Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 52156-h.htm or 52156-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52156/pg52156-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52156/52156-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
https://archive.org/details/historyofparliam00greg
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: y^e). Multiple superscripted characters are
enclosed by curly brackets (example: hon^{ble}).
A HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
AND ELECTIONEERING IN THE OLD DAYS
[Illustration: “THE RIGHTS of WOMEN” or the EFFECTS of FEMALE
ENFRANCHISEMENT]
A HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
AND ELECTIONEERING IN THE OLD DAYS
Showing the State of Political Parties and Party
Warfare at the Hustings and in the House of
Commons from the Stuarts to Queen Victoria
[Illustration: CANDIDATES ADDRESSING THEIR CONSTITUENTS.]
Illustrated from the Original Political Squibs, Lampoons
Pictorial Satires, and Popular Caricatures of the Time
by
JOSEPH GREGO
Author of “James Gillray, the Caricaturist: His Life, Works, and Times”
“Rowlandson, the Caricaturist: His Life, Times, and Works,” etc.
London
Chatto and Windus, Piccadilly
1886
[The right of translation is reserved]
“I think the Tories love to buy
‘Your Lordships’ and ‘Your Graces,’
By loathing common honesty,
And lauding commonplaces....
I think the Whigs are wicked Knaves
(And very like the Tories)
Who doubt that Britain rules the waves,
_And ask the price of glories_.”
W. M. PRAED (1826).
“A friend to freedom and freeholders--yet
No less a friend to government--he held
That he exactly the just medium hit
’Twixt place and patriotism; albeit compell’d,
Such was his sovereign’s pleasure (though unfit,
He added modestly, when rebels rail’d),
To hold some sinecures he wish’d abolish’d,
But that with them all law would be demolish’d.”
LORD BYRON.
PREFACE.
Apart from political parties, we are all concerned in that important
national birthright, the due representation of the people. It will be
conceded that the most important element of Parliaments--specially
chosen to embody the collective wisdom of the nation--is the legitimate
method of their constitution. Given the unrestricted rights of
election, a representative House of Commons is the happy result;
the opposite follows a tampering with the franchise, and debauched
constituencies. The effects of bribery, intimidation, undue influence,
coercion on the part of the Crown or its responsible advisers, an
extensive system of personal patronage, boroughmongering, close or
pocket boroughs, and all those contraband devices of old to hamper
the popular choice of representatives, have inevitably produced a
legislature more or less corrupt, as history has registered. Bad as
were the workings of the electoral system anterior to the advent
of parliamentary reform, it speaks volumes for the manly nature of
British electors and their representatives that Parliaments thus basely
constituted were, on the whole, fairly honest, nor unmindful altogether
of those liberties of the subject they were by supposition elected to
maintain; and when symptoms of corruption in the Commons became patent,
the degeneracy was not long countenanced, the national spirit being
sufficiently vigorous to crush the threatened evils, and bring about a
healthier state of things.
The comprehensive subject of parliamentary elections is rich in
interest and entertainment; the history of the rise, progress, and
development of the complex art of electioneering recommends itself to
the attention of all who have an interest in the features inseparable
from that constitution which has been lauded as a model for other
nations to imitate. The strong national characteristics surrounding, in
bygone days, the various stages of parliamentary election--peculiarly a
British institution, in which, of all people, our countrymen were most
at home--are now, by an improved elective procedure, relegated to the
limbo of the past, while the records of electioneering exist but as
traditions in the present.
With the modifying influence of progress, and a more advanced
civilisation, the time may come when the narrative of the robustious
scenes of canvassing, polling, chairing, and election-feasting, with
their attendant incidents of all-prevailing bribery, turbulence, and
intrigue, may be regarded with incredulity as fictions of an impossible
age.
It has been endeavoured to give the salient features of the most
remarkable election contests, from the time when seats began to
be sought after until comparatively recent days. The “Spendthrift
Elections,” remarkable in the annals of parliamentary and party
warfare, are set down, with a selection from the literature, squibs,
ballads, and broadsides to which they gave rise. The illustrations
are selected from the pictorial satires produced contemporaneously
upon the most famous electoral struggles. The materials, both literary
and graphic, are abundant, but scattered; it is hoped that both
entertainment and enlightenment may be afforded to a tolerant public by
the writer’s efforts to bring these resources within the compass of a
volume.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The assembling of parliaments--Synopsis of parliamentary
history--Orders for the attendance of members--Qualifications
for the franchise: burgesses, burgage-tenures, scot and lot,
pot-wallopers, faggot-votes, splitting--Disqualifications:
alms, charity, “faggots,” “occasionality”--Election of knights
of the shire, and burgesses--Outlines of an election in the
Middle Ages--Queen Elizabeth and her faithful Commons--An
early instance of buying a seat in the Commons--Returns
vested in the municipal corporations; “Money makes the
mayor to go”--Privileges of parliament--“Knights girt with
a sword”--Inferior standing of the citizens and burgesses
sent to Parliament--Reluctance of early constituencies to
sending representatives to parliament--Paid members--Members
chosen and nominated by the “great families”--The Earl of
Essex nominating his partisans and servants--Exemption
from sending representatives to the Commons esteemed
a privilege--The growth of legislative and electoral
independence--The beginning of “contested elections”--Coercion
at elections--Lords-lieutenant calling out the train-bands for
purposes of intimidation--Early violence--_Nugæ Antiquæ_; the
election of a Harrington for Bath, 1658-9; the present of a
horse to paid members--The method of election for counties,
cities, and boroughs--Relations of representatives with their
constituents--The “wages” of members of parliament--“Extracts
from the Proceedings of Lynn Regis”--An account rendered to the
burgesses--The civil wars--Peers returned for the Commons in
the Long Parliament after the abolition of the House of Lords. 1
CHAPTER II.
Influence of administration under Charles I.--Ballad on
the Commonwealth--House of Commons: “A General Sale of
Rebellious Household Stuff”--The Parliament under the
Restoration--Pepys and Prynne on the choosing of “knights
of the shire”--Burgesses sent up at the discretion of the
sheriffs--The king’s writ--Evils attending the cessation of
wages to parliamentary representatives--Andrew Marvell’s ballad
on a venal House of Commons--The parliament waiting on the
king--Charles II. and his Commons--“Royal Resolutions,” and
disrespect for the Commons--The Earl of Rochester on Charles
II.’s parliament--Interference in elections--Independence
of legislators _versus_ paid members--The Peers as “born
legislators and councillors”--“The Pensioner Parliament”
coincident with the remission of salaries to members of the
Commons--“An Historical Poem,” by Andrew Marvell--Andrew
Marvell as a paid member; his kindly relations with his Hull
constituents--Writ for recovering arrears of parliamentary
wages--Uncertainty of calling another parliament--The
Duke of Buckingham’s intrigues with the Roundheads; his
“Litany”--Degradation of parliament--Parody of the king’s
speech--Relations of Charles II. and his Commons--Summary
of Charles II.’s parliaments--Petitioners, addressers, and
Abhorrers--The right of petitioning the throne--The Convention
Parliament--The Long Cavalier Parliament--The Pensioner
Parliament and the statute against corruption--“The Chequer
Inn”--“The Parliament House to be let”--The Habeas Corpus
Parliament--The country preparing for Charles II.’s fourth
parliament--Election ballads: “The Poll,”--Origin of the
factions of Whigs and Tories--Whig and Tory ballads--“A
Tory in a Whig’s Coat”--“A Litany from Geneva,” in answer
to “A Litany from St. Omer”--The Oxford Parliament of eight
days--“The Statesman’s Almanack”--A group of parliamentary
election ballads, 1679-80--Ballad on the Essex petitions--The
Earl of Shaftesbury’s “Protestant Association”--“A Hymn
exalting the Mobile to Loyalty”--The Buckingham ballad--Bribery
by Sir Richard “Timber” Temple--The Wiltshire ballad--“Old
Sarum”--Petitions against prerogative--The royal pretensions to
absolute monarchy--The “Tantivies,” or upholders of absolute
kingly rights over Church and State--“Plain Dealing; or, a
Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning
home from choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament,
1681;” “Hercules Rideing”--“A Speech without-doors, made
by a Plebeian to his Noble Friends”--Philippe de Comines
on the British Constitution--On freedom of speech--A true
Commonwealth--The excited state of parties at the summoning
of the Oxford Parliament, 1681--Ballads on the Oxford
Parliament--The impeachment of Fitz-Harris, and the proposal of
the opposition to exclude the Duke of York from the “Protestant
succession”--Squabble on privilege between the Peers and
Commons--The Oxford Parliament dismissed, after eight days, on
this pretence--“The Ghost of the Late Parliament to the New
One to meet at Oxford”--“On Parliament removing from London to
Oxford”--“On his Majesty’s dissolving the late Parliament at
Oxford”--A “Weeked” Parliament. 22
CHAPTER III.
