S:r Culling Eardley Smith, who lost his election for Pontefract
be- muse he refused to purchase the voters, has written a letter to Lord John Russell detailing the mode of choosing Members for that pure place. It is simply a specimen of the practices which prevail under the Reform Act in numerous boroughs ; but the exposure is useful.
liedwell Park. September 12.
" My Lord—I have for some time had it in my mind to submit to your Lordship, as Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the author of the Reform Bill, the circumstances of the last electron fur the borough of Ponte- fraet, at which I was a candidate. The appearance of Lord Langtord's letter in tcsday's MorninF Chronicle decides me at once to do so. Your Lordship has been solicited, in the letter I allude to, to interfere for the prevention of in- ticsidation. I ask at your Lordship's hands a remedy against bribery, or rather, admitting that intimidation is in effect a sort of bribery, against that grosser form of the same offence, which consists in paying, or in holding out, the pros. sect of a specific pecuniary consideration for votes. So lung as this practice exists as extensively as it does at present, it is ridiculous to speak of the Ilouse of Commons as representing the real opinions of the people.
" I will in a few words give the history of the practice of Pontefract. Half a
century ago it was the close borough of a noble family, the right of voting being derived from burgage tenures. A neighbouring gentleman opened the borough, by proving before a Committee of the House of Commons the right of the Mira- &tants to the franchise, and, consequently, became their representative. The patron, after the next election, in order to restore his influence, scut round a gtinea to each voter who supported his candidate The other party retaliated by paying two. Competition has raised the price to three guineas for a single vote, and six guineas for a plumper. As far as I am informed, no person has hero returned for l'untefract during the last forty years, who has not either paid, OT been expected to pay, the .usual consideration.
"I was elected for the borough in 18:30. A gentleman in the place gua-
ranteed that my expenses should not exceed 4,000/., which exact sum I paid him in 1811; of this amount about 2,000/. was expended in sums of three and six guineas each to voters, of whom I have a list. A large proportion of the remainder was spent in drunkenness and denniralization. 1 Ma prepared to verify these statements by documents, if required to du so, and protected in doing so.
"I do not wish to exculpate myself for my share in this transaction.At
the same time, I am bound to say that, knowing at the time as little of elections as of politics, which was very little, I was not prepared, when I made the agree- ment, for the scenes of depravity which 1 should occasion. I imagined that my money would pass through the hands of a few individuals, who had a regular nftlerstaorling with their tenants, after the fashion of Genoa and Sarum ; and though this would have been bad enough, it was not so bad as soliciting each voter to exchange his vote for a sum of money, which would be paid him, or not, after the election, according to the way he voted. But, I repeat, I do not wish to vindicate myself. When may own feelings are those of sorrow and dis- gust at having been a party to such traffic, 1% by should I endeavour to palliate the circumstances to others?
" Now, my Lord, I come to the point of this letter. In 1830, being a perfect stranger, and having nothing but the beaux yeux de ma cassette to recommend me, 539 votes were recorded In my favour out of a constituency of BOO or 900, when the poll was stopped by the resignation of one of the candidates. In 1831, influenced by the feelings which 1 have described, I withdrew from the representation. In 1837, at the request of several electors, I became a candi- date again, on the professed principle of paying no headenoney, and opening no public-louses; and I challenge any person to deny that I was the popular candidate. In fact, I was told repeatedly during the election, that, if I would give the least intimation that I would pay the usual 'acknowledgment,' my return would be certain. I did not do so, and 1 polled 124 votes! I leave it to your Lordship to conclude what are the influences which decide the Pontefract election.
" The system was so openly avowed during the contest, that I made it the topic of my public arguments and private remonstrances. So much was this the ease, that I had to answer a variety of pleas in favour of the continuance of a system which, though it had notoriously existed for forty years or more, had
D ever been discussed before in the open light of day. The most remarkable of these pleas was, that, although it was admitted that head-money has the effect of raising rents to the full extent of its amount, yet the owners of houses being a richer class than the occupiers, bead. money ought not lobe abolished till these had reduced their rents! I merely mention this circurnatance in support of any asaertion, that the election took place in an atmosphere of virtual bribery. The majority who returned the present Members expect to be paid three guineas each. I hope after this letter your Lordship will feel it right to propose the enaction of the privileges of the house of Commons, in order to prevent such a practice in future.
"Bat, my Lord, is this abuse to continue? I care comparatively little for
the IOUS Of may own seat. I think, indeed, I could satisfy a Committee of the Home of Commons that the expectation of money decided the election ; but it as not a decision on a single electron that I seek. I wish to urge your Lordship to make the experiment suggested by Lord Langford, of trying the Ballot, and * Mended suffrage, in all places in which corrupt practices shall have been proved to exist, either before an Election Committee, or a Committee of inquiry. Disfranellieenient is a bungling way of remedying the evil. An able practi- tioner endeavours to cure the disease; it is only the incompetent surgeon who retorts iiithe first instance to amputation. Besidee, my Lord, if you begin by disfranchiaing one place, to be consistent you must disfranchise half the bo- roughs in England. " I believe that if half the present number of electors at Pontefract were permanent, the ballot by itself would render bribery impracticable. By the operation of the Reform Bill, however, they are in course of reduction, and with a small constituency it is possible that, notwithstanding the ballot, bribery might still be practised. It is for this reason that I would suggest that to give the ballot a fair chance in any place where it may be tried, the franchise should at the same time be mewled to all householders. Such a course, while it would contribute to insure purity of election, would be doubly gracious as re. gards places where the poorer voters have been recently disfranchised. " By making this experiment your Lordship will not expose yourself to the charge of inconsistency, while at the same time you will bring the question, on which you are at issue with many of your supporters, to the test of experience. You will be pursuing a similar course to that which you have adopted in re. spect to church•rates. A difference ot opinion exists between the Government and the Conservatives as to the improvable value of church property. Yee have joined issue with them on the question of fact. I ask your Lordship to join issue with the advocates of the ballot and household suffrage on the question of their practicability. I feel assured that the effects of these measures will fully realize the expectations of their supporters. "I have the honour to be, my Lord, your faithful servant,
Previous page
