A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 20

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 20

“The question before you is both plain and short--

Who is the best man, Church and State to support,

From designs of the Whigs, and schemes of the Court?

 

“And in your next choice lay your hand on your heart,

As if upon Oath, for if you do start

From the rule above-mention’d, your conscience will smart.

 

“A good man is steady, and with safety may

Be trusted with our Rights; he no tricks will play,

He loves Church, and the Queen, and’s the same every day.

 

“But if a man be bred up a notorious Whig,

Who because he was neglected begins to look big,

And swears for old Friends he cares not a fig:

 

“O trust not to such in time of great danger;

Who to mother Church is yet but a stranger,

If Dissenter prevail he may vote for to change her.

 

“And as to the Tackers[33] that have tack’d the right way,

For the Church and the Laws; to such I do say,

I will give them my blessing, and for them I’ll pray.

 

* * * * *

 

“You are two great props of the Church and the Crown,

Then be not like buckets, one up, t’other down,

To expose your dear mother all over the Town.

 

“O no! Pray consider, this is the last squeak,

Then choose we such men, as can both write and speak,

Since all that we have, now lies at the stake.

 

“And when by your Daughters such patriots are chose,

I may venture to say, that ‘under the Rose,’

You will spoil the new scheme, and wipe the Whig’s nose.”

 

One of the forty-nine verses of which “The University Ballad” consists

contains an allusion to an important collision between the two Chambers

upon disputed elections, which came about in Queen Anne’s reign:--

 

“O! how were we blinded with what some do write,

Concerning the story of Ashby and White,

Till Sir H[eneage] laid before us the fallacy, in sight.”

 

The names first given refer to the disputants, while Sir H---- in all

probability is one of the University’s parliamentary representatives,

Sir Heneage Finch, son of Finch, Lord Keeper and Chancellor. He was

returned in 1678, 1688, 1695, and also in 1701 and 1702. The important

dispute in question, which is not without interest, as it bears

a special reference to election practices which were at one time

prevalent, arose between the Lords and Commons on the occasion of the

Aylesbury returns, and the case came before parliament in 1703-4.

It seems to have been the tactics of those persons whose party held

a majority in the House, to decide all disputed elections so as to

strengthen their own side. “The majority,” meaning the government,

legislated thus partially, conveniently ignoring the energetic protests

against such flagrant injustice--the condonation of direct bribery

and downright perjury, according to the allegations of the minority;

who, it is said, when the turn of the wheel came which raised them

to power, invariably endorsed the policy of their predecessors by

repeating the same evil practices. The investigation brought to light

the illegitimate nature of election returns, proving that it had long

been the habit of constables and similar officials to secure for such

candidates as would pay them sufficiently, their return for parliament

by obtaining a majority of votes for the person who purchased their

connivance: thus, after the seat was, in advance, put up to the highest

bidder, pains were taken to ascertain in whose favour each vote was

likely to be given; those burgesses who were not to be cajoled or

bribed into voting for the candidate adopted by the constables were

prevented from voting otherwise, under various pretexts by which

they were disabled or disfranchised,--an oppression which reduced

representative government to a mere pretence. Yet, although these

glaring illegalities were patent, they had offered such temptations as

to have been condoned successively by either party in power.

 

At length the evils of this system were forced upon the attention of

the legislature, as certain burgesses of Aylesbury (Bucks) resisted

the authority of the venal officers which had prevailed unchallenged

hitherto, and at length brought a criminal action against William

White and other constables of the borough. One Matthew Ashby had been

permitted to vote at previous elections, but on the recent occasion

was denied the privilege, as his vote happened to be in favour of the

candidate who had not secured the official interest. The trial came

on, and proved a complicated affair. The constables lost the day at

the assizes, being cast in damages. Brought before the Queen’s Bench,

a majority of two judges supported the constables, although the third,

Chief Justice Holt, was opposed to them. The House of Lords reversed

this judgment, confirming the award of the assizes. The Commons grew

indignant with the Peers at threatened encroachments, and voted

that Ashby, in prosecuting his action, had committed “a breach of

privilege”--that delicate offence so swiftly and severely visited

with condemnation. Lastly, the Lords fulminated their censures on the

Commons for crying injustice; at their order the Lord Keeper sent

“a copy of the case and of their resolutions to all the Sheriffs of

England, to be communicated to all the Boroughs in their counties,”

