habitually employed
to influence the election of members of parliament. That this fact has
been often established, never denied, and was especially proved at the
bar of this house in the first session of the present parliament, in the
cases of Penryn and East Retford. That it is notorious that a similar
practice is openly resorted to in many of the cities and boroughs of the
United Kingdom. That the recent disfranchisement of Grampound does not
appear to have in any degree diminished the prevalence of this evil.
That this house, therefore, finding that the passing of specific
bills directed against particular cases, has neither had the effect of
removing the existence, or arresting the progress of corruption, is of
opinion that its character may best be vindicated by abandoning these
useless and expensive proceedings, in order to adopt some general
and comprehensive measure, the only means of effectually checking
so scandalous an abuse." These resolutions were negatived by a large
majority.
MR. O'CONNELL'S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.
On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was
made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the
representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors
should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless
of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O'Connell,
who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue
influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it
was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude
representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till
after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would
commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the
power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and
pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured
by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of
commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of
that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of
large property within the borough--some private, and some held under a
crown lease--and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler
had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant
Wylde; and the petition stated that "the return of Mr. Sadler was
ob
|