A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 9

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 9

It is shown that in the early days of the representative system the

high obligation of sending members to parliament was regarded as a

burden instead of a privilege by many boroughs, and that exemption

from this duty was a boon for which sacrifices were cheerfully made;

moreover it was a “right” which constituencies managed to leave in

abeyance, intermitting in many instances for a century or more. By

the same rule, electoral bodies were relieved to get rid of their

responsibilities, before the days of sordid trafficking, and while

venal boroughmongering was still an undeveloped branch of gain: it

was at first accepted by the cities and boroughs as a kindly service

on the part of a great man to choose the citizens and burgesses

for parliament; “influence” was not considered “undue” when it was

exercised in dictating the choice of what by a traditional figment were

considered the popular representatives. Thus, in Elizabeth’s reign,

quite as a matter of course, Devereux, Earl of Essex, was busying

himself in providing such nominees as he thought fitting for various

places, as appears from the following letter, addressed to Richard

Bagot, of Staffordshire, and printed with the “Memorials of the Bagot

family,” 1592:--

 

“After my very hartie commendacions. I have written several

letters to Lichfield, Stafford, Tamworth, and Newcastle for

the _Nomination_ and _Election_ of certain Burgesses for

the Parliament to be held very shortlie; having named unto

them, for Lichfield, Sir John Wingfield and Mr. Broughton.

For Stafford, my kinsman Henry Bourgcher, and my _servant_

Edward Reynolds. For Tamworth, my _servant_ Thomas Smith. For

Newcastle, Dr. James. Whom because I do greatlie desire to

be preferred to the said places, I do earnestlie pray your

furtherance by the credit which you have in those towns.”

 

The mere dealing in “parliamentary interest” was still undeveloped

as regarded its monetary aspect, but party strengthened its ranks by

nominating candidates, first, because it was the “will and pleasure”

of those who held the influence; secondly, when the possessor of

several boroughs began to realize he could utilize his seats in many

ways, electioneering science took a new departure, and boroughs and

“burgage tenures” began to be cultivated for the market like any other

trafficable commodity.

 

“Formerly,” says Waller, “the neighbourhood desired the member

to sit, and there was an end; but now it is a kind of empire.

Some hundred years ago, some boroughs sent not; they could get

none to serve; but now it is a fashion, and a fine thing they

are revived.”

 

The ancient system was shaken in the early Stuart days: under Charles

I. we find ministers still writing of those “seats which were safe,”

and where, such as in the “Cinque Ports,” patronage could secure the

election of placemen; but opposition was ripe in the land, and when the

stand was to be made against the Crown “in many places the elections

were managed with much popular heat and tumult.” The strength of the

Church was matched against dissent--“that incredible heresy;” then

began Puritan corporations which exhibited a “factious activity” in the

boroughs, and thus raised to white heat the indignation of territorial

magnates; thence did lords of the manor bestir themselves for the

assertion of traditional privileges, by easy degenerations swollen

into prescriptive rights and oppressive tyrannies. Hence attempted

coercions; “certain lord-lieutenants of the counties were accused of

making an improper use of the Train-bands,” the beginning of the

system of electioneering intimidation. Thus we are informed that, in

the year 1639:--

 

“In many places the elections were managed with much popular

heat and tumult by the countenance of those English nobility

and gentry of the Scottish faction. At the County election for

Essex, for instance, the Earl of Warwick made good use of his

lord-lieutenancy, in sending letters out to the captains of

the Train-bands, who having power to charge the people with

arms, durst not offend, which brought many to his side. Those

ministers who gave their voices for my Lord of Warwick, as Mr.

Marshal and others, preached often out of their own parishes

before the election. Our corporation of Essex, consisting most

of Puritans, and having had their voices in electing their

own burgesses, and then to come to elect knights, is more

than the greatest lord of England hath in their boroughs;

the multiplicity of the people are mean-conditioned, and

most factious, and few subsidy-men; and therefore in no way

concerned in the election.