Electioneering on the accession of James II.--A parliament
summoned by James II.--The municipal charters restored in
the nature of bribes--Lord Bath, “the Prince Elector,” and
his progress in the west--Electioneering strategies--How Sir
Edward Evelyn was unjustly cozened out of his election--The
constitution of James II.’s Parliament--Inferior persons “of no
account whatever” chosen to sit in the Commons--The question
of supplies, the royal revenue, and prerogative--Assembling
of James II.’s parliament--The corrupt returns boldly
denounced--Violence at the elections--The abdication of
James II., and the “Convention Parliament”--Accession of
the Prince of Orange--Ballad “On the Calling of a Free
Parliament, Jan. 15, 1678-9”--Ballads on William III.’s
Parliament: “The Whigs’ Address to his Majesty,” 1689; “The
Patriots,” 1700--An election under William III., for the
City of London--“The Election, a Poem,” 1701; the electors,
the Guildhall, the candidates; Court-schemers _versus_
patriotic representatives; and “the liberties of the people”
_versus_ the “surrendered Charters”--Electioneering under
Queen Anne--The High Church party--“The University Ballad;
or, the Church’s Advice to her Two Daughters, Oxford and
Cambridge,” 1705--Whigs and “Tackers”--The Nonconformity
Bill--Mother Church promises to “wipe the Whigs’ nose”--The
“case of Ashby and White,” and the dispute thereon between the
Lords and Commons--Breaches of privilege--“Jacks,” “Tacks,”
and the “Occasional Conformity Bill”--Ballad: “The Old Tack
and the New,” 1712--The Act against bribery--Past-masters
of the art of electioneering--Thomas, Marquis of Wharton;
his election feats, and genius for canvassing-Election,
1705--“Dyer’s Letters”--Reception of a High Church “Tantivy”
candidate--Discomfiture of the “Sneakers”--Lord Woodstock’s
electioneering ruse at Southampton, 1705--“For the Queen and
Church, Packington”--Dean Swift on election disturbances
in Queen Anne’s reign--Sir Richard Steele’s mishap when a
candidate for election--Steele’s parliamentary career--“The
Englishman” and “The Crisis”--Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, an
accomplished hand at electioneering--Her _ruse_ against Lord
Grimston--“Love in a Hollow Tree”--Dr. Johnson on scandals
revived at election-time--Failure of the High Church party
to bring in the Chevalier--The accession of George I., and
the Tory discomfiture--“The Whigs’ answer to the Tories”--The
Jacobite and Hanoverian factions--Ballads upon “Nancy,” “the
Chevalier,” and George of Hanover, 1716--The disaffected and
their hatred to Sir Robert Walpole--Ballad: “King James’s
Declaration”--The abortive Jacobite rising in 1715--Ballad:
“The Right and True History of Perkin”--The end of Perkin’s
attempt. 56
CHAPTER IV.
Sir Robert Walpole “chaired” on his election for Castle
Rising, 1701--“Robin’s Progress”--Walpole in Parliament--His
offices--Impeached by the Commons for corruption on the death
of George, Prince of Denmark--Returned for King’s Lynn--Firmly
established in power on the accession of George I.--“A
Tory Bill of Costs for an Election in the West, 1715”--The
Septennial Act, 1716--The elections of 1721--Walpole’s
“universal salve”--“The Election carried by Bribery and the
Devil,” 1721--Municipal corruption--Ballad: “Here’s a Minion
sent down to a Corporate Town”--The elections of 1727--“Ready
Money, the Prevailing Candidate; or, the Humours of an
Election,” 1727--“No bribery, but pockets are free”--Ballad:
“The Laws against Bribery Provision may make”--“The Kentish
Election, 1734”--“The Country Interest” _versus_ “the
Protestant Interest”--Vane and Dering _versus_ Middlesex
and Oxenden--Vane’s treat to his electors--Walpole paraded
in effigy--Hogarth’s design on the election of 1734: Sir
Robert Fagg--“The Humours of a Country Election,” 1734--The
first suggestion for Hogarth’s series of four election
prints--Plays, operas, and poems on elections--The oath
imposed upon electors--“A New-year’s Gift to the Electors of
Great Britain,” 1741--“The flood of corruption”--Walpole, as
“The Devil upon Two Sticks,” carried through the “Slough of
Despond,” 1741--“A Satire on Election Proceedings,” dedicated
to “Mayors and Corporations in general,” 1741--Walpole’s
lease of power threatened--Satirical version of Walpole’s
“Coat of Arms”--The Westminster election of 1741--Wager and
Sundon _versus_ Vernon and Edwin--A patriotic “Address to the
Independent and Worthy Electors” of Westminster, 1741--Royal
canvassers--“Scene at the Westminster Election,” 1741--Lord
Sundon calls in the grenadiers to close the poll--The
Westminster Petition, 1741--A new election--Wager and Sundon
unseated; Edwin and Percival returned--Admiral Vernon and
Porto Bello--“The Funeral of Independency,” 1741--“The Triumph
of Justice,” 1741--Walpole defeated--“The Banner of Liberty
displayed,” 1741--A ministerial mortification--Ballads upon
the Westminster election of 1741--“The Independent Westminster
Electors’ Toast”--“The Downfall of Sundon and Wager”--“The
Independent Westminster Choice”--“The True English-Boys’
Song to Vernon’s Glory”--Triumph of the “Country party” or
“Patriots”--“The Body of Independent Electors of Westminster”
constituted into a society--Their anniversary dinners--A
dinner-ticket, 1744--The Stuart rising of 1745--Lord
Lovat’s trial--Meeting of “The Independent Electors of the
City and Liberty of Westminster” at Vintners’ Hall, March,
1747--Jacobite toasts--“The Spy detected:” ejectment of a
ministerial spy from Vintners’ Hall--The state of parties
at the Westminster election, 1747--Earl Gower and his son,
Lord Trentham--Falling-off of the Independent party--Trentham
and Warren _versus_ Clarges and Dyke--“The Two-Shilling
Butcher,” 1747--The Duke of Cumberland and the Prince of Wales
as rival canvassers--The Duke of Bedford’s support of Lord
Trentham--“The Jaco-Independo-Rebello-Plaido”--“The Humours of
the Westminster Election; or, the Scald Miserable Independent
Electors in the Suds,” 1747--Jacobite vagaries--“Great
Britain’s Union; or, the Litchfield Races,” 1747--The
Jacobite rebellion--Political animosities carried on to the
race-course--Alternate Whig and Tory race meetings--The Duke
of Bedford horsewhipped at the Litchfield races on Whittington
Heath--Ballad on the _fracas_: “The Lords’ Lamentation; or,
the Whittington Defeat,” 1747--Trentham _versus_ Vandeput,
1749--The _fracas_ at the Haymarket Theatre--Frenchified Lord
Trentham’s deadly attack on his own electors--Gallic valour
and the Admiralty Board--Ballad: “Peg Trim Tram in the Suds;
or, No French Strollers,” 1749--“Britannia Disturbed, or an
Invasion by French Vagrants, addressed to the Worthy Electors
of the City of Westminster,” 1749--Violence and bribery--“Aux
Electeurs très dignes de Westminster”--The Duke of Bedford’s
oppression and injustice to his tenants--Hogarth’s print of “A
Country Inn-yard at the Time of an Election,” 1747--The Hon.
John Child--“No Old Baby.” 78
CHAPTER V.
The Pelham Administration--Corruption rife--“The Duke of
Newcastle as the Complete Vermin-Catcher of Great Britain;
or, the Old Trap new baited,” 1754--Ministerial bribes
and baits--Boroughmongering--“Dissection of a Dead Member
(of Parliament)”--A mass of corruption--Henry Pelham’s
measures--The Jews’ Naturalization Bill, 1753--Death of
Pelham--“His Arrival at his Country Retirement and Reception,”
1754--Pelham’s reception across the Styx--The elections of
1754--Humours of canvassing--The election for the City of
London: “The Liveryman’s Levee,” 1754--“The City Up and Down;
or, the Candidates Pois’d,” 1754--City candidates: Sir John
Barnard, Slingsby Bethell, William Beckford, Sir Richard Glyn,
Sir Robert Ladbroke, Sir Crispe Gascoyne, and Sir William
Calvert--Sir Sampson Gideon, the loan contractor, and “The
Jews’ Naturalization Bill”--“A Stir in the City; or, Some
Folks at Guildhall,” 1754--Ballad on the City election at the
Guildhall--“The Parliamentary Race; or, the City Jockies,”
1754--Ballad on “The Parliamentary Race for the City”--The
London and Oxfordshire elections--“All the World in a Hurry;
or, the Road from London to Oxford,” 1754--Ballad on “The
London Election”--The Oxford Election; Candidates: Wenham and
Dashwood _versus_ Turner and Parker--Ballad on the Oxford
election--The four election pictures by William Hogarth
having reference to the county election for Oxfordshire,
1754--“The Election Entertainment”--Humours of an election
feast--“The low habits of venal wretches”--“The New Interest”
_versus_ “The Old Interest”--Election party cries in 1754:
“Give us our eleven days”--Ballad on alteration in the
style--Party animosities--“Act against Bribery”--“Kirton’s
Best”--“Canvassing for Votes,” 1754--“Punch, Candidate for
Guzzledown”--“The Royal Oak” _versus_ “The Crown,” otherwise
“The Excise Office”--“The Polling Booth,” Oxfordshire,
1754--Ballad on the humours of polling--“Chairing the Members,”
1754--Burlesque on Bubb Dodington--The dangers of chairing--A
ministerial dinner, 1754--Hogarth’s sketches of “Bubb
Dodington and the Earl of Winchilsea”--Murderous incidents
of the Oxfordshire election--Wrecking houses--Parliamentary
interest _versus_ place--Hawking “marketable ware”--Diary
of Bubb Dodington (Lord Melcombe Regis)--Overtures from
the Pelhams--Bubb’s “parliamentary interest”--A prime
minister--“Bubbling” a boroughmonger--The intriguer
over-matched--The Bridgwater Election, 1754--Details of an
election contest in 1754, from Dodington’s diary--The Duke of
Newcastle, an arch-negotiator--Bubb and his “parliamentary
interest” bought for nothing--The vitiating effects of bribery
and corruption on a representative legislature--“Burning
a Prime Minister in Effigy,” 1756--Denunciations against
venal ministers and the vital injuries they inflict on the
constitution. 125
CHAPTER VI.
