A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 51

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 51

“the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their

own within the city of Westminster, gave voices in the said

election, contrary to an express resolution of the House; that

peers and lords unduly interfered and tampered with the voters;

that during the election, after the _teste_ and issuing out

of the writ, Lord Percy and Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, by

themselves or agents, were guilty of bribing, corrupting, and

entertaining the voters, (who must have made a fairly good

thing of the contest); and that they allowed to the electors,

and several persons who had or claimed a right to vote, money,

meat, drink, entertainment, or provision; and that by those,

and other undue means, a majority of votes was procured for

Lord Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, so that they were returned,

and the petitioners prayed such relief as upon examination

should appear just.”

 

As bribery commissions were then constituted, the party in power

generally managed to make disputed returns a means of strengthening

their own majority, so that although the House took the pains to

examine the several allegations, it was decided that the sitting

members were duly elected.

 

On the respective counts it was found that there was no general

determination as to the right of election in Westminster, but it

seemed agreed that the suffrages were vested “in the inhabitants,

householders, paying scot and lot;” that the king’s menial servants,

not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster,

were not entitled to vote--as they had done, on the pretence of

being residents in the royal palaces of St. James and elsewhere. It

was admitted that the following resolution, providing against the

interposition of peers in elections for the Commons, had been renewed

on the opening of the House, from session to session, since the Act was

made, January 3, 1701:--

 

“Resolved that it is a high infringement of the liberties and

privileges of the Commons of Great Britain for any lord of

parliament or any lord-lieutenant of any county to concern

themselves in the elections of members to serve for the Commons

in parliament.”

 

The petitioners set forth that it would appear, by different

allegations, that the rights of the election had been invaded in

a manner highly alarming, so as to call for the interposition and

censure of the House; but the report of the committee disposed of these

objections by finding the petitioners were not able to prove any direct

solicitation of the peers.

 

A similar objection was raised on the same general election as to the

legal return of the sitting members for Worcester,--that a peer and

lord of parliament had, by himself and his agents, interfered in the

election by publicly canvassing and soliciting votes, and by using

threats to intimidate freemen from voting for the petitioner, in

violation of the privileges of the House and the freedom of election,

and to the infringement of the rights of the Commons of Great Britain.

Moreover, there was an allegation of bribery, and that conducted on a

wholesale scale. The mayor, aldermen, and justices of the city, the

town-clerk and many of the common council had sworn in, for several

days before and during the election, many freemen (some hundreds) to

be constables, under a promise that they would vote for the candidates

chosen by the persons so influencing them, “for which they were to have

certain rewards in money;” and that this money was afterwards paid to

them out of the funds of the city, or by the two sitting members.

 

In transparent cases of bribery, when the committee of the “whole

House” serving on these “controverted elections” decided to retain and

confirm the sitting members, there seems to have been a convenient

formula much resorted to in silencing those petitions brought on the

grounds of corruption; for instance, after the general elections of

1774,--

 

“An objection was taken to the petitioners examining any

witness as to the payment, till they should first bring proof

of the agency. It was argued that the circumstances which would

establish both points were so complicated that they could not

be separated;”

 

_ergo_, all evidence on the points to be proved was technically

excluded, and the petition was stultified.

 

It seems, also, to have been not unusual for high sheriffs to return

themselves; for instance, in the controverted election case for

Abingdon, Berks, March, 1774-5. The petitioner set forth that the

member returned was then high sheriff for the county of Berks; his

counsel arguing, “that by an express clause in the writ of election

the choice of sheriffs is prohibited; and that this clause has made

part of the writ for three centuries.” It was admitted that Sir Edward

Coke, sheriff of Buckinghamshire, had been returned for Norfolk in the

second year of Charles I., and that he sat till the dissolution of

that parliament; but his right was questioned, and in the “Journals

and Debates” he is invariably described as a member _de facto_. It was

contended in reply, on the other side, that the sheriff was justified

in his return, the wording of the writ not being taken literally, in

any case such as “knights girt with a sword;” that Mr. Child, being

sheriff of Warwickshire, was chosen and returned for Wells, in the

county of Somerset; he was petitioned against, but was declared duly

elected. It was also stated, on behalf of the controverted sitting

member, that--

 

“since the statute of the 23rd Henry VI., the sheriff is in no

respect the returning officer for boroughs; he is obliged to

accept the return sent him, with his precept, and is merely the

conduit-pipe to convey it to the clerk of the crown.”

