A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 7

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 7

SINDBAD THE SAILOR AND THE OLD MAN OF THE SEA. JUNE 8, 1883 375

 

DESIGN FOR THE KING’S ARMS, TO BE PLACED OVER THE SPEAKER’S

CHAIR. FEB. 17, 1835 377

 

 

 

 

A HISTORY OF

 

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

 

IN THE OLD DAYS.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I.

 

CONCERNING EARLY PARLIAMENTS AND ELECTIONS OF KNIGHTS AND BURGESSES.

 

 

The subject of elections being so indissolubly bound up with that of

parliamentary assemblages and dissolutions, it will not be out of place

to glance at the progress of that institution. John was the first

king recorded to summon his barons by writ; this was directed to the

Bishop of Salisbury. In 1234 a representative parliament of two knights

from every shire was convened to grant an aid; later on (1286) came

the parliament of Merton; and in 1258 was inaugurated the assembly

of knights and burgesses, designated the _mad_ parliament. The first

assembly of the Commons as “a confirmed representation” (Dugdale) was

in 1265, when the earliest writ extant was issued; while, according

to many historians, the first regular parliament met in 1294 (22 Edw.

1), when borough representation is said to have commenced. From a

deliberative assembly, it became in 1308 a legislative power, without

whose assent no law could be legally constituted; and in 1311, annual

parliaments were ordered. The next progressive step was the election

of a Speaker by the Commons; the first was Peter de la Mare, 1377. A

parliament of _one_ day (September 29, 1399), when Richard II. was

deposed, is certainly an incident in the history of this institution;

the Commons now began to assert its control over pecuniary grants.

In 1404 was held at Coventry the “Parliamentum Indoctum” from which

lawyers were excluded (and that must have offered a marked contrast

to parliaments in our generation). In 1407 the Lords and Commons

assembled to transact business in the Sovereign’s absence. Reforms

were clearly then deemed expedient: in 1413 members were obliged to

reside at the places they represented,--this enactment has occasioned

expense and inconvenience in obeying “the letter,” but appears to

have otherwise been easily defeated as regards “the spirit;”[1] in

1430 the Commons adopted the forty-shillings qualification for county

members. A parliament was held at Coventry in 1459; this was called

the _Diabolicum_. The statutes were first printed in 1483; in 1542

the privilege of exemption from arrest was secured to members; and in

1549 the eldest sons of Peers were admitted to sit in the Commons.

With James I. commenced those collisions between the Crown and the

representatives of the people which marked the Stuart rule. The Commons

resisted those fine old blackmail robberies known during preceding

reigns as “benevolences,” under which plea forced contributions were

levied by the Crown, especially during Elizabeth’s reign. James I.

pushed these abuses too far, in his greed for money.

 

The parliament of 1614 refused to grant supplies until grievances

were redressed; James dismissed them, and imprisoned several members.

This short session was known as the “Addled Parliament.” The “Long

Parliament” assembled in 1640, and the House of Peers was abolished by

it in 1649; and later on, a Peer sat in the Commons. This parliament,

proving intractable, was dissolved by Cromwell in 1653. Under Charles

II., with the restoration of monarchy, the Peers temporal resumed

their functions, and in 1661 the Lords spiritual were allowed to

resume their seats, and the Act for triennial parliaments was unwisely

set aside by the Commons. The relations between the Crown and the

Commons were again becoming strained in 1667, when an Act excluding

Roman Catholics from sitting in either House was forced through the

legislature. From this point the narrative of electioneering incidents

may commence, the more appropriately since it was at this time there

arose the institution of the familiar party distinctions of Whig and

Tory.

 

The orders for the attendance of members and the Speaker were somewhat

curious; for instance, among the orders in parliament regulating

procedure, the following are noteworthy:--

 

Feb. 14, 1606.--The House to assemble at eight o’clock, and

enter into the great business at nine.

 

May 13, 1614.--The House to meet at seven o’clock in the

morning, and begin to read bills at ten.