John Wilkes, the _pseudo_ “Champion of Liberty”--W.
Hogarth as a partisan--His attack on Wilkes and Churchill,
the _North Briton_, 45--Hogarth’s unfortunate political
satires--“The Times,” Plate I., 1762--Lord Bute as Hogarth’s
patron--“The Epistle to Hogarth,” by Churchill--“The
Times,” Plate II., withheld from publication; given to
the public in 1790--The demagogue tried in court at
Westminster--Hogarth’s print of “John Wilkes, a patriot”--The
_North Briton_, No. 45--Severe animadversions on Hogarth by
Wilkes and Churchill--The “Bruiser,” Charles Churchill, by
Hogarth--His reprisal--Hogarth, Wilkes, and Churchill: “A
Bear Leader”--Wilkes’s illegal imprisonment on “a general
warrant”--Wilkes in the Tower--“A Safe Place,” 1763--“Daniel
cast into the Den of Lions; or, True Blue will never stain,”
1763--Wilkes set at liberty--His appearance in parliament,
and duel--Wilkes absconds to Paris--Is outlawed for contempt
of court--Returns from Paris, and contests the City of London
at the general election, 1768--The City candidates--The
nomination--The poll--Wilkes at the bottom of the poll--The
adulation of the mob--Wilkes’s letter to the king--His
submission to the Treasury--Wilkes a candidate for the
county of Middlesex--“The Return of Liberty,” and “Liberty
revived”--The Brentford election--Violent conduct of the
“Wilkes and Liberty” mob--Candidates for Middlesex--“No.
45 N.B.”--Wilkes returned for Middlesex--Dr. Franklin on
“Wilkes and the Brentford election”--“John Wilkes elected
Knight of the Shire for Middlesex, March 28, 1768, by the
Free Voice of the People”--More of the “Wilkes and Liberty”
riots--The mob in London--Universal turbulence--The attack on
the Mansion House--“The Laird of the Boot”--“The Rape of the
Petticoat”--Lord Bute and the Princess of Wales--The _Oxford
Magazine_ on the valour of the Lord Mayor--The view taken by
the _Political Register_--Ballad on Lord Mayor Harley’s seizure
of the “Boot and Petticoat”--Surrender of Wilkes--Released
by the rabble--His second surrender--“The Scot’s Triumph; or,
a Peep behind the Curtain”--Wilkes a prisoner in the King’s
Bench--The Wilkes riots in St. George’s Fields--Southwark in
a state of siege--The military under arms--Wilkes’s address
from the King’s Bench Prison, “To the Gentlemen, Clergy, and
Freeholders of the County of Middlesex”--The mob demonstration
outside the King’s Bench on the opening of parliament--The
Riot Act read--The massacre of St. George’s Fields--The case
of William Allen, deliberately assassinated--“The Scotch
Victory; murder of Allen by a Grenadier.--St. George’s Fields,
1768”--The ministerial approval of the butcheries by the
soldiers--Justice Gillam--The circumstances of the riot--The
soldiers tried--The murderer shielded from justice; his escape,
and subsequent pension--Horne Tooke as a witness--He brings
the guilty to justice--The defence by the Government--“The
Operation,” 1768--“Murder screened and rewarded” 157
CHAPTER VII.
Death of Cooke, Tory member for Middlesex, 1768--A fresh
election--Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes’s advocate, a Radical
candidate for the vacant seat; opposed by Sir W. Beauchamp
Proctor--Proctor’s mob of hired ruffians--“The Hustings
at Brentford, Middlesex Election”, 1768--Prize-fighters
employed to terrorize the electors--Dastardly attack
on the hustings--Glynn’s “Letter to the Freeholders of
Middlesex”--Proctor’s repudiation of the charge of “hiring
banditti”--Horne Tooke’s “Philippic” to Proctor--The true
facts of the case--The circumstantial account given in the
_Oxford Magazine_--The rioters beaten off--Electioneering
manœuvres: summoning electors as jurymen--The bruisers
recognized--Broughton engaged as generalissimo of the
forces--An expensive contest--Glynn’s letter of acknowledgment
to his constituents--The “Parson of Brentford”--Poetical
tributes to Horne Tooke--Results of the injuries inflicted
by the hired ruffians: Death of Clarke--“The Present State
of Surgery; or, Modern Practice,” 1769--Trial of Clarke’s
murderers--The bruisers defended by the ministers--Found
guilty, and sentenced to transportation, but receive a royal
pardon and pensions for life--Partial conduct and verdict of
the College of Surgeons--“A Consultation of Surgeons”--The
petitions and remonstrances addressed to the Throne--Colonel
Luttrell sent to parliament, though not duly elected, to
represent Middlesex in place of Wilkes--An unconstitutional
vote of the Commons: “296 votes preferred to 1143”--Lord
Bacon on the lawful power of Parliaments--The Crown and its
advisers, and the odium attaching to their unconstitutional
proceedings--Servile addresses--The loyal address from the
“Essex Calves”--“The Essex Procession from Chelmsford to St.
James’s Market for the Good of the Common-Veal,” 1769--Charles
Dingley, “the projector”--The bogus city address--“The
Addressers”--The _fracas_ at the King’s Arms, Cornhill--A
battle-royal--“The Battle of Cornhill,” 1769--Administrative
bribes of preference “Lottery Tickets”--“The Inchanted
Castle; or, King’s Arms in an Uproar,” 1769--Walpole’s
account of the procession--“The Principal Merchants and
Traders assembled at the Merchant Seamen’s Office to sign
y^e Address”--“Epistle to the _North Briton_,” 1769--The
“Abhorrers” of Charles II.’s reign revived--The Administration
arraigned with their crimes--Address of the Quakers to James
II.--“The conduct of ninety-nine in a hundred of the people
of England ‘Abhorred’”--The loyal address forwarded to St.
James’s Palace--“The Battle of Temple Bar,”--The addressers
routed--“Sequel to the Battle of Temple Bar: Presentation of
the Loyal Address at St. James’s Palace,” 1769--The fight
at Palace Yard--“The Hearse,” and Lord Mountmorres--The
lost Address recovered--Account of the procession from the
_Political Register_--The _Town and Country Magazine_--A royal
proclamation against the rioters: _Gazette Extraordinary_--“The
Gotham Addressers: or, a Peep at the Hearse”--“A Dialogue
between the Two Heads on Temple Bar,” 1769 178
CHAPTER VIII.
More petitions and remonstrances to the king--Petition
of the Livery of London--The king’s advisers denounced
by the citizens--An arraignment of ministerial crimes
and misdemeanours--Undue prerogative and its abuses--The
alienation of our colonies, and the consequent loss of
America--The king’s contemptuous reception of the city
petition--Disrespect shown to the corporation at the Court
of St. James’s--Threatening attitude of the military--An
unscrupulous and tyrannical ministry--A poetical petition--The
king visits the city petition with “severe censure”--A more
stringent remonstrance prepared--The violated “right of
election”--An unrepresentative parliament--“The true spirit
of parliaments”--“The constitution depraved”--The Coronation
Oath violated--The king’s answer, condemning the former
petition, and the city remonstrance--“Nero fiddled while
Rome was burning”--Further popular agitations--Horne Tooke’s
“Address to the Freeholders of the county of Middlesex”--“The
Middlesex Address, Remonstrance and Petition”--“Constitutional
liberties attacked in the most vital part”--“A self-elected
and irresponsible Parliament”--The petitions from Middlesex
and Kent received at St. James’s in silence--The Westminster
remonstrance--Corrupt administration of the House of
Commons--The king prayed to dissolve a parliament no longer
representing the people--The right of petitioning impeached
by the Commons--The king replies that “he will lay the
remonstrance before parliament”--“Making a man judge in his
own trial”--The undignified reception of the Westminster
remonstrance--Parliamentary counter-petitions at the
bidding of corrupt ministers--The city vote of thanks to
Lord Chatham, for his patriotic “zeal for the rights of the
people”--The king’s answer considered at a general assembly
of the citizens--Alderman Wilkes on the violation of the
rights of election and of the constitution--The recorder
characterises the remonstrance as a libel--The conduct of
ministers in the case of Colonel Luttrell’s election--A fuller
remonstrance from the city--The results of the Revolution of
1788 contravened--The king’s answer--Beckford requests leave
to reply--His dignified speech to the king--The king remains
silent--“Nero did _not_ fiddle while Rome was burning”--The
courtiers abashed--The king prorogues parliament with an
address approving of the conduct of both Houses--The citizens
eventually triumph in “the cause of Liberty and of the
Constitution”--Lord Chatham’s eulogium pronounced upon the
“patriotic spirit of the metropolis”--Beckford and Chatham,
the champions of popular rights--The national importance of
their conduct at this crisis of our history--Civic honours
paid to Beckford--His speech to the king inscribed on the
monument erected to his memory in the Guildhall--The corrupt
ministers cowed--An uncontested election for Westminster,
1770--Sir Robert Bernard’s nomination--His election, without
expense or disorder--Speeches of Sir J. Hussey Delaval and
Earl Mountmorres on the late conduct of the Government--The
advantages of leaving the people to the legitimate exercise of
their liberties, uninfluenced by the administrative interest,
corruption, and undue influence, the usual features at an
election. 207
CHAPTER IX.
