A pocket borough was a parliamentary constituencies owned by one man
who was known as the patron. Since the patron controlled the voting
rights, he could nominate the two members who were to represent the
borough. Some big landowners owned several pocket boroughs. For example,
at the beginning of the 18th century, the Duke of Devonshire and Lord
Darlington both had the power to nominate seven members of the House
of Commons. Others, like Lord Fitzwilliam and Lord Lonsdale had
even more seats under their control. All these men also had seats
in the House of Lords.
Even those in favour of parliamentary reform had to to accept this
system in order to be elected to the House of Commons. Henry
Brougham developed a reputation as a lawyer with progressive views.
This brought Brougham to the attention of the leaders of the Whigs.
One of the Whig aristocrats, the Duke of Bedford, offered Brougham,
the parliamentary seat of Camelford. The constituency only had thirty-one
voters and they were all under Bedford's control. In 1812 Bedford
sold Camelford to the Earl of Darlington for £32,000. Brougham,
who represented the constituency, now had to find another seat. Four
years later the Duke of Bedford sold another one of his seats, Okehampton
in Devon, to Albany Savile for £60,000.
Men in favour of parliamentary reform were often forced to represent
pocket boroughs. Sir Philip Francis the MP for Appleby wrote to a
friend describing how had been "unanimously elected by one elector
to represent the ancient borough of Appleby... there was no other
candidate, no opposition, no poll demanded." He added that "on
Friday morning I shall quit this triumphant scene with flying colours
and a noble determination not to see it again in less than seven years."
The
right to vote in Dorchester had been granted to all people who paid
church and poor rates. The 6th Earl of Shaftesbury owned only half
of the 408 houses in the town. To make sure he always controlled the
constituency, the Shaftesbury leased out derelict plots of land to
his friends during elections. This gave them the vote and guaranteed
that Shaftesbury's candidates always won. This including his son,
Anthony Ashley Cooper, who inherited his
father's title in 1851.
Other political reformers such as Sir Francis
Burdett also entered parliament in this way. In 1797 Burdett's
wealthy father-in-law Thomas Coutts purchased the borough of Boroughbridge
in Yorkshire from the Duke of Newcastle for £4,000. Coutts gave
the seat to his son-in-law and later that year Francis Burdett became
a member of the House of Commons.
Prospective
members of the House of Commons used a variety of different methods
to persuade people to vote for them. Some gave money or gifts while
others offered them jobs. This could be an expensive business. Sir
Francis Burdett left the pocket borough of Boroughbridge and decided
to stand for the more democratic Middlesex seat. He was elected for
Middlesex in 1802, but was defeated in the elections held in 1804
and 1806. It has been estimated that Burdett spent £100,000 during
these two elections.
In Wooton Basset there were 309 eligible votes and the account books
of the borough's patron, Joseph Pitt show that he was having to pay
them from 20 to 45 guineas a head to guarantee they would vote for
his two candidates. Other patrons used threats rather than bribes.
A wealthy landowner might warn tenants that they would be evicted
if they did not vote for his candidate. People such as shopkeepers,
trades people, solicitors and doctors were sometimes threatened with
an organised boycott of their business if they did not do as they
were told.
| Borough |
Patron |
MPs |
Houses
in Borough |
Voters
in 1831 |
| Appleby |
Earl
of Lonsdale |
2 |
211 |
99 |
| Bodmin |
Lord
de Dunstanville |
2 |
953 |
36 |
| Boroughbridge |
Duke
of Newcastle |
2 |
154 |
65 |
| Buckingham |
Duke
of Buckingham |
2 |
740 |
11 |
| Camelford |
Earl
of Darlington |
2 |
110 |
31 |
| Dorchester |
Earl
of Shaftesbury |
2 |
748 |
229 |
| East
Grinstead |
Duke
of Dorset |
2 |
89 |
36 |
| Helstone |
Duke
of Leeds |
2 |
616 |
54 |
| Higham
Ferrers |
Earl
Fitzwilliam |
2 |
169 |
33 |
| Launceston |
Duke
of Northumberland |
2 |
970 |
17 |
| Midhurst |
Lord
Carrington |
2 |
148 |
41 |
| Morpeth |
Earl
of Carlisle |
2 |
568 |
233 |
| Okehampton |
Albany
Savile |
2 |
318 |
220 |
| Orford |
Marquis
of Hertford |
2 |
246 |
22 |
| Petersfield |
Hylton
Jolliffee |
2 |
264 |
200 |
| Rye |
Thomas
Davis Lamb |
2 |
704 |
50 |
| Seaford |
John
Leach |
2 |
201 |
94 |
| St
Mawes |
Marquis
of Buckingham |
2 |
211 |
87 |
| Tavistock |
Duke
of Bedford |
2 |
600 |
27 |
| Thetford |
Duke
of Grafton |
2 |
700 |
31 |
| Tregony |
Duke
of Cleveland |
2 |
234 |
260 |
| Turo |
Viscount
Falmouth |
2 |
1,576 |
25 |
| Woodstock |
Duke
of Marlborough |
2 |
261 |
241 |
| Wooton
Basset |
Joseph
Pitt |
2 |
352 |
309 |
| Winchelsea |
Marquis
of Cleveland |
2 |
148 |
11 |
| Weobley |
Marquis
of Bath |
2 |
122 |
93 |
(1)
Tom Paine, Rights of Man (1791)
What is government more than the management of the affairs of
a Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property
of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at
whose expense it is supported; and though by force or contrivance
it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot
alter the right of things.
Sovereignty,
as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to
any individual; and a Nation has at all times
an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government
it finds inconvenient, and establish such as accords with its
interest, disposition, and happiness. The romantic and barbarous
distinction of men into Kings and subjects, though it may suit
the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded
by the principle upon which Governments are now founded. Every
citizen is a member of the Sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge
no personal subjection; and his obedience can be only to the laws.
(2)
In April 1827 John Wilson Croker wrote a letter to George
Canning about the topic of parliamentary reform.
I think
it right to send you a memorandum which will show you, in one
view, how impossible it is to do anything satisfactory towards
a Government in this country without the help of the aristocracy.
I know that you must be well aware of this, yet the following
summary may not be useless to you, though I know that it is imperfect.
Numbers of members returned to the House of Commons by the influence
of some of the peers:
Tories: Lord Lonsdale 9, Lord Hertford 8, Duke of Rutland 6, Duke
of Newcastle 5, Lord Yarborough 5, Lord Powis 4, Lord Falmouth
4, Lord Anglesey 4, Lord Ailesbury 4, Lord Radnor 3, Duke of Northumberland
4, Duke of Buccleugh 4, Marquis of Stafford 3, Duke of Buckingham
3, Lord Monunt-Edgcumbe 4 - besides at least 12 or 14 who have
two seats, say 26 - total 96.
Whigs: Lord Fitzwilliam 8, Lord Darlington 7, Duke of Devonshire
7, Duke of Norfolk 6, Lord Grosvenor 6, Duke of Bedford 4, Lord
Carrington 4 - with about half a dozen who have a couple of seats
- total 54.
(3)
An extract from the Second National Petition put forward by the
National Charter Association in 1842.
The
House of Commons, which is said to be exclusively the peoples! there
are two hundred and five persons who are immediately or remotely related
to the peers of the realm. That it contains 3 marquises, 9 earls,
23 viscounts, 27 lords, 32 right honourables, 63 honourables, 58 baronets,
10 knights, 2 admirals and 108 patrons of church livings. There are
little more than 200 out of the 658 members of your house who have
not either titles, office, place, pension, or church patronage.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
|