 

Feb. 15, 1620.--The Speaker not to move his hat until the third

_congée_.

 

Nov. 12, 1640.--Those who go out of the House in a confused

manner before the Speaker to forfeit 10_s._

 

May 1, 1641.--All the members that come after eight to pay

1_s._, and those that do not come the whole day to pay 5_s._

 

April 19, 1642.--Those who do not come to prayers to pay 1_s._

 

Feb. 14, 1643.--Such members as come after nine o’clock to pay

1_s._ to the poor.

 

March 21, 1647.--The Speaker to leave the chair at twelve

o’clock.

 

May 31, 1659.--The Speaker to take the chair constantly every

morning by eight o’clock.

 

April 8, 1670.--The back door in the Speaker’s chamber to be

nailed up during the session.

 

March 23, 1693.--No member to take tobacco into the gallery, or

to the table, sitting at committees.

 

Feb. 11, 1695.--No news-letter writer to presume to meddle with

the debates, or disperse any in their papers.

 

Orders touching motions for leave into the country:--

 

Feb. 13, 1620.--No member shall go out of town without open

motion and licence in the House.

 

March 28, 1664.--The penalty of £10 to be paid by every knight,

and £5 by every citizen, etc., who shall make default in

attending.

 

Nov. 6, 1666.--To be sent for in custody of the serjeant.

 

Dec. 18, 1666.--Such members of the House as depart into

the country without leave, be sent for in custody of the

serjeant-at-arms.

 

Feb. 13, 1667.--That every defaulter in attendance, whose

excuse shall not be allowed this day, be fined the sum of £40,

and sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower till the

fine be paid.

 

That every member as shall desert the service of the House

for the space of three days together (not having had leave

granted him by the House, nor offering such sufficient excuse

to the House as shall be allowed), shall have the like fine

of £40 imposed on them, and shall be sent for in custody, and

committed to the Tower; and that the fines be paid into the

hands of the serjeant-at-arms, to be disposed of as the House

shall direct.

 

April 6, 1668.--To pay a fine of £10.

 

A few words of explanation regarding technicalities will be found

in place, since the qualifications of voters have a distinctive

language of their own, used to indicate their various degrees of

electoral privilege. The terms, “burgage tenures,” “scot and lot,”

“pot-wallopers,” “splitting,” “faggot votes,” etc., occur constantly,

and it may be desirable to indicate in advance the meanings attached to

these enigmatical __EXPRESSION__s.

 

Burgage tenures consist of one undivided and indivisible tenement,

neither created, nor capable of creation, within time of memory, which

has immemorially given a right of voting; or an entire indivisible

tenement, holden of the superior lord of a borough, by an immemorial

certain rent, distinctly reserved, and to which the right of voting is

incident.

 

Another qualification determined the right of voting “to be in such

persons as are seized in fee, in possession, or reversion, of any

messuage, tenement, or corporal hereditament within the borough, and in

such persons as are tenants for life or lives, and, for want of such

freeholds, in tenants for years determinable upon any life or lives,

paying scot and lot, and in them and in no other.”

 

Potwallers--those who, as lodgers, boil the pot. Pot-wallopers, or

Pot-boilers.

 

The word Burgess extends to inhabitants within the borough.

 

The right of election being generally vested “in inhabitants paying

scot and lot, and not receiving alms or any charity,” these terms

require explanation. What it is to pay scot and lot, or to _pay scot_

and _bear lot_ is nowhere exactly defined. According to Stockdale’s

“Parliamentary Guide,” compiled in 1784, it is probable that, from

signifying some special municipal or parochial tax or duty, they

came in time to be used in a popular sense, to comprehend generally

the burdens and obligations to which the inhabitants of a borough or

parish were liable as such. What seems the proper interpretation is,

that by inhabitants “paying scot and lot,” those persons are meant

whose circumstances are sufficiently independent to enable them to

contribute in general to such taxes and burdens as they are liable to

as inhabitants of the place. In Scotland, when a person petitions to be