“The Spendthrift Election,” Northampton, 1768--Expensive
contests, the defeated men appearing in the
_Gazette_--Colchester; Hampshire--Three noble patrons
adversaries at Northampton: the Earls of Halifax,
Northampton, and Spencer--Open-house at ancestral seats--The
“perdition of Horton”--The petition and scrutiny on the
Northampton election--The event referred to chance--Cost
of the contest--The results of the reckless expenditure
upon the fortunes of the patrons--Sir Francis Delaval at
Andover, 1768--His attorney’s bill: item, “to being Thrown
out of window, £500”--Reckoning without the host--An
hospitable entertainment--Returning thanks--The Mayor
_versus_ the Colonel--“Sir Jeffery Dunstan’s Address to
the Electors of Garratt,” 1774: a parody upon election
manifestoes-“Lord Shiner’s Appeal to the Electors of
Garratt”--Bribery at elections, and “controverted election
petitions”--Various methods of acquiring “Parliamentary
interest”--Boroughs cultivated for the market, like
other saleable commodities--Patronage--Buying up
burgage-tenures--Recognized prices of votes--The Ilchester
tariff--“Dispensers of seats”--Lord Chesterfield’s experience
of borough-jobbing--The seven electors of Old Sarum--Typical
sinks of corruption--Boroughbridge, Yorkshire--“The last
of the Boroughbridges”--A solitary franchise-holder; one
man returning two representatives--The bribery scrutiny,
Hindon, 1774--203 bribed electors out of a constituency of
210--Wholesale corruption--Bribing candidates committed to the
King’s Bench--A fine of “a thousand marks”--Boroughmongering
at Milborne Port--Lord North’s agent--A wholesale purchase
of “bailiwicks”--Supineness of the Commons and ministerial
influence--Corrupt bargains ignored by the House--Illegal
interference of peers and lords of parliament in elections;
Westminster election, 1774--“Money, meat, drink, entertainment
or provision”--The partiality of persons in power manifested
at “election bribery commissions”--The “king’s menial servants
disqualified”--“Direct solicitation of the peers”--Worcester,
1774, wholesale swearing-in of electors as special
constables--Convenient formula for defeating evidence of
bribery before the House--High-Sheriffs returning themselves,
Abingdon, 1774--The instance of Sir Edward Coke--“The sheriff
in no respect the returning officer for boroughs”--The
election made void by the sheriff returning himself--Morpeth,
1774--An election determined by main force--The candidate
forcibly returning “himself and friend”--A “bribing” candidate
preferred to a “main-force” candidate--Petersfield, Hants--The
Shaftesbury “Punch,”--Pantomimic method of distributing
bribes--The mysterious “Glenbucket”--Sudbury, 1780--A wager on
the result of a controverted petition--A mayor insisting upon
carrying on an election all night--The Shaftesbury “Punch”
outdone by the Shoreham “Christian Society”--A well-organized
scheme for “burgessing business”--The “Society” a “heap of
bribery”--Stafford, 1780; The price paid by R. B. Sheridan
for his seat--Tom Sheridan a candidate for Stafford, on his
father’s retirement, 1806--The successful candidate for
Stafford presented with a new hat at the hustings, by a
subscription of his constituents--“A Mob-Reformer,” 1780--The
first entry into public life of William Pitt--“The spirit of
the country in 1780”--Pitt seated for Appleby, one of Sir James
Lowther’s pocket-boroughs--Pitt’s early political friends:
the Duke of Rutland and Lord Euston--Pitt’s letter to his
mother, Lady Chatham, on his coming election--No necessity to
visit constituencies--Choice of seats offered to the young
premier, 1784--Nominated for the City of London--Invited
to stand for Bath, represented by his late father Earl
Chatham--Pitt returned for the University of Cambridge,
1784, which he represented till his death--The dissolution
delayed by the theft of the Great Seal from the Chancellor’s
residence, 1784--Pitt’s letter to Wilberforce on the coming
elections--Pitt “a hardened electioneerer”--The war carried
into the great Whig strongholds--The subscription to forward
Wilberforce’s return for Yorkshire--Earl Stanhope on “Fox’s
Martyrs”--Fox’s courage under adversity--Wilkes returned as the
ministerial representative for Middlesex--Wilkes’s “address
to the electors”--“The Back-stairs Scoured”--“The boldest
of bilks”--“Reconciliation of the Two Kings of Brentford,”
1784--“The New Coalition,” 1784--Charles James Fox’s first
entry into public life--Returned for Midhurst, 1769--His first
speech on the Wilkes case--Wilkes at a levée: he denounces to
the king his friend Glynn as a “Wilkite”--Canvass of Pitt’s
friends--The poet Cowper’s description of Pitt’s cousin, the
Hon. W. W. Grenville, seeking for suffrages--The amenities of
canvassing in the old days: saluting the ladies and maids--A
most loving, kissing, kind-hearted gentleman--W. W. Grenville
and John Aubrey returned for Buckinghamshire, 1784 226
CHAPTER X.
The Great Westminster election of 1784--Wilkes’s famous
election contest for Middlesex dwarfed by comparison-State
of political excitement--Relations of parties in the
Commons--Fox’s India Bill--“Carlo Khan”--Downfall of the
Coalition Ministry--Pitt made premier by the will of the
king--“Back-stair influence,” and Court intrigues--“The
royal finger”--Hostility of the East India Company against
Fox--An administration called to power with a working
minority--Defeated on division--Vote of want of confidence--The
House dissolved--The great election campaign--“The storm
conjured up”--The popular aversion to the late Coalition
Ministers shown at the hustings--“The royal prerogative exerted
against the palladium of the people”--Horace Walpole on the
situation--The Whig losses all over England--Fox’s contest for
Westminster--A forty days’ poll--The metropolis in a state of
ebullition--Party cries--The streets a scene of combat--The
rival mobs--The Guards--Hood’s sailors; their violent
partisanship and reckless attacks--The “honest mob”--Fox’s
narrow escape--The Irish chairmen beat the sailor-mob--A
series of pitched battles--Partial behaviour of the special
constables--Their interference and violence--Flood of ballads
and political squibs--Rowlandson’s caricatures on the
contest--The odium revived against the late Coalition Ministry;
turned to political account by the Court party--“The Coalition
Wedding: the Fox and the Badger quarter their Arms”--“Britannia
aroused; or, the Coalition Monsters destroyed”--Pitt’s election
manœuvres; his bidding for the favour of the citizens--Pitt
presented with the freedom of the city--“Master Billy’s
Procession to Grocers’ Hall”--The king threatens to retire
to Hanover in the event of a defeat--Ministerial wiles--Bids
of place and pension--Extensive “ratting”--“The Apostate
Jack Robinson, the Political Rat-catcher. N.B. Rats taken
alive!”--“The Rival Candidates: Fox, Hood, and Wray”--Rival
canvassers--“Honest Sam House, the Patriotic publican”--The
hustings, Covent Garden--The “prerogative standard”--“Major
Cartwright, the Drum-Major of Sedition”--“The Hanoverian
Horse and the British Lion”--“Fox, the Incurable”--Fair
canvassers--The ladies of the Whig aristocracy a bevy of
beauty; the Duchess of Devonshire, the Countess of Duncannon,
the Duchess of Portland, Lady Carlisle, etc.--“The Devonshire,
or Most Approved Manner of securing Votes”--“A Kiss for a
Vote”--Tory lady canvassers: Lady Salisbury, the Hon. Mrs.
Hobart--“Madame Blubber, the Ærostatic Dilly”--Walpole’s
account of the canvassing--Fox’s favour with the fair--The
Duchess of Devonshire’s exertions on behalf of the Whig
chief--Earl Stanhope on “Fox’s Martyrs”--His account of
the contested election--Pitt’s letters on the Westminster
election, to Wilberforce, and James Grenville--Pitt’s account
of the country elections--His anxiety about Westminster--Earl
Stanhope’s summary of the Westminster election--Ballads on
the contest--“The Duchess Acquitted; or, the True Cause of
the Majority on the Westminster Election”--Tory libels on the
Duchess of Devonshire--“The Wit’s Last Stake; or, the Cobbling
Voters and Abject Canvassers”--“The Poll”--Animadversions
against Sir Cecil Wray--“Lords of the Bedchamber”--“The
Westminster Watchman”--A flood of _jeux d’esprit_--“On undue
influence”--“A concise Description of Covent Garden at the
Westminster election”--“Stanzas in Season”--The Prince of Wales
a zealous partisan of Fox--“Lady Beauchamp, Lady Carlisle, and
Lady Derby at the Hustings”--Poetical tributes--The Duchess
of Devonshire saves the Whig cause at Westminster--“On the
Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Duncannon canvassing for
Fox”--“On a certain Duchess”--Horace Walpole’s nieces, the
Ladies Waldegrave, “the three Sister Graces,” canvassing
for Fox--“Epigram on the Duchess of Devonshire”--“Impromptu
on her Grace of Devon”--“Ode to the Duchess”--“The Paradox
of the Times”--A new Song, “Fox and Freedom”--The downfall
of Wray--“The Case is Altered”--Bringing in outlying
voters--“Procession to the Hustings after a Successful
Canvass”--“Every Man has his Hobby-Horse”--Fox carried into the
House by the duchess--_Exit_ Sir Cecil Wray!--“For the Benefit
of the Champion--a Catch.” “No Renegado!” Wray defeated--“The
Westminster Deserter drumm’d out of the Regiment”--Apotheosis
of the fair champion--“Liberty and Fame introducing Female
Patriotism (the Duchess of Devonshire) to Britannia”--The
close of the poll--Wray demands a scrutiny--Partial and
illegal conduct of the high bailiff as returning-officer--Fox
triumphant--The ovation--The chairing procession--Two days
of festivities--The reception at Devonshire House--The
Prince of Wales’s rejoicings--The fête at Carlton
Palace--Rival interests--Mrs. Crewe’s rout--The tedious and
prolonged progress of the scrutiny--Fox for Kirkwall--“The
Departure”--Fox recovers damages against the high bailiff
for illegality in refusing to make a return--The affair only
settled a year later--“Defeat of the High and Mighty Balissimo
Corbettino and his Famed Cecilian Forces, on the Plains of
St. Martin,” 1785--Corbett ordered by the court to make his
return--Cast in damages--Fox’s final majority 257
CHAPTER XI.
