forty by legal means; but 12007. or 1500l. spent among the freemen would have made a difference.

'Cross-examined.-He believed that at least forty of the freemen of Drogheda were open to bribery.

'Mr. P. Ternan, junr., a merchant, said he had canvassed with Mr. M'Cann. From a calculation he had made, after the canvass, he reckoned that Mr. M'Cann would have a majority of one hundred, or one hundred and twenty. Allowance was made in that calculation for seventy or eighty voters whom they thought capable of being bribed.' -Times, August 6.

The following evidence, taken before the Ipswich Committee, is to the same effect. The freemen acting singly appear equally venal, though less successful, than those acting collectively.

Ipswich Election Committee, July 30.

'Edward Franks, a freeman, living at Lewington, about six miles from Ipswich, stated, that on the election day he had been offered 21. if he would vote for Cobbold and Selwyn. He went and voted for Cobbold and Selwyn, and then returned to the room for the money, but was only able to get half-a-sovereign. The half-sovereign was not given by the same person who had offered the 27. He had paid four-pence for riding to Ipswich in a carrier's cart, and he walked home. He should not have voted if he had not been promised two sovereigns.

'He asked for his travelling expenses besides.'-Times, July 31.

Whether this revelation is to be ascribed to an excess of impudence, or to an excess of simplicity, the attempted venality and extortion are almost without a parallel in the rest of the evidence. Demanding two pounds for his vote in the first instance being then cheated with ten shillings instead (if he may only be believed) by an election-agent as disreputable as himself, he next applies, in all probability, for a round sum, under the euphonism of travelling expenses,' which, by his own confession, amount to four-pence, for a ride in a carrier's cart!

It can be hardly needful to add to these examples, or to observe that these are no isolated instances of corruption among the freemen. It is rarely that the evidence taken before the borough-election committees during the past session has not contained similar disclosures.*

VII. and VIII.-The two most comprehensive of the points suggested for discussion yet remain,-the distribution itself of the borough and county representation.

The inequality of the representation, as between the boroughs and the counties, and the injustice sustained in consequence

It must not be forgotten, however, that the provision of the Municipal Reform Bill, disfranchising the old freemen alone, was thrown out in the House of Lords by a great majority, in 1835.

by the latter, has lately been put forward by Mr. Disraeli, not only as a ground of dissatisfaction with the existing constitution of the House of Commons, but as an implied slur upon the Reform Act in particular. This charge of inequality in the representation, and the disadvantage of the counties, is, however, a striking and significant vindication of the policy of the Reform Act, from the leader of the Conservative party in the House. The misconception with reference to the actual provisions of that Act has been so general, that we shall perhaps be charged with paradox when we state the simple fact, that it was the cardinal and pre-eminent aim of that measure to increase the county representation. The Reform Act diminished the borough and multiplied the county constituencies. Previously to that measure there were but 52 county constituencies in England and Wales; and they returned only 94 members. There are now 82 county constituencies; and they return 159 members. The county representation was therefore doubled by the Reform Act, minus 29 members.

If we turn to the operation of the Reform Act upon the boroughs, we shall see that the counterpart of this legislation is to the same tendency. Under the old constitution of the House, the boroughs of England and Wales alone returned 405 members―a number exactly equal to the borough members now returned for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Reform Act disfranchised 56 boroughs, each of which, with one single exception,* returned two members; and it reduced 30 other boroughs from a double to a single representation: in other words it abolished 141 borough seats. The number of old borough seats now existing is 264; and to this 77 were added by the Reform Act, which fixed the total at 341 for England and Wales. Under the old constitution, therefore, of the House of Commons, the proportion of the county to the borough representation was 94 to 405; under its present constitution it is 159 to 341. The Reform Act consequently halved the original disproportion between the two representations.

These figures afford a conclusive evidence of the just tendency of the measure itself. The simple truth is that Lord Grey's Government sought to do justice at once to the borough and to the county interests, at the expense of the nomination boroughs, which represented of course no real interests, and served no other useful purpose than that of facilitating the entrance of young men of ability into the House-a purpose, indeed, which it is impossible to depreciate in the singularly unintellectual composition of the House of Commons at this day* Higham Ferrers.

Relative Representation of Town and Country.

375

and which it is anticipated that the new Reform Bill will comprise some provision to attain-but by an expedient less expensive than a reservation of 141 seats for nominations.

The argument that the counties are not proportionally represented is, no doubt, abstractedly just. In other words the Reform Act did them a great measure of justice; although, if numbers are to be taken as a presumptive index of relative interests, it did not do them complete justice. But it doubled their actual representation in the face of the opposition of the landholding party itself. While, however, almost every one will acquiesce in Mr. Disraeli's proposition that the counties-that is, the population exclusive of the boroughs-are not adequately represented, it remains a very different question whether this disproportion is to be further reduced by the simple expedient of increasing the county constituencies and the county representation, which appears to be the method which Mr. Disraeli contemplates.

