THE CANTERBURY CATARACT.
A MORALIST, who signs . himself ROBERT SOUTHEE, and dates his. letter from Copthall Buildings, has come forward in the Times this week to defend the purity." of his native city" of Canterbury, and to impeach the accuracy of the SPECTATOR'S Anatomy of the House of Commons, which assigned "money" as the prevailing influence in its elections. Mr. SOUTHER professes himself the confidential agent of Lord FORDWICH in the late election ; and he seems animated with a wonderful zeal; both for the honour of the borough . and its noble members-whom we assuredly never at tacked, and whose we respect quite as disinterestedly perhaps as Mr. Souriusa. He states that the charge, as he calls it, by which.money is held to be the prevailing influence in Canterbury, is " utterly unfounded."
The paper which thoroughly analyzes the elective constitution of the whole House of Commons in all its bearings, may well be supposed to be not without error. The Anatomy has, however, been compiled with an earnest endeavour after truth; and such has been thesvariety and the quantity of materials bearing evidence of authenticity from which it has been collected, that a degree of approximative accuracy—all that can for some time be expected— has been arrived at, such as will protect it from inconsiderate attacks like that of the " confidential agent of Lord FORDWICH."
Mr. SOUTHEE tells us that the freemen of Canterbury have long been "struggling to free their ancient city from the corrupt domination of the Treasury ; and they relied on the hereditary and personal integrity of Lord FORDWICH to uphold the cause." "The
wealth" of Mr. 13sa LNG, and the influence whereof he boasted, failed him when brought in conflict with the character of Lord FORDWICH, the principles of the noble house of COwpER, and the spirit of the electors, from whose eyes the film of their delusive.corruption had happily been removed; and his Lordship was fairly returned without the assistance of any undue influence
whatever, be it of purse or person." •
This style of writing should be kept in order for the next election, and ought net to have been levelled against a document of figures and columns, which aims simply at truth. The character of Lord FORDWICH may be unimpeachable, and the principles of the house of COWPER may be as respectable as its property ; but it is not by such salve that "the film of delusive corruption " is removed from the eyes of the freemen of Canterbury. Their case requires an oculist who understands the composition of the powder of prelin Canterbury was not classed among the money boroughs without abundant evidence ; we have ample materials before us on the subject. 'We find it explicitly stated, 'and we believe on excellent authority, that the three young men, who stood for Canterbury at the last election, spent each upwards of four thousand pounds ; and that the two who were elected gave afterwards by their agents—(of course the " confidential agent" had nothing to do with any thing so 'shocking)—one guinea to each freeman who had voted for them, and who chose to accept it. We know that the principles of the house of COWPER are all that can be wished ; but still, if the noble Earl had not been willing to open his purse to the extent of five thousand pounds, for which demand we have.good reason to believe the " house'of COWPER" is prepared, all the " hereditary integrity" in the world would not have served to represent the immaculate city. But Canterbury is notorious for the thickness of the " film of delusive corruption" which covers its eyes, and thr the ruinous pains Which have been taken to remove it by nurnerous Parliamentary operators. Poor Mr. BAKER, ItISD mm native of the immaculate city, and a townsman of the disinterested Mr. SOUTHEE, spent 70,000/. upon the task, and ruined himself; for he had no sooner removed the film than it grew again. Mr. TAYLOR of Bifrons now lives at Brussels, and his estate is sold to the Marquis of CONYNGHAM,-.-SlIch is the obstinate nature of this film. Of ancient operators, the SAWBRIDGES crippled their fortunes by their philanthropic efforts; and tradition is not silent in regard to Lord DAR'S sacrifices. Mr. Mess, the uncle of the other member, also paid dearly for taking the knife in hand. It is said to have cost Lord CLIFTON, for a single experiment when there were rival claimants for the honour, seven thousand pounds. Lord CrsuproN did not try again, but recommended his young friend Lord Poinwten. In fact,. the Canterbury " cataract" is well known in the electioneering market; and no one approaches it without an abundant supply of the gold .salve we spoke of. If a seat Cannot be obtained without money,—and caterispaTit*, he who has theAongest purse beinvariablY.selected,—we consider -ourselves fully justified in assigning money as the prevailing influence. Mr. Sournia, whose anxiety "for the good cause of reform" appears to be excessive, and who seems alarmed lest our "misstatements and exaggerations" may injure it, may be perfectly at ease. We trust we shall be more successful in laying open the true nature of our Parliamentary representation, than he has been in upholding the pure fame of his virgin city.
Previous page