 

“A man having but forty shillings a year freehold hath as great

a voice in the election as any; and yet this man is never a

subsidy-man, and, therefore, no way concerned in the election

for his own particular; and when the statute was made two

centuries earlier (in 1430) forty shillings, it was then twenty

pound in value now. And it were a great quiet to the state if

it were reduced to that; and then gentlemen would be looked

upon, and it would save the ministers a great deal of pains, in

preaching from their own churches.”

 

About 1640, although absolute intimidation was not common, it at least

was resorted to in the case of one candidate, who suffered therefrom,

and evidently entered a subsequent protest. In Nalson’s papers it is

recorded:--“A paper sent to the Secretary of State by Mr. Nevil, of

Cressing Temple, the unsuccessful candidate, whose life was threatened.

‘It was said among the people that if Nevil had the day they would

tear the gentleman to pieces.’” Walpole, otherwise unscrupulous in

his resort to corruption of various kinds, appears to have avoided

downright violence; it was reserved for the Pelhams and the Duke of

Grafton to bring armed force to the hustings by way of intimidating

opposition--an unsatisfactory state of affairs which reached its most

unconstitutional proportions under the administration of William

Pitt, when those Court candidates selected from the two services

received the support of both army and navy; when the guards and

sailors surrounded the hustings, and menaced such as were prepared to

record votes for candidates other than their employers. Much might be

written of the struggles in which envenomed adversaries were led into

personal encounters; and rival factions, as between the Cavaliers and

Roundheads, went to great lengths in their hostilities: but when the

excitement cooled down, the honour of sitting for a borough did not, as

a rule, excite fierce competition, at least, anterior to the Revolution

which dismissed the Stuarts; members were proposed and accepted in a

half-hearted way, and the burgesses sent to Parliament seemed little

ambitious of the honour.

 

The method in which a member was selected in the middle of the

seventeenth century for the city of Bath, even then a place of

importance,[2] which a short while after became a celebrated centre for

election contests and ministerial and party intrigues, may be studied

with all its simple minutiæ among the “Nugæ Antiquæ,” (vol. ii.)

prepared from the family papers of the Harringtons, landed proprietors

in the locality, who, from father to son, had represented the citizens

in successive sessions:--

 

“_To our much honoured and worthie Friend, J. Harrington, Esq.,

at his house at Kelston, near Bathe._

 

”WORTHIE SIR,

 

“Out of the long experience we have had of your approved worth

and sincerity, our Cittie of Bathe have determined and settled

their resolutions to elect you for Burgess of the House of

Commons in this present Parliament, for our said Cittie, and do

hope you will accept the trouble thereof: which if you do, our

desire is you will not fail to be with us at Bathe on Monday

next, the eighth of this instant, by eight of the morning at

the furthest, for then we proceed to our election. And of your

determination we entreat you to certifie us by a word or two in

writing, and send it by the bearer to

 

“Your assured loving friends,

”JOHN BIGG, _the Mayor_.

”WILLIAM CHAPMAN.

 

“Bathe.”

 

There is some obscurity as to the dates; according to Willis, John

Harrington sat for Bath 1658-9.

 

The progress of these negotiations is set down in the diary of the

worthy gentleman selected to serve:--

 

 

“A NOTE OF MY BATHE BUSINESS ABOUT THE PARLIAMENT.

 

“Dec. 26.--Went to Bathe and dined with the Mayor and Citizens;

conferred about my election to serve in parliament, as my

father was helpless and ill able to go any more; went to

the George Inn at night, met the Bailiffs, and desired to

be dismissed from serving; drank strong bear and metheglin;

expended about iiij_s._; went home late, but could not get

excused, as they entertained a good opinion of my father.

 

“Dec. 28.--Went to Bathe; met Sir John Horner; we were chosen

by the Citizens to serve for the city. The Mayor and Citizens

conferred about Parliament business. _The Mayor promised Sir

John Horner and myself a horse apiece when we went to London to

the Parliament_, which we accepted of....

 

“Thursday, Dec. 31.--Went to Bathe; Mr. Ashe preached [this was

before the members, probably in state at the Abbey]. Dined at

the George Inn with the Mayor and 4 citizens; spent vj_s._ in

wine.