The distinction between what we may term electoral and territorial counties, though obvious enough, has been wholly lost sight of in the returns which have lately been printed by order of either House of Parliament, and in several speeches on the disproportionate distribution of the constituencies. In the return, for instance, ordered on the motion of Mr. Locke King (in consequence of the vague terms of his motion), while the population of the boroughs is given, of course, exclusively of the counties, the population of the counties, and divisions of counties is given inclusively of the boroughs. This, therefore, is no index whatever of the population represented by the knights of the shires, which is only to be gleaned from an elaborate subtraction of the boroughs in each county, or division of county, from the aggregate population of the county or division. It is from a mistaken reliance on such statistics that we have been continually told that Viscount Goderich and his colleague in the representation of the West Riding represent not less than 1,300,000 persons. This number includes the whole of the boroughs, whose electors are, in nine cases out of ten, excluded from the county representation.*

What, then, is the actual relation of the aggregate population of the boroughs to the aggregate population of the counties (exclusively of the boroughs) ?-and what is the relation of the aggregate constituency in the one case to the aggregate constituency in the other?

With regard to population, the census of 1851 computes the

This and other such defects imply no blame on the persons by whom the returns have been drawn up, and are the result, as we have said, of the vague terms of the motion under which they are presented.

once by the representation of towns or counties in the House of Commons, and by the composition of the constituencies themselves. Now it has usually happened that, whenever class legislation, to the disadvantage of the lower orders, has been complained of, or any other indication of an imperfect balance of classes has been brought to light, the cry of the ultra-Reformers has been for more borough representation. We shall attempt to show, in a later part of this paper, that, what the borough representation now requires is not increase, but adjustment. But as it is clear that the remedy of collective representation for these evils cannot extend into all the relations of social life, so it is clear also that those relations are too various to be reflected by a uniform qualification for the suffrage.

This result brings us to the question of the enfranchisement of those classes which possess an educational qualification, and yet may not fall within the class of 101. householders. These classes are numerous, in various ranks of life; and perhaps the highest class, in point of education, to which the present exclusion refers in any considerable number, is that of the barrister who does not live in a house of his own renting, and whose chambers are held under another barrister, so as to exclude him from the householding qualification in both instances. This complaint may, however, be satisfied by a realization of the proposal for a distinct representation of the Inns of Court. Another professional or educational qualification, both for the borough and the county franchise, is surely that of the curates of the Established Church, and the recognised class of the Nonconformist ministers. The simultaneous enfranchisement of both these professions would probably go far to neutralize the consequent increase of Liberal and Conservative electors, and to suppress the jealousy of either party in the State. Be it observed, that both the one class and the other are often not householders; and that the curate's suffrage at his university is dependent, theoretically, on his being a Master of Arts; and is even then more often a nullity in practice. And with regard to the higher grades of Nonconformist ministers, there can be no question that they are commonly much better educated than the average of curates. Members of the Royal College of Surgeons (though less infrequently householders) form another such class. And thus we may proceed till we pass the boundary between the middle and lower class of society, and come to the class of 'skilled artisans,' of whom we shall speak further on, in juxtaposition with the class of freemen.

Of the indirect results of the recognition of such intangible qualifications we see no room for apprehension until we pass this boundary, beyond which each class is of course more numerous,

Lord Brougham on the Perpetuity of the Franchise, 369

and probably more democratic. The enfranchisement of classes, as such, supplies, of course, in these instances, the means of extensive organization for purposes of agitation and bribery. This danger demands a corresponding caution in the classenfranchisement of the lower orders.

IV. The recent advocacy of Lord Brougham has given weight to a proposal, which we can hardly imagine to commend itself by its intrinsic merits, for rendering the franchise, once vested in an elector, his perpetual and indefeasible right. Once a voter, always a voter,' is Lord Brougham's definition.

Now, the borough franchise rests, as we understand it, upon the principle that the renting of a house, to the annual value of 101., is an evidence of the possession of a tangible interest within the borough; and a presumption-though a somewhat vague one, perhaps,―of a certain degree of education, and therefore of a certain moral qualification in coincidence with this tangible interest. This presumption, however, is by no means invariable. What disreputable fellow may not occasionally rent a dwelling at so low a rent as to be just within the suffrage, and for so brief a period as to be just within the registration? Now while the registration is annual-a provision, too, which Lord Brougham desires to sweep away-and while the retention of a vote by such a person is dependent upon the retention of his dwelling, it is likely that the instances in which unfit persons may creep into the registration will be very exceptional. And it is as a question simply of degree-that is, by the frequency or occasionality of the infraction of this test-that the expediency or inexpediency of the test is determined. When, therefore, these isolated exceptions to the good operation of the existing law are allowed to accumulate by an introduction of the principle, once a voter, always a voter,' the result will be totally different. The presumption of education, among a considerable proportion of a moderate constituency, will be nil. The argument of tangible interests will be also nil. We shall institute an extensive intangible right without any guarantee for the education, and therefore for the moral qualification of the possessor. We shall institute an extensive intangible right with every legitimate presumption of the possessor no longer having any other concern with the borough, and frequently, perhaps, of his having had no such concern with it during the preceding twenty years. It is difficult, indeed, to believe that Lord Brougham could have literally intended to recommend what he is reported to have said in the speech from which we have already quoted. Is a man to have a vote for ten distinct boroughs because he may have fallen within the registration of each at different times, and may possibly have been ejected from his house in each for non-payment of his rent?