A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 8

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 8

As to the disqualifications, _alms_ means parochial collections or

parish relief; and _charity_ signifies sums arising from the revenue of

certain specific sums which have been established or bequeathed for the

purpose of assisting the poor. There are further nice distinctions in

the latter; for on election petitions persons receiving certain defined

charities were qualified to vote, while other charities disqualify

for the identical return. The burgage tenement decision which defines

the nature of this qualification as set down, arose on a controverted

election in 1775 for Downeton or Downton, a borough in Wilts, the

right of voting being admitted by both sides to be “in persons having

a freehold interest in burgage tenements, holden by a certain rent,

fealty, and suit of court, of the Bishop of Winchester, who is lord of

the borough, and paying reliefs on descent and fines on alienation.”

Thomas Duncombe and Thomas Drummer were the sitting members; and the

counsel for the petitioners, Sir Philip Hales and John Cooper, objected

to some twenty votes recorded for the candidates elected. “It was

proved that the conveyances to some were made in 1768, _i.e._ the last

general election, but that the deeds had remained since that time in

the hands of Mr. Duncombe, who is proprietor of nearly two-thirds of

the burgage tenements in Downton; so that the occupiers had continued

to pay their rents to him, and expected to do so when they became due

again, considering him as their landlord, and being unacquainted with

the grants made by him to the voters; and that there were no entries

on the court rolls of 1768 of those conveyances, nor of the payment

of the alienation fines. The conveyances to others appeared to have

been _printed_ at the expense of Mr. Duncombe, and executed after the

writ and precept had been issued, some of them being brought _wet_ to

the poll. The grantees did not know where the lands contained in them

lay, and one man at the poll produced a grant for which he claimed a

vote, which, on examination, appeared to be made to another person.”

The practice of making such conveyances about the time of an election

had long prevailed in the borough; the votes so manufactured were known

by the name of _faggots_; and the petitioners contended such votes,

although pertaining to obsolete “burgage” immunities, were “colourable,

fraudulent, and void,” both by the common law of parliament, and the

statute of William III. aimed at abuses, and commonly called the

_Splitting_ Act. Besides the general objection of “occasionally,” a

proportion of the votes for the sitting members was impeached for

reasons drawn from the nature of burgage tenements, as set forth in the

definition of these terms. Whence it was decided that Mr. Duncombe had

done his spiriting so clumsily that neither he nor his colleague could

be considered duly elected as burgesses to serve in the parliament in

question, and the petitioners ought to be returned in their places.

 

In 1826 the Earl of Radnor was patron of this same borough of Downton,

Sir T. B. Pechall and the Hon. Bouverie being its representatives, and

the votes being vested in the persons having a freehold interest in

burgage tenures and held of the Bishop of Winchester; the number of

voters is not given--possibly J. J. Stockdale (election agent), who

compiled the “Election Manual,” was unable to discover any.

 

It seems that, while they were permitted to exist, those qualifications

which surrounded burgage tenures were founded on shadowy premises; for

instance, Horsham (Sussex) was summoned to send burgesses to parliament

from the 28th of Edward I. According to Bohun, the Duke of Norfolk, as

lord thereof, held the entire election in his own hands, the bailiffs,

chosen by the duke’s steward in the court-leet held at Michaelmas,

having been the principal officers which returned members to serve

in parliament; while as to the constituents and their suffrages, the

qualifications for these add a fresh and startling paragraph to the

subject:--

 

“The house or land that pays twelve pence a year to the Duke,

is called a whole burgership; but these tenancies have been

splitted into such small parts, that he who has only so much

land, or part of a house, as pays two pence a year, is now by

custom entitled to vote for members to serve in parliament; but

it is the tenant of the freehold, though not resident in the

place, or occupier of the house, or land, that has the right to

vote.”

 

The outlines of an election, when the state of “villainage,”

approximating to feudal serfdom, was the condition of the labouring

classes, have been sketched by Sir Francis Palgrave. From the pages of

his “Truths and Fictions of the Middle Ages” we obtain a vivid picture

of the manner of the quest for representatives to serve the king in

parliament, as it might have presented itself to the faithful lieges in

the fourteenth century, at the three annual seasons for summoning the

chamber.

