Читать книгу A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days - Joseph Grego - Страница 32

Table of Contents

With the accession of James II. a fresh era of parliament commences. It was the first object of the newly proclaimed king to secure a liberal allowance, settled for life, such as would make him independent of “his faithful Commons.” His late brother having attempted to govern without that section of the legislature in which is vested the control of supplies, was, towards the close of his reign, getting to the end of his resources, derived from foreign pensions for the most part. Evelyn records that within a month of Charles’s death a parliament was summoned, and “great industry used to obtain elections which might promote the Court interest, most of the Corporations being now, by their new charters, empowered to make what return they pleased.” These liberties were, however, restored in the nature of bribes, the new charters granted by the Court being held as considerations for the election of such as were reckoned in the interests of that faction. Evelyn himself discloses this damaging fact: “It was reported that Lord Bath carried down with him into Cornwall no fewer than fifteen charters, so that some called him the ‘Prince Elector.’ ” This was an “electioneering job” on a gigantic scale, and the new parliament seems to have been returned on these corrupt principles where it was possible. On the same authority, we are enlightened concerning another piece of electioneering strategy, which proves that, as Praed has wittily told in verse, expediency has ever been proved the ruling policy on both sides. Under the 8th of April, 1685, the diary records—

“This day my brother of Wotton and Mr. Onslow were candidates for Surrey against Sir Adam Brown and my cousin Sir Edward Evelyn, and were circumvented in their election by a trick of the Sheriff’s,30 taking advantage of my brother’s party going out of the small village of Leatherhead to seek shelter and lodging, the afternoon being tempestuous, proceeding to the election when they were gone, they expecting the next morning; whereas before and then they exceeded the other party by many hundreds, as I am assured. The Duke of Norfolk led Sir Edward Evelyn’s and Sir Adam Brown’s party. For this Parliament very mean and slight persons (some of them gentlemen’s servants, clerks, and persons neither of reputation nor interest) were set up; but the country would choose my brother whether he would or no, and he missed it by the trick above-mentioned. Sir Adam Brown was so deaf that he could not hear one word. Sir Edward Evelyn31 was an honest gentleman, much in favour with his majesty.”

On the 22nd of May, 1685, the new king met his parliament (with his crown on his head), and the Commons being introduced to the House of Lords, read his speech, to the effect that he resolved to call a parliament from the moment of his brother’s decease, as the best means to settle all the concerns of the nation; that as he would invade no man’s property, so he would never depart from his own prerogative; and that as he would take care of their religion and property—

“so he doubted not of suitable returns of his subjects’ duty and kindness, especially as to settling his revenues for life, for the many weighty necessities of government, which he would not suffer to be precarious; that some might possibly suggest that it were better to feed and supply him from time to time only, out of their inclination to frequent parliaments; but that that would be a very improper method to take with him, since the best way to engage him to meet oftener would be always to use him well, and therefore he expected their compliance speedily, that this session being but short, they might meet again to satisfaction;”

a speech which, in spite of its palpable duplicity, was received with acclamation by the House. “So soon as the Commons were returned, and had put themselves into a Grand Committee, they immediately put the question, and unanimously voted the revenue to his Majesty for life.” This ready subserviency is explained, as it transpires, from Evelyn’s account, that the new members were not all that could be desired:—

“Mr. Seymour made a bold speech against many of the elections; and would have had those members who (he pretended) were obnoxious, to withdraw, till they had cleared the matter of their being legally returned: but no one seconded him. The truth is, there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were universally censured, many of them being persons of no condition, or interest in the nation, or places for which they served, especially in Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk, etc., said to have been recommended by the Court, and from the effect of the new charters changing the electors, as in Lord Bath’s famous western tour, when that nobleman is said to have quietly put down the names of all the officers of the Guards into the charters of the Cornwall boroughs; whence Seymour told the House in his speech that if this was digested, they might introduce what religion and laws they pleased, and that though he never gave heed to the fears and jealousies of the people before, he was now really apprehensive of Popery.

“By the printed list of members, of 505 there did not appear to be above 135 who had been in former Parliaments, especially that lately held at Oxford.”

Under the same date, 1685, Burnet mentions that complaints came up from all parts of England of the injustice and violence used in elections.

James II. got on no better with his parliaments than his predecessor; on his abdication at the Revolution, a convention parliament was assembled, which ratified the late changes, and offered the sovereignty to William of Orange and Mary his consort. The political squibs upon this topic are not wanting in point:—