enlightening all concerned upon prevailing malpractices, and serving

as a caution for the future--a proceeding highly provoking to the

Commons, who were powerless to hinder it. They turned their indignant

wrath upon the five burgesses of Aylesbury, who followed suit to Ashby,

against White: when their actions were brought against the borough

constables, as returning officers, for the refusal of their votes, “the

House of Commons, on plea of breach of privilege, committed the five

to Newgate, where they lay imprisoned three months.” By a curious turn

of the tables, when their trial came on at the Queen’s Bench, Chief

Justice Holt declared they ought to be discharged, but, being remanded,

the prisoners were removed into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms,

and the Commons were covered with disgrace by the after-proceedings.

The dilemma was obviated by the queen interfering with a prorogation,

followed by a dissolution on the 5th of April, 1705, which thus

concluded the last session of Queen Anne’s first parliament.

 

The “loyal Tackers,” who fought so hard to get their own way under the

easy sovereignty of their “gracious Anna,” were occasionally treated to

hard rubs by their opponents, the stedfast Whigs, whose prospects again

brightened at the close of Anne’s reign.

 

 

“THE OLD TACK AND THE NEW.

 

“The Tack[34] of old, was thought as bold

As any Tack could be, Sir;

Nor is the Age yet void of Rage,

As any man may see, Sir.

 

“The Tack before was THIRTY-FOUR,

Besides an even Hundred;

But now, alas! So low it was,

That people greatly wonder’d.

 

“If Tacks thus lose, It plainly shows,

The Spirit of the Nation;

That we may find, For Time, behind,

They’ll lose their Reputation.

 

“Before the JACKS[35] were said to Tack

Our loyal fine Pretences;

But here folks say, The Humour lay

To bring us to our Senses.

 

“Religious Laws, was then the Cause,

OCCASIONAL CONFORMING;

Did not agree with true Piety,

And set the Church a storming.

 

“But now ’tis come, they Tack in fine,

After a great Consumption;

And therefore thought to have it brought

In, by way of Resumption.

 

“Thus Projects, and thus Patriots chang’d,

The House appear’d so civil;

Both Tacks, which cost such Pains were lost,

And thrown out to the Devil.”

 

In 1695, the legislature passed a severe act against bribery and

treating, the first of a series of similar preventative measures which

have been found requisite from time to time down to our own day.

 

That this act was needed is proved by the records of the immense sums

expended in corrupting the suffrage. Addison’s patron, Thomas, Marquis

of Wharton, is calculated to have spent eighty thousand pounds of his

own fortune in electioneering. This spirited nobleman, who was one

of the most energetic Whigs, and largely instrumental in bringing

over the Prince of Orange, has been regarded as the greatest adept at

electioneering which England ever saw, and, says Hannay, “may pass

as the patriarch of the art in this country.” It is certain that his

abilities were admirably adapted to the purpose of exercising this

control. It was his policy “to forward the designs of an oligarch by

the attraction of a demagogue,” a branch of higher art, which has had

imitators in this age. He managed to return from twenty to thirty

members, at an expenditure of thousands, backed by a happy persuasive

knack of carrying all before him. Nor did he stop at an occasional duel

by the way. In the general election of 1705 alone, he spent twelve

thousand pounds. But cash, pluck, enterprise, and activity would have

been less conspicuous had they not been supplemented by what has been

called a “born genius for canvassing,” as is proved from the “Memoirs”

which appeared shortly after his death in 1715. Wharton’s biographer

introduces the subject of an electoral contest for the borough of