A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 10

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 10

The writ directs two knights to be chosen out of every county, two

citizens out of every city, and two burgesses out of every borough.

The counties were well known, and had long been ascertained; but the

sheriffs had it left to their discretion as to the cities and boroughs.

They were the _dominicæ civitates_ and _burgi regis_, viz. such as had

charters from the king and paid a fee-farm rent in lieu of the customs

and other advantages and royalties that belonged to the Crown; but

these not being named in the writ, the sheriffs took great liberties,

either by summoning such as had no right, or omitting others, who ought

to have been summoned: this arose from the nature of the institution.

 

“The representation of the nation in parliament was then a

burden to the people, the elected being paid by their electors;

nor doth it appear that the representatives at that time had

any advantage more than their wages. Cities and boroughs were,

therefore, not fond of returning representatives to Parliament,

and it was reckoned a privilege to be exempted, and to obtain

which there are more instances than one of petitions having

been presented. Sheriffs would frequently act in a very partial

and arbitrary manner, and out of pique return many _poor

boroughs_, who were not able _to pay their representatives_,

and omit others who were able, _in order to show favour towards

them_.”

 

This became a veritable grievance, and, in 5 Rich. 2, a law was made

to hinder these arbitrary proceedings, and several boroughs were, by

charter from the Crown, exempted from what they would have esteemed a

hardship and burden upon them.

 

Colchester returned members to Parliament 23 Edward 1; as endorsed

upon the writs in 7 Edward 4, only five burgesses, named in the

return, chose for that Parliament. At that time, service was thought a

burden, and exemption was allowed by way of reward for loyal services

rendered; thus Richard II., in consideration of the burgesses of

Colchester rebuilding and fortifying the walls of their town against

the king’s enemies, granted them an exemption for the space of five

years.

 

Beyond the very modest wages allowed by constituencies to their

representatives during their sojourns in London at the three sessions

of parliament, it was generally held a matter of courtesy to present

the two representatives with a horse apiece to help them on their way;

and expenses by the road, at the allowances stipulated, were added in

with the fixed pay of so much per day for the duration of parliament,

which sum was generally allowed to accumulate, and redeemed at the

close of the session, when the members came back to report themselves

to their constituents and give an account of their stewardship.

 

In respect of Middlesex, which has been represented in parliament from

the first general summons of the knights of the shire in the reign of

King Edward I., a reservation was made. The city of Westminster, where

parliament was usually held, being within this county, the knights had

only their fees for attendance, and no allowance for coming and going,

as in other counties. “In the second year of King Henry V. (1414),

the Bishop of London complained that his tenants of Fulham were taxed

towards the expenses of the knights of the shire for this county, upon

which a writ was issued for discharging the said tenants, in case it

should appear they had not been formerly taxed.”

 

The sums paid to members were in all cases very moderate; but these

allowances appear to have varied even for the same place. The

interesting “Extracts from the Proceedings of Lynn Regis, 1430 to

1731,” as printed in _Archæologia_ (vol. xxiv.), supply evidence of the

dealings of that corporation with their parliamentary representatives,

as set down in the “Hall Books.” The parliamentary warrant was read

in the mother-tongue, and sealed after the election of burgesses to

serve in the Commons. The manner of election by a committee on the

jury principle seems to have prevailed; thus, in 1433, the king’s

writ was publicly read for electing members of parliament. “And for

electing them the Mayor called two of the twenty-four (the court of

Livery) and two of the common council, which four chose two more of

the twenty-four, and two of the common council, and they chose four

others, who all unanimously chose John Waterden and Thomas Spicer, to

be Burgesses in Parliament.”