 

The sheriff, Sir Roger de Swigville, mounted on a noble steed worthy

of so stout a knight, rides up to the county court, the scene of the

elections of the period, where is gathered a goodly assemblage of

mounted gentry; the sheriff’s javelin-men about him, his silken and

broidered banner waving in the breeze; and forthwith is displayed the

sacred scrap of parchment, the “king’s writ,” informing the estates

of the realm in the learned Latin tongue, that a parliament is to be

holden at Westminster, Winchester, York, or elsewhere. The baronage and

freeholders are bidden to choose a worthy and discreet knight of the

shire for the county, to aid the king with his advice,--duly providing

for his expenses during the term while parliament may sit, and for his

charges going and returning; but first taking due care to ascertain

if the great baron of the county--De Clare or De Bohun--has not

already signified, through his steward or attorney, whom he would have

chosen. The name of Sir Fulke de Braose is mentioned--yonder handsome

“chivaler” who, hawk on wrist, is watching the proceedings; but that

gay knight preferreth the excitements of war or sport, and at the Words

“election” and “parliament,” he hastily withdraws from the crowd, and

spurreth off as fast as his good horse may carry him. The “Chiltern

Hundreds” was a sanctuary where knights, anxious to avoid the honour of

being sent to the senate, frequently sought refuge.

 

It was Elizabeth who took a practical course with her faithful Commons,

and in businesslike fashion admonished them not to waste their time

in long and vain discourses, but to apply themselves at once to their

function--that of voting supplies, and, on occasions, of granting

“benevolences,” that is, forced loans to the Crown.

 

According to some writers, the earliest recorded instance of corruption

in electioneering matters occurred under date 1571, but the incident

hardly comes under the description of bribery. In the “Parliamentary

History” (i. 765), it is stated from the journals of 1571, that one

Thomas Long was returned for the borough of Westbury, Wilts, who,

“being found to be a very simple man, and not fit to serve in that

place, was questioned how he came to be elected.” It seems that extreme

simplicity was so unusual in the House that its presence was easily

detected; in any case, Thomas Long acted up to his reputation, and

replied with a frankness not commonly exhibited in the admissions made

before election committees and their perquisitions: “The poor man

immediately confessed to the House that he gave to Anthony Garland,

mayor of the said town of Westbury, and one Watts of the same, £4 for

his place in parliament.” This was certainly a modest consideration for

a seat, when it is considered that famous electioneering tacticians,

like the Duke of Wharton, in a later generation, exhausted ample

fortunes in the traffic of constituencies. Moreover, this simple

purchaser of a place in parliament, though he forfeited his bargain,

did not lose his money; “an order was made that the said Garland and

Watts should repay unto the said Thos. Long the £4 they had of him.”

Although the actual briber escaped scot-free, the inquiry terminated

with the infliction of a severe penalty on those who had been convicted

of venality, “a fine of £20 being assessed for the queen’s use on the

said corporation and inhabitants of Westbury for their scandalous

attempt.” This precept was not without its use, and in the future

history of this species of corruption it will be found that mayors

and corporations--in whose influence once rested that “merchantable

property,” the right of selecting representatives--grew more

experienced in iniquitous ways, and exacted the highest tariff for the

saleable commodity they offered, besides making choice of more cunning

purchasers, and, moreover, generally managed to get not only the best

of the bargain, but contrived to avoid being forced to disgorge their

ill-gotten gains; the proverb still remains, a relic of the days in

which it had its origin, “Money makes the mayor to go.”

 

The privilege of parliament which protected the persons of members was

already sought after in Elizabeth’s days for its incidental advantages;

thus, John Smith, whose name is mentioned in the “Parliamentary

History,” presented himself to be elected for Camelford, for the

purpose of defrauding his creditors--a _ruse_ which was allowed to

succeed by a tolerant chamber,--privilege, however, and the continuance

of his seat were voted by 112 to 107.

 

Mr. Norton, in 1571, speaks of “the imperfection of choice, too often

seen, by sending of unfit men;” and he notices as one cause, “the

choice made by boroughs, for the most part of strangers.”

 

Interference in elections by the territorial lords, or by the Church,

was resented about this time:--

 

“A penalty of £40 proposed upon every borough that should elect

at the nomination of a nobleman, one great disorder, that

many young men, not experienced, for learning sake were often

chosen. Proposed that none under thirty years of age should be

returned.”

 

From the “Parliamentary History” we secure the account of a disputed

return for Buckinghamshire in the year 1603, set down by the sheriff as

returning officer:--

 

“About eight o’clock he came to Brickhill; was there told

by Sir George Throckmorton and others that the first voice

would be given for Sir Francis Goodwin; he answered ‘he hoped

it would not be so,’ and ‘desired every gentleman to deal

with his freeholders.’ After eight went to the election....

After the writ was read, he first intimated the points of the

proclamation, then jointly proposed Sir John Fortescue and

Sir F. Goodwin. The freeholders cried, first, ‘A Goodwin, a

Goodwin!’ Every Justice of the Peace on the bench said, ‘A

Fortescue, a Fortescue!’”

 

Election proceedings began early in those days, and parliamentary hours