Another Westminster election, 1788--Lord Hood appointed
to the Admiralty Board, 1788--A fresh contest--Lord John
Townshend, a candidate in the Whig interest--Defeat of Lord
Hood--Two Whig members for Westminster--Mob violence, the
Guards, Hood’s sailors--Ministerial support--“Election Troops
bringing their Accounts to the Pay-table” (Treasury Gate),
1788, by J. Gillray--“An Independent Elector”--Helston,
Cornwall, 1790--Lady canvassers--A violent “eccentric”--“Proof
of the Refined Feelings of an Amiable Character, lately a
Candidate for a Certain Ancient City,” by J. Gillray--“The
‘Marplot’ of his Own Party”--Abuses of patronage--Traditions
of boroughmongering--Accumulations of seats and parliamentary
interests--Cartwright’s tables of pocket boroughs--Pitt’s early
patron, Sir James Lowther--“The tyrant of the North”--“Pacific
Entrance of Earl Wolf (Lord Lonsdale) into Blackhaven,”
1792--Great distress prevalent throughout the country, in
1795; its effect on political agitation--Political clubs
clamour for parliamentary reform--The king and his advisers
in disfavour--Revolutionary societies and the “Seditions
Bill”--Gillray’s caricatures--“Meetings of Political Citizens
at Copenhagen House,” 1795--Whig agitation against the
threatened incursions on the “liberty of the subject”--“The
Majesty of the People”--“A Hackney Meeting,” 1796--A threatened
constitutional struggle averted by a dissolution of parliament,
1796--Pitt’s tactics--“The Dissolution; or, the State Alchymist
producing an Ætherial Representation,” 1796--Mr. Hull’s
costly electioneering experience at Maidstone, 1796--Horne
Tooke unsuccessful at Westminster, 1790 and 1796--Fox and
the favour of the mobocracy--“The Hustings, Covent Garden,”
1796--Electioneering squibs--The _Anti-Jacobin_ and the
member for Southwark--Canning’s lines on George Tierney,
“The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-grinder,” 1797--Grey’s
reform measure first moved in 1797--Defeat of the Whigs,
and their temporary abstention from the debates--Increased
political agitation out of doors--Great reform meetings--Medal
commemorative of the gathering at Warwick--“Loyal Medal,” a
parody of the “Greathead” patriotic medal--The secession of
“the party”--Horne Tooke as a political agitator--The Brentford
Parson’s pamphlets--Horne Tooke a political portrait painter,
and the _Anti-Jacobin_--“Two Pair of Portraits, dedicated to
the Unbiased Electors of Great Britain,” 1798--Meeting on the
twentieth anniversary of Fox’s membership for Westminster--The
Whig chief’s speech to his constituents--“The Worn-out Patriot;
or, the Last Dying-Speech of the Westminster Representative
at the Shakespeare Tavern,” 1800--Horne Tooke seated for “Old
Sarum”--The opposition to his membership led by Temple--Lord
Camelford’s nominees--“Political Amusements for Young
Gentlemen; or, the Brentford Shuttlecock,” 1801--“Horne Tooke
as the ‘Shuttlecock’”--Unexpected honours thrust upon Captain
Barlow at Coventry, 1802--Middlesex Election for 1804--The
Brentford Hustings--“A Long Pull, a Strong Pull, and a Pull
All Together;” Sir Francis Burdett drawn to the poll--“The
Governor in his Glory,” 1804--The Westminster election,
1806--The Radical Reformers--“Triumphal Procession of Little
Paull”--“The Highflying Candidate mounting from a Blanket,”
1806--The coalition between Hood and Sheridan--Paull tossed
at the hustings--Burdett for Middlesex--“Posting to the
Election; or, a Scene on the Road to Brentford,” 1806--William
Cobbett “A Radical Drummer,” 1806--“Coalition Candidates,”
Hood and Sheridan--Sheridan disconcerted--“View of the
Hustings in Covent Garden, Westminster Election,” 1806--“Who
suffers?”--The general election, 1807--A split in the Radical
camp--Differences between Burdett and Paull--“Patriots deciding
a Point of Honour; or, the Exact representation of the
Celebrated Rencontre which took place at Coombe Wood, between
Little Paull the Tailor and Sir Francis Goose,” 1807--“The Poll
of the Westminster Election,” 1807--“the Republican Goose at
the Top, etc.”--Horne Tooke and Sir Francis Burdett--“The Head
of the Poll; or, the Wimbledon Showman,” 1807--“The Chelmsford
Petition; Patriots addressing the Essex Calves” 289
CHAPTER XII.
The “royal” Duke of Norfolk an enthusiastic
“electioneerer”--Wilberforce’s electioneering experiences--His
contest for Hull--The price of freemen--The great fight for
Yorkshire, 1807--“The Austerlitz of Electioneering”--The
candidates, Wilberforce, Lord Milton and Lascelles--The
Fitzwilliam and Harewood interests--Three hundred thousand
pounds expended--The voluntary subscription to defray the
expenses of Wilberforce’s candidature--The poll--The county
in a state of ferment--Election wiles; false rumours;
“Bruisers”--All the conveyances bespoke--Wilberforce’s
victory--His motives for the contest--“Groans of the
Talents”--Personation--Female canvassers under false
colours--Travelling expenses of electors--Carrying cargoes
of freeholders by water--Kidnapping--The caricaturists on
elections--Customary episodes of a Westminster election,
delineated by Rowlandson and Pugin--George Cruikshank as
an election caricaturist--The “Speaker’s Warrant” for
committing Burdett to the Tower, 1810--“The Little Man in
the Big Wig,” 1810--“The Election Hunter,” 1812--“Saddle
White Surrey for Cheapside”--Southwark election, 1812--“The
Borough Candidates”--“An Election Ball,” 1813--The Westminster
election, 1818--“The Freedom of Election: or, Hunt-ing
for Popularity and Plumpers for Maxwell,” 1818--“Hunt, a
Radical Reformer”--“A Political Squib on the Westminster
Election,” 1819--“Patriot Allegory, Anarchical Fable, and
Licentious Parody”--Major Cartwright, an unsuccessful
candidate--Cartwright’s Petition to the House of Commons
on the needful reform of a corrupt representative
system, 1820--Statistics of borough-mongering--“Sinks
of corruption”--“353 members corruptly imposed on the
Commons”--The coming elections of 1820--John Cam Hobhouse--His
imprisonment--“Little Hob in the Well”--“A Trifling
Mistake--corrected,” 1820--Radicals--“The Root of the King’s
Evil; Lay the Axe to it,” 1820--The Riot Act--“The Law’s Delay.
Showing the advantage and comfort of waiting the specified time
after reading the Riot Act to a Radical Mob; or, a British
Magistrate in the Discharge of his Duties, and the People
of England in the Discharge of Theirs,” 1820--“The Election
Day”--Dissolution of Parliament, 1820--“Coriolanus addressing
the Plebs,” 1820--“Freedom and Purity of Election! Showing the
Necessity of Reform in the Close Boroughs,” 1820--“Radical
Quacks giving a new Constitution to John Bull,” 1820--Burdett
and Hobhouse as Radical Reformers 324
CHAPTER XIII.
