A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 52

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 52

petitioner should be returned. “Punch,” his exertions, and his profuse

distribution of bribes proved a grievous failure.

 

Not only was bribery freely practised under one or another disguise,

but even the result of the petitions and scrutinies were made the

subject of corruption. In a controverted election for Sudbury, in 1780,

for instance, the question was put to the committee, “Whether a person

who had laid a wager of about £40 on the event of the petition was

competent to give evidence in the cause?” the decision being in the

affirmative. This Sudbury election was altogether an odd affair.

 

“The mayor was the returning officer, and the petitioner

alleged that at the close of the poll it was declared in his

favour, but that afterwards a scrutiny was illegally demanded,

when the other candidates were pronounced duly elected.” It was

given in the evidence “that the election began Sep. 8, 1780,

about ten o’clock in the morning, and continued until it was

dark: that the petitioner and his friends then desired the

mayor to adjourn the poll to the following day; but that he

refused, and proceeded all night by candlelight”--

 

the election ending between six and seven o’clock the following

morning: “There was some tumult during a part of the poll, but that it

was upon the whole a very peaceable election.” This goes far to prove

that an election must have been an extraordinarily turbulent business a

century back, when proceedings varied by “a tumult during part of the

poll” was admitted to be peaceful in an unusual degree.

 

The Shaftesbury arrangements for presenting voters with packets of

twenty guineas were outdone by the electors of Shoreham, who combined

and resolved themselves into a joint-stock company, that they

themselves might derive the advantage from their borough which in

other cases was monopolized by the patrons, or holders of bailiwicks.

The suffrages being originally in the mayor and burgesses, these

electors, with a forethought superior to their generation, organized

themselves into a compact league, or caucus, for electioneering

purposes; but _not_ with the intention of resisting and keeping out

corrupt practices: the nature of this compact was disclosed during

the hearing of the petition of Thomas Rumbold, on the election of a

member in place of Sir Samuel Cornish deceased, and is set down in

the _Journals_ of the House (vol. 33), 1770-1. It appeared that the

petitioner was duly elected, those who voted for him, to the number

of eighty-seven, taking the bribery oath; as to the other candidates,

thirty-seven votes were given for Purling and four for James; but the

returning officer placed queries against the names of seventy-six of

the petitioner Rumbold’s voters, and immediately on the close of the

poll declared Purling duly elected. The fourth plea related that in

this borough of Shoreham had subsisted for many years a body which had

assumed the name of the “Christian Society,” though its organization

was quite outside the diffusion of benevolence or Christianity; none

but electors for representatives in parliament were admitted into the

society, but the great majority of those who had votes were enrolled. A

clerk was employed, and a meeting-place provided, where regular monthly

and frequent occasional meetings were held, upon which gatherings a

flag was hoisted to give notice to the members. About 1767, the members

of the society entered into articles for raising and distributing small

sums of money for charitable uses, these articles being designed to

cover the real intention of the institution. The principal purpose of

their meetings was for what they denominated _burgessing business_.

An oath of secrecy was administered to all the members, who farther

entered into a bond, under a penalty of five hundred pounds, to bring

them all together with regard to _burgessing_; but otherwise the

conditions of the bond were not allowed to appear. Upon any vacancy

in the representation of the borough, the society always appointed

a committee to _treat with the candidates for the purchase of the

seat_, and the committees were constantly instructed _to get the most

money and make the best bargain they could_; the society had no other

purpose in view, and had no standing committee. On a false report of

the death of the sitting member, Sir Samuel Cornish, the society was

called together by the signal of the flag. On that meeting, which was

numerously attended, the members declared that _they would support the

highest bidder_; but some of their number, including Hugh Roberts,

the returning officer impeached in the petition, expressed themselves

offended at such a declaration, and declared that they were afraid

of the consequences, for the society was nothing but _a heap of

bribery_, and withdrew from the body; but two months later, one of

these ex-members returning to a meeting of the society, was treated

with harsh __EXPRESSION__s, and was told he came among them as a spy.

The society, however, continued to meet, their gatherings being more

frequent near election time. It was said that, on the death of Sir

Samuel Cornish, when a vacancy occurred, a committee was appointed to

treat for the seat with the incoming candidate, the members of the said

committee themselves being careful to abstain from voting, though they

were there on the day of election; three days before the polling, the

society was reported to be dissolved, in order to escape the odium of

proceedings on petition, but that the meetings had been resumed since.

In the face of this evidence, Mr. Purling’s counsel acquainted the

court “that he could not carry his case further than by the witnesses

examined, and could not impeach Mr. Rumbold’s election or affect his

votes.” Although this closed the petitioning case, it was resolved

that a further inquiry ought to be made into the transactions of the

society, and a bill was ordered “to incapacitate certain persons from

voting at elections,” together with an address to the king to order

the attorney-general to “prosecute certain persons for an illegal and

corrupt conspiracy in relation to the late election for Shoreham.”

