THE NEW REFORM BILL.
———
TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL
...
These things occurred between the general elections of 1835 and 1837, and it is not to be wondered at, in consequence, that there were seven cases—viz., Bridgend, Evesham, Hull, Ipswich, Petersfield, Shaftesbury, and Tynemouth—in which bribery was held to be proved against members returned in 1837; besides some other cases in which the party committees of that day acquitted individuals who were probably as guilty.
Thus we see, my Lord, some of the causes of the rise and progress of the corruption which has succeeded the Reform Act. It began with the struggle of the great whig and tory factions; it grew with that struggle; and whilst parties were engaged in the intensity of the contest, parliament winked at the parliamentary offence.
Between 1837 and 1841 there was scarcely an election which was pure. In 1832 many men of comparative small means found their way into the House of Commons. In 1840, only eight years after, so totally were the constituencies changed, that the best qualification of a candidate was length of purse. Three elections, which took place in the first days of January, 1841, were three of the most corrupt elections, probably, that ever took place in England. They were the celebrated contests for Canterbury, St. Albans, and Walsall. In each case petitions were presented against the return; but only one of those petitions went to trial. At St. Albans a whig had been returned; at Canterbury a tory; and the petitions in those cases were compromised one against the other. Such was the sacrifice, my lord, of principle to party.
...
I am, my lord, your obedient servant
RUNNYMEDE
(See also
24-Dec-1851
16-Dec-1851
13-Dec-1851
29-Nov-1851
14-Nov-1851)