeated in the House of Lords. Parliament was thereupon prorogued for a short time, and in the next session. the third Reform Bill was brought into the House of Com(b) 24 State Trials, 919.

(a) State Trials, vols. xxii.-xxiv. (c) See 2 Hatsell, 189 n.

mons at the end of the year 1831, and passed shortly afterwards. The opponents of the bill in the House of Lords, induced partly by apprehension of a great increase of peers being made in order to procure a majority favourable to the bill, and partly by the private persuasion of the King. (William IV.), withdrew their opposition, and the Reform Act for England (2 Will. IV. c. 45) was passed in the early part of the year 1832. It was followed shortly afterwards, in the same year, by the enactment of statutes for the amendment of the representation of Scotland and Ireland(a).

The effect of these statutes, and the present constitution of the House of Commons, remain to be considered (b). It will be convenient to treat of this subject under the following divisions:-1. The Places represented. 2. The Qualifications of the Electors. 3. Elections. 4. Bribery, and Corrupt Practices at Elections. 5. Controverted Elections. 6. Qualification of Members. 7. Vacation of Seats. 8. Oaths taken by Members of Parliament. 9. The Speaker of the House of Commons.

1. The Places represented.-The reform increased the English county constituencies from fifty-two to eighty-two, by dividing several counties into separate electoral divisions, and by increasing the number of county members from ninety-four to one hundred and fifty-nine. In Scotland and Ireland the numbers of county constituencies and members remained unaltered.

By the reform, fifty-six English boroughs, containing a population in 1831 of less than 2000 each, were totally disfranchised; they had returned 111 members collectively.

(a) Roebuck's Hist. of the Whig Ministry of 1830.

(b) The law relating to the election and constitution of the House of Commons is regulated by a vast number of statutes and judicial and Parliamentary decisions, and only the more important parts of this extensive subject are here briefly considered. For fuller information respecting it, the reader is referred to 'The Law and Practice of Elections, Election Committees, and Registration,' by Francis Newman Rogers, 7th edition, 1852; and a Manual of the Practice of Elections,' by Henry Jeffreys Bushby, 2nd edition, 1859.