TALBOT4572

<printed letter> ¹

To the Independent Freemen and Inhabitant Householders of the Borough of Chippenham ² and its Vicinity.

GENTLEMEN,

I should have addressed to you sooner a few remarks on the letter of my friend Mr. Pusey, ³ if it had not been already replied to by the able pen of Mr. Poulett Scrope. ⁴ As that Gentleman has shewn to you in a triumphant manner the Absolute Necessity that exists for the Reform Bill, I will not go over the same ground, but will confine myself at present to a few observations.

I quite agree with Mr. Pusey that Chippenham ought not to lose one of its representatives. But his reasoning on this subject appears to me to be a mixture of truth and error. He blames the ministers for taking population as their rule of disfranchisement, and affirms that (according to their own principles) they ought to have taken quite a different rule, viz. the number of houses rated at £10 per annum.

Let us see then how this would have succeeded in practice. We will take for an example two Wiltshire Boroughs which are very near each other, Marlborough and Great Bedwin. Great Bedwin contains 2 houses rated at £10 per annum: Marlborough contains 140: that is, 70 times more than the other. Would it be fair to conclude from this, that Marlborough is seventy times more important than Bedwin? Certainly not. Every one sees how exaggerated would be such a calculation. I need not point out to you what strange consequences would flow from assuming this as the sole guiding principle. They would be, to say the least, quite as irregular as any that have been objected against the ministerial plan.

But though the number of rated houses is an unsafe Guide, it may prove a useful Auxiliary. Let us see if we cannot turn it to some account.

It is proposed (though in my opinion without any necessity) to take one member from the representation of Chippenham. If this deprivation were a necessary thing, without which the Reform Bill would cease to be impartial (and therefore cease to be desirable) I am sure that every Elector of Chippenham would most readily sacrifice his own interests upon the Altar of his Country. But it is most important to enquire whether such a sacrifice may not be justly, reasonably, and impartially avoided? I think that it may. There is a simple modification which may be adopted into the Reform Bill without the least unfairness. It is the following.

“That all Boroughs (whatever be their population) which contain more than 100 houses rated at £10, shall be exempt from disfranchisement.”

This amendment would save (and justly save) several opulent and important boroughs, while it would suffer all the smaller and insignificant places to sink into the obscurity from which they ought never to have emerged.

Is not such a plan perfectly fair? Is it not exceedingly reasonable? The Ministers themselves do not deny that some changes ought to be made in the list of Boroughs proposed to be disfranchised. For instance, one of the English County Towns is in that list, [the town of Buckingham.] No doubt it will be exempted, and so will every other town which can show a fair, just, and reasonable cause of exemption. The best method of proceeding which you can adopt, is unquentionably to petition Parliament, and this is the course which I would strongly advise to be taken without any delay.

I have dwelt upon this subject at some length, and I hope you will approve of the suggestions I have offered. But in conclusion let me say a few words upon the important enactments of the Glorious Reform Bill. Why are its faults or mistakes alone pointed out to you, while its merity and its excellencies are cast into the shade? Cannot such faults be easily removed? Cannot such mistakes be rectified in the Committee? And is not the rest of the Bill most excellent? Does it not double the number of the County Members in all the principal Counties of England? Does it not abolish the enormous expense of contested County Elections, and thereby enable men of moderate fortune to serve their Country without ruining themselves? Does it not substitute the clear and simple plan of registering the Voters, for the clumsy and vexatious methods which are employed at present? Does it not give to Scotland a real representation instead of the mockery which now usurps that name? (a change no less salutary to England than to Scotland herself.) And does it not extend the Electoral Franchise to half a million of our fellow countrymen, who are now without any sufficient reason debarred from their just and natural privilege?

If the Bill contains these and many more most admirable provisions, is it not in truth a Jewel beyond all price, and has it not justly received from the Public Voice the proud and imperishable Title of theMAGNA CHARTA OF KING WILLIAM THE FOURTH?

I remain, Gentlemen, with the greatest respect,
Your obedient Servant,

HENRY F. TALBOT.

Lacock Abbey,

April 5th, 1831.

Richard Alexander, Printer, Chippenham.

<enclosure>

SONG.

The Borough-Lords are quaking, Lads;
The knaves and tools are shaking, Lads;
Britons their chains are breaking, Lads;
From either Sea to Sea.

The COMMONS’ House shall be their own;
The PEERS must keep to their’s alone;
The KING calls on us from his throne
Ourselves and him to free.

The Best and Noblest of the land
Are leagued in the REFORMERS’ band,
The KING is with them heart and hand,
And foremost in the fight.

Join, Freemen, join their gallant crew!
Be to your KING and COUNTRY true,
The Cause of ALL, except the few
Who keep us from our right.

Shame to the Man who lags behind!
The Dupe, the Coward, and the Blind!
All parties now one common mind,
One heart, one spirit warm.

Away with every sordid thought!
Perish the Slave that would be bought!
Up, Freemen, to the Poll, and vote
For TALBOT and REFORM

R. Alexander, Printer, Chippenham