620 PARLIAMENT. 
ters will not corrupt where it can be of no avail; and, 
though contefts may occafionally take place, the magni¬ 
tude of the object will not be fuch as to occafion either 
venality or violence.” Thefe are the recorded opinions 
of our great patriots and ftatefmen, who were the ftre- 
liuous advocates for fliort parliaments; and it is curious 
to obferve, that the lateft of thefe fpeeches have been de¬ 
livered more than feventy years ; and to reflect, if the 
{fate of the representation was fuch as it was defcribed by 
them fo long ago, what it muff necelfarily be now, when 
corruption is fo much more lavifh of her rewards, and 
when the temptations to venality are fo much more nu¬ 
merous. 
The feptennial a6I has always been confideredas a pioft 
unconftitutional exercifeof parliamentary authority ; but 
was unfortunately fupported, in the minds of the people, 
by the impreflion produced by the rebellion in Scotland 
during the preceding year. Now' that the danger has 
long palled away, and that the family of the pretender is 
extimft, (fince the king, while regent, (1816,) erefted a 
monument to the memory of cardinal York, “ the laft of 
the Stuarts ;”) we think it would be very right and rea- 
fonable to reffore triennial parliaments, as by the 6 W. 
& M. c. 2. anno 1694. This, with the extenfion of the 
elective franchife to houfekeepers of a certain rank, would 
Satisfy all reafonable men ; for we believe that thofe wdio 
cry out the loudeft upon the fubjeft can never expe£t, or 
even wifli, to reftore annual parliaments, which certainly 
did once prevail, or to eftablilli univerfal fuffrage, which 
certainly never did. 
The minifter of the day has always oppofed Ihortening 
the duration of parliaments, as well as e,yery other fpe- 
cies of reform. Yet we have the teftimony of one, who 
longed for arbitrary power as much as any man, that 
Short or new parliaments w'ere in general moft complying. 
The Irilh parliament, which was dilfolved by lord Straf¬ 
ford in April 1635, had been at firft directed by the king 
(Charles I.) to be difmifled in January 1634. “ My rea- 
fons,” fays his majefty, in a letter to the deputy, dated 
the 22d of January, 1634, “are grounded upon my ex¬ 
perience of them [parliaments] here. They are of the 
nature of cats, they ever grow curft with age; fo that, 
if ye will have good of them, put them off handfomely 
w hen they come to any age ; for young ones are ever 
moft traftable. And in earned: you will find, that no¬ 
thing can more conduce to the good beginning of a new 
than the well ending of the former parliament; where¬ 
fore, now that we are well, let us content ourfelves 
therewith.” 
And the Edinburgh Review (June 1816) fays, “We 
doubt whether frequent elections would be favourable 
to the independence of the houfe of commons. We fear 
the tendency of lhort parliaments would be to increafe 
the power of government, by breaking down and deftroy- 
ing all independent oppofition. Let no one imagine that 
by penal laws, or other devices, he can prevent the ex- 
penfe of elections. While a feat in the houfe of commons 
is an objefl of defire, it will be an objeft of expenfe. 
But the pecuniary coft on fuch occafions is, in general, 
greateft on the fide of oppofition. The friends of mi- 
niftry have the aid and influence of government-patronage 
in fupport of their pretenfions ; and the more frequently 
elections are repeated, the greater is the amount of this 
advantage over their opponents.” Lord Lyttelton was of 
the fame opinion near ninety years ago ; (See Perf. Lett, 
lxvi.) And a.ccordingly'we know that the diffolution of 
parliament has been lometimes.held forth as a threat, as 
was particularly the cafe in 1807; in allufion to which 
the lame Edinburgh Review obferves, “ Short parliaments, 
it muft be owned, would leffen the terrors of a difl'olution, 
which, after the examples of 1784 and 1807, muft have 
great effe,£l in deftroying the fpirit and independence of 
the houfe of commons. The advifers of thefe two mea- 
fures may be juftly reckoned among the men who, in our 
times, have done the moft irreparable injury to the confti- 
tutional liberties of their country.” Ed. Rev. vol. xxvi. 
