Front Page Titles (by Subject) 179.: RECOMMENDATIONS OF CANDIDATES TO PARLIAMENT EXAMINER, 2 SEPT., 1832, P. 569 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
179.: RECOMMENDATIONS OF CANDIDATES TO PARLIAMENT EXAMINER, 2 SEPT., 1832, P. 569 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF CANDIDATES TO PARLIAMENT
This article is prompted by the candidacy in the Radical interest of some of Mill’s acquaintances in the elections for the first post-Reform Parliament. The unheaded article is described in Mill’s bibliography as “Recommendations of several candidates for seats in Parliament in the Exam. of 20 Sept. 1832. (Some were not mine. Mine were J. & E. Romilly, C. Buller, T.H. Lloyd, Hyde Villiers, Hutt, Hawkins, and W.H. Ord.)” (MacMinn, p. 22.) In the set of the Examiner in Somerville College, it is listed as “Recommendations of several candidates to Parliament,” with the relevant portions enclosed in square brackets, and two corrections indicated: at 508.4 “Love” is altered to “Looe”; and at 508.19 “districts, at” is altered to “districts. At”. Probably Albany Fonblanque, the editor of the Examiner, who wrote most of the material in the paper, was responsible for the paragraphs not here included, that is, the opening three (a first paragraph rejoicing that there are candidates of intellectual attainments, a recommendation of Grote for a City of London seat, and a note of regret that Birkbeck was too unwell to stand for Finsbury) and three interspersed with Mill’s (Bulwer for Lincoln, Roebuck for Bath, and Davenport Hill for Hull). One cannot, of course, infer that Mill disapproved of these.
bridport.—The patriotic electors of this place are expected to return, (along with the present valuable member Mr. Warburton) Mr. John Romilly,1 second son of the late Sir Samuel Romilly. They could not have found a more courageous or a more enlightened reformer, or a person more devoted, through good and evil report to the people’s cause. To this it should be added, that Mr. Romilly, though a professional lawyer, and practising in the most defective of all our law courts, the Court of Chancery, is yet among the warmest friends of a radical and systematic Law Reform.
ludlow.—In this stronghold of the Clive Family, Mr. Edward Romilly, a worthy participator in his brother’s opinions and purposes, is said to be certain of prevailing over the nominee of the Boroughmonger.2
liskeard.—The inhabitants of this borough, which is in Schedule B, and was a pocket borough of the St. Germain’s family are about to do themselves great honour by electing Mr. Charles Buller, nephew of Mr. Buller, of Morval, lately the patron of the (now happily disfranchised) borough of West Looe.3 Mr. Charles Buller is not one of those sprigs of Toryism who have only become reformers since it was no longer their interest to be otherwise. He has always been a reformer, and his disinterested adherence to the people’s cause under circumstances of great temptation, could not fail to recommend him to the suffrages of any of the reformed constituencies. He was brought into Parliament early in the Wellington administration by his family, whose ministerial influence together with his own talents, might easily have obtained for him place and favour, but he resisted all allurements, and would not compromise his independence. After the retirement of the Duke of Wellington, Mr. C. Buller was one of the minority of five or six who voted with Mr. Hume, against the increase of the army.4 In the interval between Earl Grey’s accession to power, and the introduction of the reform bill, Mr. C. Buller published one of the ablest of the pamphlets in favour of reform, in which he proposed a plan, still more extensive than that, afterwards adopted by the ministry, including the ballot, and a new division of the country, into electoral districts.5 At the general elections he lost his seat, for having voted for the bill. His support, both by word and vote, will certainly be given to all measures of enlightened reform.
lymington.—In this borough, the liberal candidate is Mr. Hyde Villiers, a member of the present government, but deserving of support from all reformers, especially when opposed as he is at present, only by Tory candidates. He is one of the most valuable of the young and rising official men; his opinions are in accordance with the spirit of the age, and the nation is likely to be well served by him, both in Parliament and in office. Mr. Villiers also, was one of the members of the last Parliament, who voted for the disfranchisement of his family borough, and lost his seat in consequence.
stockport.—We know of no candidate for the new Parliament, more deserving the support of all true reformers, than Mr. J.H. Lloyd, one of the candidates for this place, well known as a rising commercial lawyer, a thorough reformer in the fullest extent of the term, long before reform seemed likely to be accomplished in our own times, and well capable of supporting the popular cause, not only as a voter, but as a speaker.6
hull.—Mr. William Hutt, a candidate for this important place, is, though a young man, an old and genuine reformer.7
newport.—(Isle of Wight).—This patriotic place is about to return two highly meritorious members to Parliament; Mr. Hawkins, whose speeches on reform, the public will not soon forget, and who was thrown out of his family borough, because he voted for its disfranchisement; and Mr. W.H. Ord, (son of Mr. Ord, the member for Morpeth), whom we can certify to have been, in the worst times, an honest and enlightened reformer.8
[1 ]Henry Warburton (1784?-1858), radical reformer and free trader, one of the founders (with James Mill and Bentham) of London University, had sat for Bridport since 1826; John Romilly (1802-74), a liberal, known to Mill personally through the London Debating Society, was elected for Bridport.
[2 ]Edward Romilly (1804-70), also a liberal reformer, was elected for Ludlow. The Clive family had lived in Shropshire since the reign of Henry II. The “boroughmonger” was Edward Clive (1754-1839), the Earl of Powis; his nominee was his son, Robert Henry Clive (1789-1854), an anti-reformer, who, defeated in this constituency, was elected for South Shropshire.
[3 ]Buller (1806-48), another friend of Mill’s, had been elected to West Looe in 1830 under the auspices of his uncle, John Buller of Morval (1771-1849), who had sat for West Looe in 1826-27; John Buller’s younger brother, Charles (1774-1848; father of Mill’s friend), had also represented West Looe, 1812-16 and 1826-30. Charles Buller the younger was, as Mill predicted, elected for Liskeard, replacing the representative of the St. Germans family, Edward Granville Eliot (1798-1877), Lord Eliot (later 3rd Earl of St. Germans).
[4 ]On 22 Feb., 1831, at the conclusion of the Debate on Supply—Army Estimates, Buller and Hume (with O’Gorman Mahon, Daniel O’Connell, Henry Warburton, and John Wood) voted against increasing the army by 6878 men (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 2, col. 826).
[5 ]Charles Buller, On the Necessity of a Radical Reform (London: Ridgway, 1831).
[6 ]John Horatio Lloyd (1798-1884), barrister and radical reformer, an active member of Mill’s circle in the London Debating Society, another successful candidate.
[7 ]William Hutt (1801-82) also was elected.
[8 ]See PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 3, cols. 1617-30 (19 Apr., 1831), and Vol. 7, cols. 193-214 (19 Sept., 1831), for the reform speeches of John Heywood Hawkins (1802-77), barrister, supporter of the ballot, who had sat for St. Michael’s Mount (Cornwall) in 1830 and Tavistock in 1831-32; he was elected for Newport in 1832, as was William Henry Ord (1803-38), a liberal, son of William Ord (1781-1855), Whig reformer, who had represented Morpeth from 1802 to 1832.