The last parliament of George IV.’s reign--The country
clamorous for retrenchment--The Tory _régime_ growing
irksome--The king’s illness, 1830--John Doyle’s caricatures
upon public events (HB’s “political sketches”)--“Present
State of Public Feeling Partially Illustrated,”
1830--Death of the king--“The Mourning Journal: Alas! Poor
Yorick!”--“The Magic Mirror; or, a Peep into Futurity”--The
Princess Victoria--Accession of William IV.--Whig
prospects reviving--Brougham, “A Gheber worshipping the
Rising Sun”--Wellington, a “Detected Trespasser”--Party
intrigues--“Anticipation; or, Queen Sarah’s Visit to
Bushy”--The old campaigner--“_Un_-Holy Alliance; or, an
Ominous Conjunction”--The general election, 1830--“Election
Squibs and Crackers for 1830. Before and After the
Election”--Caricaturists, as politicians, usually above party
prejudices--W. Cobbett returned for Oldham--“Peter Porcupine”
an M.P.--“A Characteristic Dialogue”--Changes of seats--“The
Noodle Bazaar”--Heads for Cabinets--John Bull and the
_Times_--“The man that is easily led by the nose”--“Resignation
and Fortitude; or, the Gold Stick”--“The Rival Candidates;”
Boai and Grant--Wellington’s leadership threatened: “The
Unsuccessful Appeal”--The popular will--Attacks upon the
Wellington and Peel Ministry--Results of the general election
unfavourable to the Cabinet--“A Masked Battery”--“A Cabinet
Picture”--“Guy Fawkes; or, the Anniversary of the Popish
Plot”--Defeat foreshadowed--“False Alarm; or, Much Ado
about Nothing”--The Eastern Question fatal to Wellington’s
Ministry--“Scene from the Suppressed Tragedy entitled the
Turco-Greek Conspiracy”--“His Honour the Beadle (William IV.)
driving the Wagabonds out of the Parish”--The adoption of
liberal progress--Preliminary skirmishing--“The Coquet”--The
ministry thrown out--“Examples of the Laconic Style”--“A
very Prophetical and Pathetical Allegory,” 1831--Reform on
the road--“Leap-Frog down Constitution Hill,” 1831--Another
appeal to the country--“Anticipated Radical Meeting”--The
dissolution--“Great Reform” Specialists; John Bull and his
constitutional deformity--“Hoo-Loo-Choo, _alias_ John Bull,
and the Doctors”--“May-Day”--“Leap-Frog on a Level; or,
Going Headlong to the Devil”--The Reformers having it all
their own way--A swinging pace--Political squibs on the
elections of 1831--The great battle of Lord Grey’s Reform
Bill--“The New Chevy Chase,” a poetical version of the reform
struggle--“Votaries at the Altar of Discord”--“Peerless
Eloquence”--Slaughter of the Innocents--“Niobe
Family”--Extinction of pocket boroughs--Reform at a breakneck
pace--“John Gilpin”--William IV. carried away by the old
Grey--“The Handwriting on the Wall: ‘Reform Bill!’”--A warning
to reformers--Grey and “Brissot’s Ghost”--“Macbeth” and “The
Tricoloured Witches”--Grey, Durham, and Brougham--Althorp and
Russell--A tub to a whale--“A Tale of a Tub, and the Moral
of the Tail”--Renovations at the King’s Head: “Varnishing--A
Sign (of the Times)”--“The Rival Mount-o’-_Bankes_; or, the
Dorsetshire Juggler”--Root-and-branch reform--“LINEal Descent
of the Crown,” a hint from Hogarth’s works, 1832--Hobhouse in
office--“The Cast-off Cloak”--Radicalism over-warm--“Mazeppa”
(William IV.): “Again he urges on his wild career”--“Ministers
in their Cups” 343
CHAPTER XIV.
John Doyle, a Tory Caricaturist--The Tories out in the
cold--“The Waits,” 1833--Grey and the king--“Sindbad the
Sailor and the Old Man of the Sea,” 1833--Parliamentary
reform not carried far enough--Burdett, Hume, and O’Connell:
“Three Great Pillars of Government; or, a Walk from White
Conduit House to St. Stephen’s,” 1834--“Time running away
with the Reform Bill”--General election, 1834-5--Party
competition--“The Opposition ’Busses”--“Original Design
for the King’s Arms, to be placed over the New Speaker’s
Chair,” supporters, Burdett and Cobbett--“Inconveniences that
might have arisen from the Ballot”--Bribery and violence
discounted--General election of 1835--Broadside squibs on the
Windsor election--Tory view of the decline of the British
constitution, “A New Instance of the Mute--ability of Human
Affairs,” 1837--Appeal to the Constituencies in 1837--“Going
to the Fair with It: a cant phrase for doing anything in an
extravagant way”--Contortions of statesmen to keep in place:
“Ins and Outs”--“Fancy Ball: Jim Crow Dance and Chorus,”
1837--Conversion of Sir Francis Burdett from Radicalism to
Toryism--“A Fine Old English Gentleman, one of Olden Time,”
1837--A bye-election for Westminster--Burdett opposed by
Leader--“Following the Leader”--“May-Day in 1837”--Whig
gambols--Sir Francis Burdett invites the verdict of his
Westminster constituents upon his change of front--Thackeray’s
pictorial squib on the event--“The Guide”--“The Rivals; or,
Old Tory Glory and Young Liberal Glory,” 1837--Sir Francis
Burdett re-elected--His valedictory speech at the Westminster
hustings, 1837--His quarrel with Daniel O’Connell, the
Liberator--Defeat of Leader--“The Dog and the Shadow”--“Race
for the Westminster Stakes between an Old Thoro’bred and a
Young Cock-tail; weight for age. The old ’un winning in a
canter,” May, 1837--“Taking up a Fare: All the World’s a
Stage”--Burdett’s attack on Democracy--“The Last and Highest
Point at which the unheard-of Courage of Don Quixote ever did,
or could arrive, with the Happy Conclusion”--“An Old Song to
a New Tune”--“The Raddies”--Fate of Leader--“A Dead-horse:
a sorry subject; what was once a Leader in the Bridgwater
Coach”--“The Three Tailors of Tooley Street. We, the People
of England”--“Reorganizing the (Spanish) Legion”--Burdett
for North Wilts--“Grinding Young”--Lord Durham--“The Newest
Universal Medicine”--“The Rejected of Kilmarnock”--Joseph Hume
defeated at Middlesex--“Figurative Representation of the Late
Catastrophe!”--Dan O’Connell providing the rejected candidates
with seats--“Great Western General Booking Office”--Hume for
Kilkenny--“Shooting Rubbish”--The interval before parliament
reassembled--“Retzsch’s Extraordinary Design of Satan Playing
at Chess with Man for his Soul,” 1837--Party tactics--“A Game
at Chess (again): the Queen in Danger”--“High Life below
Stairs (inverted), as lately performed at Windsor by her
Majesty’s servants”--“Election Day: a Poetical Sketch from
Nature”--The hustings--The chairing--John Sterling’s poem,
“The Election,” 1841--A New Election at Aleborough--Rival
Houses--The Candidates--The attorneys--A corrupt bargain--The
canvassing--Indirect bribing--The Bribery Act set at
naught--Female voters, a fanciful prospect by George
Cruikshank--“Rights of Women; or, a View of the Hustings with
Female Suffrage,” 1835--Memorable electioneering experiences:
Two eminent writers as candidates for seats in parliament,
1857--Incidents in the canvassing of James Hannay--W. M.
Thackeray’s contest at Oxford--Summary of bribery at elections:
Bribery Acts 374
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
SEPARATE PLATES.
PAGE
THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN; OR, A VIEW OF THE HUSTINGS WITH
FEMALE SUFFRAGE. 1835 _Frontispiece_
READY MONEY, THE PREVAILING CANDIDATE; OR, THE HUMOURS
OF AN ELECTION 84
THE HUMOURS OF A COUNTRY ELECTION. 1734 90
TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER. VERNON AND
EDWIN. 1741 97
MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF
WESTMINSTER: THE SPY DETECTED. MARCH, 1747 109
THE HUMOURS OF THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION; OR, THE SCALD
MISERABLE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS IN THE SUDS. 1747 113
GREAT BRITAIN’S UNION; OR, THE LITCHFIELD RACES. 1747 114
BRITANNIA DISTURBED BY FRENCH VAGRANTS. LORD TRENTHAM FOR
WESTMINSTER. 1749 121
ALL THE WORLD IN A HURRY; OR, THE ROAD FROM LONDON TO
OXFORD. 1754 134
THE OXFORDSHIRE ELECTION--THE POLLING BOOTH. 1754 145
“WILKES AND LIBERTY” RIOTS. THE SCOTCH VICTORY. MURDER OF
ALLEN BY A GRENADIER. MASSACRE OF ST. GEORGE’S FIELDS. 1768 174
THE HUSTINGS AT BRENTFORD, MIDDLESEX ELECTION, 1768. SERJEANT
GLYNN AND SIR W. BEAUCHAMP PROCTOR 178
SEQUEL TO THE BATTLE OF TEMPLE BAR--PRESENTATION OF THE LOYAL
ADDRESS AT ST. JAMES’S PALACE. 1769 201
MASTER BILLY’S PROCESSION TO GROCERS’ HALL--PARLIAMENTARY
ELECTIONS--PITT PRESENTED WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE CITY. 1784 264
THE APOSTATE JACK ROBINSON, THE POLITICAL RAT-CATCHER. 1784 265
THE RIVAL CANDIDATES--GREAT WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1784 266
THE HANOVERIAN HORSE AND THE BRITISH LION. MARCH, 1784 268
THE WIT’S LAST STAKE; OR, THE COBBLING VOTER AND ABJECT
CANVASSERS 275
LORDS OF THE BEDCHAMBER 276
THE WESTMINSTER WATCHMAN 277
THE CASE IS ALTERED 281
THE PROCESSION TO THE HUSTINGS AFTER A SUCCESSFUL CANVASS 282
THE WESTMINSTER DESERTER DRUMMED OUT OF THE REGIMENT. DEFEAT
OF SIR CECIL WRAY. HUSTINGS, COVENT GARDEN, WESTMINSTER
ELECTION. 1784 284
LIBERTY AND FAME INTRODUCING FEMALE PATRIOTISM (DUCHESS OF
DEVONSHIRE) TO BRITANNIA. 1784 285
DEFEAT OF THE HIGH AND MIGHTY BALISSIMO CORBETTINO AND HIS
FAMED CECILIAN FORCES, ON THE PLAINS OF ST. MARTIN, ON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1785, BY THE CHAMPION
OF THE PEOPLE AND HIS CHOSEN BAND 287
PROOF OF THE REFINED FEELINGS OF AN AMIABLE CHARACTER, LATELY
A CANDIDATE FOR A CERTAIN ANCIENT CITY 293
PACIFIC ENTRANCE OF EARL WOLF (LORD LONSDALE) INTO BLACKHAVEN.
