Читать книгу A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days - Joseph Grego - Страница 36

Table of Contents

“I have heard, my dear daughters, a story of late,

Told for truth to the Commons, by a Minister of State,

That the ‘Scotch Act’ was extorted; O England’s hard fate!

“If Whigs at this distance so terrible are,

Such men in our bosom may make us all stare,

And extort what they please, if we do not take care.

“If this be the case, pray what can you think?

But that Church and State are now at the brink

Of ruin, destruction, and ready to sink.

“But we have yet a time to save this poor nation,

From fire and sword, and all desolation,

By choosing such members as hate Decollation!

“And hence I take leave, both my daughters to press

To give good examples, you can do no less,

When the Church and the State are in so great distress.

“The eyes of the nation are fix’d upon you,

Every city and borough will observe what you do,

And if you’ll choose good members they’ll do so too.

“Each member that’s chose, serves for th’ whole nation,

For that end you’re intrusted to vote in your station,

Without any respect to friend or relation.

“The question before you is both plain and short—

Who is the best man, Church and State to support,

From designs of the Whigs, and schemes of the Court?

“And in your next choice lay your hand on your heart,

As if upon Oath, for if you do start

From the rule above-mention’d, your conscience will smart.

“A good man is steady, and with safety may

Be trusted with our Rights; he no tricks will play,

He loves Church, and the Queen, and’s the same every day.

“But if a man be bred up a notorious Whig,

Who because he was neglected begins to look big,

And swears for old Friends he cares not a fig:

“O trust not to such in time of great danger;

Who to mother Church is yet but a stranger,

If Dissenter prevail he may vote for to change her.

“And as to the Tackers33 that have tack’d the right way, For the Church and the Laws; to such I do say, I will give them my blessing, and for them I’ll pray.

“You are two great props of the Church and the Crown,

Then be not like buckets, one up, t’other down,

To expose your dear mother all over the Town.

“O no! Pray consider, this is the last squeak,

Then choose we such men, as can both write and speak,

Since all that we have, now lies at the stake.

“And when by your Daughters such patriots are chose,

I may venture to say, that ‘under the Rose,’

You will spoil the new scheme, and wipe the Whig’s nose.”

One of the forty-nine verses of which “The University Ballad” consists contains an allusion to an important collision between the two Chambers upon disputed elections, which came about in Queen Anne’s reign:—

“O! how were we blinded with what some do write,

Concerning the story of Ashby and White,

Till Sir H[eneage] laid before us the fallacy, in sight.”

The names first given refer to the disputants, while Sir H—— in all probability is one of the University’s parliamentary representatives, Sir Heneage Finch, son of Finch, Lord Keeper and Chancellor. He was returned in 1678, 1688, 1695, and also in 1701 and 1702. The important dispute in question, which is not without interest, as it bears a special reference to election practices which were at one time prevalent, arose between the Lords and Commons on the occasion of the Aylesbury returns, and the case came before parliament in 1703–4. It seems to have been the tactics of those persons whose party held a majority in the House, to decide all disputed elections so as to strengthen their own side. “The majority,” meaning the government, legislated thus partially, conveniently ignoring the energetic protests against such flagrant injustice—the condonation of direct bribery and downright perjury, according to the allegations of the minority; who, it is said, when the turn of the wheel came which raised them to power, invariably endorsed the policy of their predecessors by repeating the same evil practices. The investigation brought to light the illegitimate nature of election returns, proving that it had long been the habit of constables and similar officials to secure for such candidates as would pay them sufficiently, their return for parliament by obtaining a majority of votes for the person who purchased their connivance: thus, after the seat was, in advance, put up to the highest bidder, pains were taken to ascertain in whose favour each vote was likely to be given; those burgesses who were not to be cajoled or bribed into voting for the candidate adopted by the constables were prevented from voting otherwise, under various pretexts by which they were disabled or disfranchised—an oppression which reduced representative government to a mere pretence. Yet, although these glaring illegalities were patent, they had offered such temptations as to have been condoned successively by either party in power.

At length the evils of this system were forced upon the attention of the legislature, as certain burgesses of Aylesbury (Bucks) resisted the authority of the venal officers which had prevailed unchallenged hitherto, and at length brought a criminal action against William White and other constables of the borough. One Matthew Ashby had been permitted to vote at previous elections, but on the recent occasion was denied the privilege, as his vote happened to be in favour of the candidate who had not secured the official interest. The trial came on, and proved a complicated affair. The constables lost the day at the assizes, being cast in damages. Brought before the Queen’s Bench, a majority of two judges supported the constables, although the third, Chief Justice Holt, was opposed to them. The House of Lords reversed this judgment, confirming the award of the assizes. The Commons grew indignant with the Peers at threatened encroachments, and voted that Ashby, in prosecuting his action, had committed “a breach of privilege”—that delicate offence so swiftly and severely visited with condemnation. Lastly, the Lords fulminated their censures on the Commons for crying injustice; at their order the Lord Keeper sent “a copy of the case and of their resolutions to all the Sheriffs of England, to be communicated to all the Boroughs in their counties,” enlightening all concerned upon prevailing malpractices, and serving as a caution for the future—a proceeding highly provoking to the Commons, who were powerless to hinder it. They turned their indignant wrath upon the five burgesses of Aylesbury, who followed suit to Ashby, against White: when their actions were brought against the borough constables, as returning officers, for the refusal of their votes, “the House of Commons, on plea of breach of privilege, committed the five to Newgate, where they lay imprisoned three months.” By a curious turn of the tables, when their trial came on at the Queen’s Bench, Chief Justice Holt declared they ought to be discharged, but, being remanded, the prisoners were removed into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and the Commons were covered with disgrace by the after-proceedings. The dilemma was obviated by the queen interfering with a prorogation, followed by a dissolution on the 5th of April, 1705, which thus concluded the last session of Queen Anne’s first parliament.

The “loyal Tackers,” who fought so hard to get their own way under the easy sovereignty of their “gracious Anna,” were occasionally treated to hard rubs by their opponents, the stedfast Whigs, whose prospects again brightened at the close of Anne’s reign.