N°. 52, for June 1816. 
But other and manifold are the complaints againft par¬ 
liaments, as at prefent conftituted, befides their duration. 
With regard to freedom of election, the following faffs 
demonftrate, that it has fcarcely any exiftence, except in 
name: 
1. In the Journals of the Houfe of Commons (May 
1793) it Hands recorded, and uncontradifled, that 154 
perfons, chiefly peers of the realm, return 307 members, 
forming a decided majority of the members for Great 
Britain ; and that evidence thereof was offered to be 
given at the bar of the houfe. 
2. In Wakefield’s Account of Ireland it is ftated, that, 
of the hundred members for that country, feventy-one 
are returned, in like manner, by arbitrary cpntrol and 
undue influence. 
3. In a recent cafe of bankruptcy, a feat in the houfe 
of commons was returned among the afi'ets, as a commo¬ 
dity faleable, towards the fatisfaffion of the creditors. 
4. A legacy of 5000I. was left by the late lord Vernon, 
towards the purchafe of a feat in parliament, and entered 
upon the Records of Doctors’ Corffmons in the following 
words : “ I hereby declare this to be a codicil to my laft 
will and teftament; and I hereby give to my dear fon-in- 
law, the Hon. Edward Harbord, onefum, not exceeding 
five thoufand pounds, towards the purchafe of a feat in 
parliament; ae witnefs my hand, this 22d day of Auguft, 
1812. Vernon.” 
5. In a petition prefented to the houfe, on the 9th of 
December, 1790, and entered on its Journals, it was aver¬ 
red, that “Seats therein were as notorioufly rented and 
bought, as Handings for cattle in a fair;” which aflertion 
was then relented as fcandalous and libellous: but when, 
outlie nth of May 1810, two of his majefty’s minifters 
were accufed of being concerned in the fale of a feat, they 
w'ere fereened from puniftiment, on the plea of the “ex¬ 
treme notoriety of the pra£lice,” which many of its mem¬ 
bers unblufliingly juftified. 
6. A number of places having fcarcely any inhabi¬ 
tants, as Dunwich, St. Mawes, Midhurft, Gatton, and 
Old Sarum, fend refpeftively their two members to par¬ 
liament; while great commercial towns, contributing 
immenfe fums to the national revenue, and containing 
from fixty to a hundred thoufand inhabitants, as Bir¬ 
mingham, Manchefter, Sheffield, Leeds, See. do not poffefs 
the eleftive franchife, and are unreprefented. 
7. Rutland the fmallell, and Yorkfhire the largeft, 
county, return the fame number of reprefentatives. 
Cornwall returns as many members as the counties of 
York, Rutland, and Middlefex. And Cornwall and 
Wilts fend more borough-members to parliament than 
Yorkfliire, Lancafhire, Warwickffiire, Middlefex, Wor- 
cefterlhire, and Somerfetfliire, united, 
8. The county of Cornwall contains a population of 
216,000 inhabitants; that of Warwickfliire, 218,000; 
while the former fends forty-four members to parliament, 
and the latter only fix. - Cornwall’s fending forty-four 
members is in the proportion of one member to every 
5000 of its inhabitants. Warwicklhire’s fending fix 
members is in the proportion of one member to every 
36,000 inhabitants. Chefhire fends four members, which 
is in the proportion of one member to every 56.000. 
Lancafhire fends fourteen members, being in the propor¬ 
tion of one member to every 59,000. But Middlefex is 
the word reprefented of all the counties of England ; its 
proportion for each member being 120,000 perfons. 
A houfe of commons thus formed can hardly be con- 
fidered as the proper guardian of the purfes and liberties 
of the various clafies of the Britifli nation ; and Rapin 
obferves, “ that there is nothing in which we may be more 
eafily deceived, than in judging of the fentiments of the 
people by thofe of their reprefentatives.” 
Various have been the plans of reform that have been 
fucceffively brought forward in the houfe of commons; 
fome 