1792 296
MEETING OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS AT COPENHAGEN HOUSE, 1795.
SPEAKERS: THELWALL, GALE JONES, HODSON, AND JOHN BINNS 298
THE DISSOLUTION; OR, THE ALCHYMIST PRODUCING AN ÆTHERIAL
REPRESENTATION. WILLIAM PITT DISSOLVING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1796 300
TWO PAIR OF PORTRAITS. PRESENTED TO ALL THE UNBIASED ELECTORS
OF GREAT BRITAIN. 1798 305
MIDDLESEX ELECTION, 1804. A LONG PULL--A STRONG PULL--AND A
PULL ALL TOGETHER 312
POSTING TO THE ELECTION; OR, A SCENE ON THE ROAD TO BRENTFORD.
1806 315
THE LAW’S DELAY. READING THE RIOT ACT. 1820 334
CORIOLANUS ADDRESSING THE PLEBS. 1820 338
ELECTION SQUIBS AND CRACKERS FOR 1830 346
HIS HONOUR THE BEADLE (WILLIAM IV.) DRIVING THE WAGABONDS OUT
OF THE PARISH. NOV. 28, 1830 354
LEAP-FROG DOWN CONSTITUTION HILL. APRIL 13, 1831 356
HOO-LOO-CHOO, _alias_ JOHN BULL, AND THE DOCTORS. MAY 2, 1831 357
LEAP-FROG ON A LEVEL; OR, GOING HEADLONG TO THE DEVIL. MAY
6, 1831 358
JOHN GILPIN. MAY 13, 1831 366
“THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL.” MAY 26, 1831 367
VARNISHING--A SIGN (OF “THE TIMES”). JUNE 1, 1831 370
THE RIVAL MOUNT-O’-_Bankes_; OR, THE DORSETSHIRE JUGGLER. MAY
25, 1831 371
MAZEPPA--“AGAIN HE URGES ON HIS WILD CAREER.” AUG. 7, 1832 372
THREE GREAT PILLARS OF GOVERNMENT; OR, A WALK FROM WHITE
CONDUIT HOUSE TO ST. STEPHEN’S. JULY 23, 1834 376
INCONVENIENCES THAT MIGHT HAVE ARISEN FROM THE BALLOT 378
SMALLER ILLUSTRATIONS.
CANDIDATES ADDRESSING THEIR CONSTITUENTS _Title page_
WALPOLE CHAIRED. 1701 79
THE PREVAILING CANDIDATE; OR, THE ELECTION CARRIED BY BRIBERY
AND THE D----L 82
KENTISH ELECTION. 1734 86
THE DEVIL ON TWO STICKS. 1741 92
WESTMINSTER--THE TWO-SHILLING BUTCHER. 1747 111
THE ELECTION AT OXFORD--CANVASSING FOR VOTES. 1754 144
THE OXFORDSHIRE ELECTION--CHAIRING THE MEMBERS. 1754 147
GEORGE BUBB DODINGTON (LORD MELCOMBE REGIS) AND THE EARL OF
WINCHILSEA. 1753 149
BURNING A PRIME MINISTER IN EFFIGY. 1756 155
JOHN WILKES, A PATRIOT 159
A BEAR-LEADER. HOGARTH, CHURCHILL, AND WILKES 160
A SAFE PLACE. WILKES IN THE TOWER, 1763 162
THE NEW COALITION--THE RECONCILIATION OF “THE TWO KINGS OF
BRENTFORD.” 1784 254
A MOB-REFORMER. 1780 256
THE COALITION WEDDING--THE FOX (C. J. FOX) AND THE BADGER
(LORD NORTH) QUARTER THEIR ARMS ON JOHN BULL 263
BRITANNIA AROUSED, OR THE COALITION MONSTERS DESTROYED 264
HONEST SAM HOUSE, THE PATRIOTIC PUBLICAN, CANVASSER FOR FOX 266
MAJOR CARTWRIGHT, THE DRUM-MAJOR OF SEDITION 267
THE DEVONSHIRE, OR MOST APPROVED MANNER OF SECURING VOTES. 1784 270
EVERY MAN HAS HIS HOBBY HORSE--FOX AND THE DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE 282
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHAMPION--A CATCH. DEFEAT OF THE
MINISTERIAL CANDIDATE, SIR CECIL WRAY, WESTMINSTER
ELECTION. 1784 283
ELECTION TROOPS BRINGING THEIR ACCOUNTS TO THE PAY-TABLE,
WESTMINSTER. 1788 290
AN INDEPENDENT ELECTOR 291
AT HACKNEY MEETING--FOX, BYNG, AND MAINWARING 299
THE HUSTINGS--COVENT GARDEN. 1796 301
THE FRIEND OF HUMANITY AND THE KNIFE-GRINDER 302
LOYAL MEDAL. 1797 305
THE WORN-OUT PATRIOT, OR THE LAST DYING SPEECH OF THE
WESTMINSTER REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE ANNIVERSARY MEETING,
HELD AT THE SHAKESPEARE TAVERN, OCTOBER 10, 1800 308
POLITICAL AMUSEMENTS FOR YOUNG GENTLEMEN, OR THE BRENTFORD
SHUTTLECOCK BETWEEN OLD SARUM AND THE TEMPLE OF ST.
STEPHEN’S. 1801 310
THE OLD BRENTFORD SHUTTLECOCK--JOHN HORNE TOOKE RETURNED
FOR OLD SARUM. 1801 310
BRITANNIA FLOGGED BY PITT--THE GOVERNOR IN ALL HIS GLORY. 1804 313
THE HIGHFLYING CANDIDATE, LITTLE PAULL GOOSE, MOUNTING FROM
A BLANKET--_Vide_ HUMOURS OF WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1806 315
COALITION CANDIDATES--SHERIDAN AND SIR SAMUEL HOOD. 1806 316
A RADICAL DRUMMER. 1806. W. COBBETT 317
VIEW OF THE HUSTINGS IN COVENT GARDEN--WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
1806 318
PATRIOTS DECIDING A POINT OF HONOUR; THE DUEL AT WIMBLEDON,
BETWEEN SIR FRANCIS BURDETT AND JAMES PAULL. WESTMINSTER
ELECTION. 1807 320
THE POLL OF THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION, 1807. ELECTION CANDIDATES;
OR, THE REPUBLICAN GOOSE AT THE TOP OF THE POLL. ON
THE POLL: BURDETT, COCHRANE, ELLIOTT, SHERIDAN, PAULL;
BELOW ARE TEMPLE, GREY, GRANVILLE, PETTY, ETC. 321
THE HEAD OF THE POLL; OR, THE WIMBLEDON SHOWMAN AND HIS
PUPPET. 1807. TOOKE AND BURDETT 322
THE CHELMSFORD PETITION: PATRIOTS ADDRESSING THE ESSEX CALVES 323
THE FREEDOM OF ELECTION; OR, HUNT-ING FOR POPULARITY, AND
PLUMPERS FOR MAXWELL. 1818 332
HUNT, A RADICAL REFORMER 334
THE GHEBER WORSHIPPING THE RISING SUN. JULY 6, 1830 345
WILLIAM COBBETT--“PETER PORCUPINE” 348
SINDBAD THE SAILOR AND THE OLD MAN OF THE SEA. JUNE 8, 1883 375
DESIGN FOR THE KING’S ARMS, TO BE PLACED OVER THE SPEAKER’S
CHAIR. FEB. 17, 1835 377
A HISTORY OF
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
IN THE OLD DAYS.
CHAPTER I.
CONCERNING EARLY PARLIAMENTS AND ELECTIONS OF KNIGHTS AND BURGESSES.
The subject of elections being so indissolubly bound up with that of
parliamentary assemblages and dissolutions, it will not be out of place
to glance at the progress of that institution. John was the first
king recorded to summon his barons by writ; this was directed to the
Bishop of Salisbury. In 1234 a representative parliament of two knights
from every shire was convened to grant an aid; later on (1286) came
the parliament of Merton; and in 1258 was inaugurated the assembly
of knights and burgesses, designated the _mad_ parliament. The first
assembly of the Commons as “a confirmed representation” (Dugdale) was
in 1265, when the earliest writ extant was issued; while, according
to many historians, the first regular parliament met in 1294 (22 Edw.
1), when borough representation is said to have commenced. From a
deliberative assembly, it became in 1308 a legislative power, without
whose assent no law could be legally constituted; and in 1311, annual
parliaments were ordered. The next progressive step was the election
of a Speaker by the Commons; the first was Peter de la Mare, 1377. A
parliament of _one_ day (September 29, 1399), when Richard II. was
deposed, is certainly an incident in the history of this institution;
the Commons now began to assert its control over pecuniary grants.
In 1404 was held at Coventry the “Parliamentum Indoctum” from which
lawyers were excluded (and that must have offered a marked contrast
to parliaments in our generation). In 1407 the Lords and Commons
assembled to transact business in the Sovereign’s absence. Reforms
were clearly then deemed expedient: in 1413 members were obliged to
reside at the places they represented,--this enactment has occasioned
expense and inconvenience in obeying “the letter,” but appears to
have otherwise been easily defeated as regards “the spirit;”[1] in
1430 the Commons adopted the forty-shillings qualification for county
members. A parliament was held at Coventry in 1459; this was called
the _Diabolicum_. The statutes were first printed in 1483; in 1542
the privilege of exemption from arrest was secured to members; and in
1549 the eldest sons of Peers were admitted to sit in the Commons.