 

The counsel for the member whose return was impeached further observed

that if sheriffs could not be chosen members of parliament, the Crown

would be able to prevent any one from being elected, by taking care

to make him a sheriff before the election; by which means, in bad

times, every friend to the rights of the people might be excluded

from sitting in the House of Commons. On this occasion, as the high

sheriff had returned himself, that is to say, for his own county, it

was thought proper to decide that the election was void; thus, at the

same time, disqualifying the petitioner as well, which, was seemingly

unreasonable.

 

There were two petitions presented in reference to the controverted

election at Morpeth, Northumberland, in 1774. On this occasion

it was violence and intimidation more than corrupt and illegal

practices--though all had been resorted to--which had unjustly

influenced the return. The candidates were the Hon. William Byron,

Francis Eyre, T. C. Bigge, and Peter Delme.

 

“It was proved by a number of witnesses, that, at the end of

the Poll, the majority was declared to be in favour of Delme

and Byron (a counter-petition set forth that a majority had

been obtained for Delme by the corrupt practices of Byron), but

that the returning officers were _compelled_ to return Delme

and Eyre: and it was also proved that, on the morning of the

election, before it began, Eyre made an inflammatory speech to

the people; that after the riot began, he having retired some

time before, the returning officers sent him word they would

return whom he pleased, and that an answer being brought them,

that they must return himself and Mr. Delme, they complied, and

the riot ceased.”

 

The decision of the committee was that the gentleman who, as master of

the mob, had directed the storm, was _not_ duly elected, while the Hon.

W. Byron, who had found his way to the suffrages of the voters through

their pockets, must be returned, together with his nominee, Delme,

already seated.

 

At Petersfield, Hants, in 1774, the Hon. John Luttrell was unfortunate,

and brought a petition against the two members returned, Sir Abraham

Hume and William Jolliffe, the former being high sheriff for the county

of Hertford, and both--

 

“having been guilty of divers acts of bribery, by money, meat,

drink, reward, entertainment, and provision; and that James

Showell, pretending to be mayor, had acted partially.”

 

Three or four witnesses were called to prove that gifts and promises

had been made by Mr. Jolliffe in the presence of the other sitting

member; in the course of this evidence--

 

“one Newnam was called to prove a declaration made to him by

Brackstone a voter, about having got the promise of a _house_

from Mr. Jolliffe for his vote.”

 

The committee resolved that the evidence was inadmissible on the

grounds that--

 

“although the declaration (not upon oath) of a person who

cannot be obliged to be a witness on the subject himself, is

admissible in evidence to _affect such person_, yet is not

admissible _against a third party_.”

 

Although the traditional figure of “Punch” is associated with

punishments dealt out indiscriminately, it appears in the old

electioneering days he was the agent for distributing illicit rewards

for iniquitous acts. In the case of a “controverted election” for the

borough of Shaftesbury (Dorset) the evidence produced vividly recalls

Hogarth’s representation of an election broadside, “Punch, Candidate

for Guzzletown,” introduced in his picture of “Canvassing for Votes.”

After the general election, 1774, it was alleged that the sitting

members, Sykes and Rumbold, by themselves or their agents, had been

guilty of bribery, while it was attempted to be shown that Mortimer,

who was the petitioner, had promised money to procure his election.

The trial lasted four weeks, and among the points of evidence was

the following indictment against the manœuvres of “Punch:”--Money,

to the amount of several thousand pounds, had been given among

the electors,[58] in sums of twenty guineas a man (654 votes were

recorded in 1774; 532 being for Sykes and Rumbold). The persons who

were entrusted with the distribution of this money, and who were

chiefly the magistrates of the town, fell upon a very singular and

absurd contrivance, in hopes of being able thereby to hide through

what channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person concealed

under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name

of “Punch,” was placed in a small apartment, and, through a hole in

the door, delivered out to the voters parcels containing the twenty

guineas; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the

same house, where they found a person called “Punch’s secretary,” and

signed notes for the value, but which were made payable to an imaginary

character, to whom they had given the name of “Glenbucket.” Two of

the witnesses, called by the counsel for the petitioner, swore that

they had seen “Punch” through the hole in the door, and that they

knew him to be one Matthews, an alderman of Shaftesbury; and, as the

counsel for the petitioner had endeavoured to prove, an agent for the

sitting members. It was said that those voters who admitted that they

had received “Punch’s” money, had at the poll taken the bribery oath;

it was contended for the other side that this was not legal evidence,

that “it would be unjust to suffer what a man had said in conversation,

and without an oath, to invalidate what he had solemnly sworn.” The

committee determined that, with regard to supposed agents, evidence

should be first produced to establish the agency, before the bribery

by such persons should be gone into. In the sequel it was determined

that the two sitting members were not duly elected, and that the