The bill was carried, printed, copies served on the offenders, passed

through the House, agreed to by the Lords, and received the royal

assent. The returning officer was ordered into the custody of the

serjeant-at-arms; he was finally brought to the bar of the House to be

reprimanded and discharged.

 

New Shoreham appears later under the patronage of the Duke of Norfolk

and Earl of Egremont; the suffrage in 1771, after the extraordinary

federation described in the foregoing, was extended to forty-shilling

freeholders, “in the rape of Bramber,” in which Shoreham is situated.

 

R. B. Sheridan, the brilliant but unstable genius,[59] sat for Stafford

from 1780, until that ill-considered attempt to represent the city

of Westminster in the place of his deceased friend, the great Charles

James Fox, which completed his financial ruin. “Sherry” was notorious

for looseness in his accounts, and it is curious to find one of the

few circumstantial statements of election outlays calculated upon

this unbusinesslike representative’s borough expenses for the first

parliament in which he represented Stafford--always a moderate place,

as prices ruled,--Sheridan being brought in chiefly by the influence of

the shoemakers, an extensive body there.

 

 

R. B. SHERIDAN, ESQ., EXPENSES AT THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD, FOR

ELECTION, ANNO 1784.

 

£ _s. d._

248 Burgesses paid £5 5_s._ each 1302 0 0

 

YEARLY EXPENSES SINCE.

 

£ _s. d._

House Rent and Taxes[60] 23 6 6

Servant at 6_s_ per week,

Board Wages 15 12 0

Ditto, Yearly Wages 8 8 0

Coals, &c. 10 0 0

------------ 57 6 6

Ale Tickets 40 0 0

Half the Members’ Plate 25 0 0

Swearing Young Burgesses 10 0 0

Subscription to the

Infirmary 5 5 0

Do., Clergymen’s Widows 2 2 0

Ringers 4 4 0

------------ 86 11 0

-----------

One year 143 17 6

Multiplied by years 6

----------- 863 5 0

Total expense of six years’ parliament, exclusive of

expenses incurred during the time of election and -----------

your own annual expenses £2165 5 0

 

(Moore’s “Life of Sheridan,” vol. i. p. 405.)

 

In 1806, when R. B. Sheridan was, by a coalition with Sir Samuel Hood,

elected for Westminster--a seat lost by him, to his ruin, on the

unexpected dissolution the year following,--his son, Tom Sheridan, that

“proverbial pickle,” whose love of mischief and readiness of resource

were alike remarkable, was offered for election in his gifted father’s

place; the reputation of the Sheridans was, however, on the wane, and

Tom, though admirable and even unapproachable at the hustings, was

hardly endowed with the sterling qualities which should be found in a

representative of the people to the Commons. The electors made choice

of two Tory candidates, R. M. Phillips (412), and the Hon. E. Monckton

(408), leaving but a poor record of votes for Thomas Sheridan (165). An

amusing instance is recorded of the good-will of the constituents on

this occasion:--

 

“When Mr. Clifford introduced Mr. R. M. Phillips to the

electors--the journeymen shoemakers, as a token of respect,

insisted that they should present him with a new hat, which was

accordingly done, on the hustings, by a contribution of one

penny each.”

 

Truly an exceptional circumstance, when voters--although expectant to

receive--were rarely prepared to bestow, even their “voices,” unless

for an adequate consideration!

 

The first entry into public life of William Pitt, as related by Earl

Stanhope, is characteristic of the easy mode of procedure in those

days, when a great man had merely to name his friends, and his tenants

elected them. “Hitherto,” wrote Sir George Savile in 1780, “I have

been elected in Lord Rockingham’s dining-room. Now I am returned by

my constituents.” The spirit of the country, it was asserted, was

rising at that period, but in 1780, it was still manifest that the

territorial magnates and the monopolists of the borough franchises had

their “own sweet will.” Pitt’s early friend, the eldest son of that

Granby who had been an attached follower of Lord Chatham, had, mindful

of this hereditary friendship, sought the acquaintance of William

Pitt at the beginning of the latter’s career at Cambridge. Granby was

five years Pitt’s senior; he became one of the members for Cambridge

University, and in 1779 had the fortune to succeed his grandfather as

Duke of Rutland. On Pitt’s coming to London, to commence his career,

the young men became intimate, and the warm attachment between them,

which continued during the whole of the duke’s life, was the cause of

the early advancement of the son of the great Commoner. Owing to the

Duke of Rutland’s solicitude to see Pitt in parliament, he spoke upon

the subject to Sir James Lowther, another ally of his house, and the

owner of most extensive borough influence. Sir James quickly caught

the idea, and proposed to avail himself of a double return for one of

his boroughs to bring the friend of his friend into parliament. The

duke mentioned the offer to Pitt; and Pitt, who was writing on the same

day to his mother, Lady Chatham, added a few lines in haste to let her

know. But it was not until he had seen Sir James himself that he was

able to express his entire satisfaction at the prospect now before him.