 

The year previous, the burgesses went to parliament in May, and

returned in July, when, as was customary, a report was submitted

before the mayor as to the manner in which the corporation had been

represented, and how far its interests had been promoted by the

members; when accounts were compared and a settlement was agreed upon

for wages due, to be raised by a special rate, thus:--

 

“July 23. John Waterden reported the transactions of

Parliament, at which time was granted by the Corporation half

a fifteenth, to be paid in at two several payments; viz. at

Martinmas next, and at Martinmas then next following. That ye

Parliament held from ye 12th day of May to Thursday next before

ye feast of St. Margaret, on which day ye Parliament ended,

and so ye Parliament held for 70 days. And so there is owing

to them, for their appearance for 73 days, 6_s._ and 8_d._

for each day, of which they received before their journey or

passage one hundred shillings, and there remains £19 6_s._

8_d._”

 

From this entry it seems evident that these members received 3_s._

4_d._ each. Ten years later, January 10, 1442, two burgesses were

chosen, but, for some unexplained cause, the fees were lowered.

 

“And it was ye same day ordered, by ye assent of ye whole

congregation, that ye Burgesses chosen for Parliament shall be

allowed each of them two shillings a day and no more.”

 

At the same time, various instructions were given touching renewal and

confirmation of the Charter; and the burgesses on their return to Lynn--

 

“did well and discreetly declare those things which were

substantially done and acted for ye Mayor in ye Parliament.”

 

“April 18, 1442. The Burgesses of ye last Parliament

ingeniously and seriously related several transactions of ye

said Parliament.”

 

As a qualification to serve, it was, as a rule, deemed essential that

the member should be “an individual either bearing office or being

resident in the borough,” and persons residing elsewhere were held

inadmissible; thus:--

 

“Feb. 1664. Two letters, one from Sir Robert Hitchin, Kt.,

ye other from Sir Henry Spelman, Kt., desiring to be elected

Burgesses for ye next Parliament; forasmuch as ye Statute of ye

1st of Henry 5 (1413) doth appoint that Burgesses should be men

residing and free in ye Borough at ye time of their election,

it is agreed to answer their letter that ye corporation is

minded to chuse according to ye Statute.”

 

In March, the mayor and recorder were straightway elected burgesses

for the next parliament, and enacted under “June 20. The mayor to

have ten shillings per day for serving in parliament.” This specially

high allowance was possibly due to the extra state which the mayor of

a corporation like King’s Lynn would be expected to support in the

metropolis, to impress the citizens with the consequence and honour of

the borough. The fee speedily dwindled again, and, in 1642, when the

kingdom was in a state of ebullition, during the Long Parliament, a

general prescript appears to have been instituted as to the fees due to

members, and the possible difficulties of collecting them. It is thus

noted:--

 

“Oct. 15. An order from ye House of Commons to ye Mayor,

Aldermen, and Common Council, to require them to pay to Mr.

Toll and Mr. Percivall, their Burgesses in Parliament, the same

allowance as formerly per day, being 5_s._”

 

“1643, Jan. 3. In answer to ye above order to ye House of

Commons to acquaint them that heretofore no Parliamentary wages

have been paid before ye Parliament ended, nor then out of

ye town stock, but by ye freemen and inhabitants, saving of

late of mere bounty ye Burgesses were diversely rewarded by ye

representative body. Also ye impossibility of performing ye

said order, there being no town stock, ye revenues not being

sufficient to defray ye necessary charges in common; besides,

extraordinary expenses unavoidably fall upon us daily for ye

safety of this town and ye kingdom.”

 

The Rump Parliament, 1649, had abolished the House of Peers, but some

of the Upper Chamber became burgesses to parliament, and this secured

admission to the Commons. Lynn Regis came forward hospitably on this

emergency, and the head of the proud house of Salisbury had reason to

feel grateful for the privilege of being sent to parliament at a time

when the order of Peers was abolished through the spontaneous suffrages

of the people.

 

“Jan. 16, 1649. Ordered that a letter be written to ye Right

Honble. ye Earl of Salsbury, by ye Mayor from this house, to

give him knowledge that this house have granted him ye freedom

of this Burgh, and that the _comonalty_ of this Burgh hath

elected him a Burgess of ye Parliament of England.”

 

This honour, which had rarity to recommend it, elicited a graceful and

earnest letter from the new member.

 

 

“THE EARLE OF SALSBURY’S LETTER.

 

”GENTLEMEN,

 

“As ye precedent you have made in choosing me to be your

Burgess is unusual (I believe), if not ye first among you,

so do it lay ye greater obligation upon me, neither is that