With James I. commenced those collisions between the Crown and the
representatives of the people which marked the Stuart rule. The Commons
resisted those fine old blackmail robberies known during preceding
reigns as “benevolences,” under which plea forced contributions were
levied by the Crown, especially during Elizabeth’s reign. James I.
pushed these abuses too far, in his greed for money.
The parliament of 1614 refused to grant supplies until grievances
were redressed; James dismissed them, and imprisoned several members.
This short session was known as the “Addled Parliament.” The “Long
Parliament” assembled in 1640, and the House of Peers was abolished by
it in 1649; and later on, a Peer sat in the Commons. This parliament,
proving intractable, was dissolved by Cromwell in 1653. Under Charles
II., with the restoration of monarchy, the Peers temporal resumed
their functions, and in 1661 the Lords spiritual were allowed to
resume their seats, and the Act for triennial parliaments was unwisely
set aside by the Commons. The relations between the Crown and the
Commons were again becoming strained in 1667, when an Act excluding
Roman Catholics from sitting in either House was forced through the
legislature. From this point the narrative of electioneering incidents
may commence, the more appropriately since it was at this time there
arose the institution of the familiar party distinctions of Whig and
Tory.
The orders for the attendance of members and the Speaker were somewhat
curious; for instance, among the orders in parliament regulating
procedure, the following are noteworthy:--
Feb. 14, 1606.--The House to assemble at eight o’clock, and
enter into the great business at nine.
May 13, 1614.--The House to meet at seven o’clock in the
morning, and begin to read bills at ten.
Feb. 15, 1620.--The Speaker not to move his hat until the third
_congée_.
Nov. 12, 1640.--Those who go out of the House in a confused
manner before the Speaker to forfeit 10_s._
May 1, 1641.--All the members that come after eight to pay
1_s._, and those that do not come the whole day to pay 5_s._
April 19, 1642.--Those who do not come to prayers to pay 1_s._
Feb. 14, 1643.--Such members as come after nine o’clock to pay
1_s._ to the poor.
March 21, 1647.--The Speaker to leave the chair at twelve
o’clock.
May 31, 1659.--The Speaker to take the chair constantly every
morning by eight o’clock.
April 8, 1670.--The back door in the Speaker’s chamber to be
nailed up during the session.
March 23, 1693.--No member to take tobacco into the gallery, or
to the table, sitting at committees.
Feb. 11, 1695.--No news-letter writer to presume to meddle with
the debates, or disperse any in their papers.
Orders touching motions for leave into the country:--
Feb. 13, 1620.--No member shall go out of town without open
motion and licence in the House.
March 28, 1664.--The penalty of £10 to be paid by every knight,
and £5 by every citizen, etc., who shall make default in
attending.
Nov. 6, 1666.--To be sent for in custody of the serjeant.
Dec. 18, 1666.--Such members of the House as depart into
the country without leave, be sent for in custody of the
serjeant-at-arms.
Feb. 13, 1667.--That every defaulter in attendance, whose
excuse shall not be allowed this day, be fined the sum of £40,
and sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower till the
fine be paid.
That every member as shall desert the service of the House
for the space of three days together (not having had leave
granted him by the House, nor offering such sufficient excuse
to the House as shall be allowed), shall have the like fine
of £40 imposed on them, and shall be sent for in custody, and
committed to the Tower; and that the fines be paid into the
hands of the serjeant-at-arms, to be disposed of as the House
shall direct.
April 6, 1668.--To pay a fine of £10.
A few words of explanation regarding technicalities will be found
in place, since the qualifications of voters have a distinctive
language of their own, used to indicate their various degrees of
electoral privilege. The terms, “burgage tenures,” “scot and lot,”
“pot-wallopers,” “splitting,” “faggot votes,” etc., occur constantly,
and it may be desirable to indicate in advance the meanings attached to
these enigmatical expressions.
Burgage tenures consist of one undivided and indivisible tenement,
neither created, nor capable of creation, within time of memory, which
has immemorially given a right of voting; or an entire indivisible
tenement, holden of the superior lord of a borough, by an immemorial
certain rent, distinctly reserved, and to which the right of voting is
incident.
Another qualification determined the right of voting “to be in such
persons as are seized in fee, in possession, or reversion, of any
messuage, tenement, or corporal hereditament within the borough, and in
such persons as are tenants for life or lives, and, for want of such
freeholds, in tenants for years determinable upon any life or lives,
paying scot and lot, and in them and in no other.”
Potwallers--those who, as lodgers, boil the pot. Pot-wallopers, or
Pot-boilers.
The word Burgess extends to inhabitants within the borough.
The right of election being generally vested “in inhabitants paying
scot and lot, and not receiving alms or any charity,” these terms
require explanation. What it is to pay scot and lot, or to _pay scot_
and _bear lot_ is nowhere exactly defined. According to Stockdale’s
“Parliamentary Guide,” compiled in 1784, it is probable that, from
signifying some special municipal or parochial tax or duty, they
came in time to be used in a popular sense, to comprehend generally
the burdens and obligations to which the inhabitants of a borough or
parish were liable as such. What seems the proper interpretation is,
that by inhabitants “paying scot and lot,” those persons are meant
whose circumstances are sufficiently independent to enable them to
contribute in general to such taxes and burdens as they are liable to
as inhabitants of the place. In Scotland, when a person petitions to be
admitted a burgess of a royal borough, he engages he will _scot_ and
_lot_, i.e. _watch_ and _ward_; and by statute (2 Geo. 1, c. 18, s. 9)
it is ascertained that in the election of representatives for the city
of London, the legislature understood _scot_ and _lot_ to be as here
explained.
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
were equally matinal. From the pamphlets, tracts, and broadsides of the
Stuart era it may be noted that the Speaker took his place in the House
at eight o’clock in the morning.
“The knights girt with swords by their sides,” as returned for the
shires of the counties, were important personages, the influential
families retaining this prerogative in their houses for generations;
the names of the great county families may be traced, according to
their respective localities, for more than a century in uninterrupted
succession as the county members, as may be observed in the compendious
lists of the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliaments summoned
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Chaucer relates of his
Frankleyn--
“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:--
“_To our much honoured and worthie Friend, J. Harrington, Esq.,
at his house at Kelston, near Bathe._
”WORTHIE SIR,
“Out of the long experience we have had of your approved worth
and sincerity, our Cittie of Bathe have determined and settled
their resolutions to elect you for Burgess of the House of
Commons in this present Parliament, for our said Cittie, and do
hope you will accept the trouble thereof: which if you do, our
desire is you will not fail to be with us at Bathe on Monday
next, the eighth of this instant, by eight of the morning at
the furthest, for then we proceed to our election. And of your
determination we entreat you to certifie us by a word or two in
writing, and send it by the bearer to
“Your assured loving friends,
”JOHN BIGG, _the Mayor_.
”WILLIAM CHAPMAN.
“Bathe.”
There is some obscurity as to the dates; according to Willis, John
Harrington sat for Bath 1658-9.
The progress of these negotiations is set down in the diary of the
worthy gentleman selected to serve:--
“A NOTE OF MY BATHE BUSINESS ABOUT THE PARLIAMENT.
“Dec. 26.--Went to Bathe and dined with the Mayor and Citizens;
conferred about my election to serve in parliament, as my
father was helpless and ill able to go any more; went to
the George Inn at night, met the Bailiffs, and desired to
be dismissed from serving; drank strong bear and metheglin;
expended about iiij_s._; went home late, but could not get
excused, as they entertained a good opinion of my father.
“Dec. 28.--Went to Bathe; met Sir John Horner; we were chosen
by the Citizens to serve for the city. The Mayor and Citizens
conferred about Parliament business. _The Mayor promised Sir
John Horner and myself a horse apiece when we went to London to
the Parliament_, which we accepted of....
“Thursday, Dec. 31.--Went to Bathe; Mr. Ashe preached [this was
before the members, probably in state at the Abbey]. Dined at
the George Inn with the Mayor and 4 citizens; spent vj_s._ in
wine.
“Laid out in victuals at the George Inn xj_s._ 4_d._
“Laid out in drinking vij_s._ ii_d._
“Laid out in tobacco and drinking vessels iiij_s._ 4_d._
“Jan. 1.--My father gave me £4 to bear out my expenses at
Bathe.”
The members were salaried at this time, being allowed from two
shillings to three shillings and fourpence, and in exceptional cases
five shillings, per day during the sessions of the Commons, although in
many instances no more than two shillings was the recognized fee;[3]
these wages were generally raised by the town, and paid in a lump sum
at the close of the sessions.
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
favour a little heightened by my being so much of a stranger
to you as indeed I am; and as you have here an open and free
acknowledgment from me of your kind and good affections in so
unanimous an election of me to serve you in Parliament, as your
letter doth express, so cannot they merit or you expect more
thanks than I do really return unto you for them. You have been
pleased cheerfully (as you say) to confer your freedom upon me.
I shall ever be zealous in maintaining yours, and, as I am not
ignorant of the great trust you have placed in me, so shall you
never be deceived in it; for ye addresses you are to make me
(as your occasion shall require) they shall not be so many as
cheerfully received, and whatsoever may concern the public good
or yours, shall ever be pursued with all faithfulness by him
that is
“Your very loving friend,
“SALSBURY.”