Читать книгу A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days - Joseph Grego - Страница 4

“Ful ofte tyme he was a knight of the schire.”

It was, as Hannay has expressed it, the great gentry who seem to have accepted the girding of the sword, in something like turns, as both a dignity and a duty. “From such men the House of Commons took that high, that gentle tone, which has often been so justly boasted of by its great men, and which it is to be hoped it will retain, through whatever changes are destined for it.” The dignity of representation in the earlier stages of parliamentary history does not appear to have extended beyond the knights of the shires; those of this select order might, if they had the ambition, contest among themselves, but it is difficult to imagine electoral contests among the representatives of a less exalted class—the citizens and burgesses, whose election was at first very much at the discretion of the sheriffs. When the real parliamentary strength lay in the baronage, the worthies who came up from the cities and boroughs to advise about taxation were not much regarded originally, and seem to have conducted themselves, during their brief visits to the Commons House, with a docility of demeanour, supposed to be in keeping with their native obscurity; as, for the most part, they were but nominees or placemen of Peers and Lords of parliament, of ecclesiastical hierarchs, of officers of State, or put forward by lords of manors, influential families, and dispensers of preferment of one kind or another, a retiring and deferential line of conduct was due from these mere parliamentary “pawns” to their patrons. This state of subjection appears foreign to the independence by presumption associated with the character of a member of parliament, and might be taken as belonging only to a feudal epoch; but with rare intervals of self-assertion on the part of the people, such as happened during the civil wars—when the equipoise of society was unsettled for a space—it must be admitted that at least a considerable portion of the Commons under the boroughmongering and patronage-monopolizing days, which reached to 1831, was not far removed from the condition of semi-vassalage as described, until the revision and extension of the representative system assimilated the constitution of the Commons in earnest to what by a plausible fiction it was “on trust” for generations assumed to be.

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:—