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

The obstinate and infatuated zealots, who would insist on keeping up the pretence that parliaments were essential to the constitutional government of the kingdom, were, with the suspected association, treated to all the witticisms Cavalier balladists could bring to bear against preposterous attempts to assail the royal prerogative, and enforce the just balance of the State:—

The members representing Buckingham town in the fourth parliament of Charles II., 1679, were Lord Latimer and Sir Richard Temple.

The Buckingham ballad, “The Sale of Esau’s Birthright,” which relates to these members, is interesting from an electioneering point, as proving bribery, and as showing there were only thirteen electors of this limited constituency concerned in this particular return. Six voted, according to a list at the end of the ballad, “for their king and country,” and seven for Lord Latimer and Sir Timber Temple (the Earl of Danby, in another version), “for popery and their Town Hall” (“Sir R. T. his Timber, Chimney-money and Court,” according to another version). It seems certain that Sir Richard Temple had offered a present of timber for the Town Hall—in fact, some years later he is called “Timber Temple” (“State Poems”)—which was regarded as a bribe; it also appears that some delay had arisen in its payment.

The other electors were a barber, two maltsters, a baker, and a farmer; the peppery ballad castigates the former, and concludes with a groan against the members returned:—

“The Wiltshire20 Ballad,” also belonging to this so-called “group of election ballads,” professes to be—

The Court party lost no opportunity of abusing their opponents of the Constitutional and Protestant party; they not only did the Whigs the favour to hate them cordially, but, as their own satires abundantly demonstrate, they also dreaded and feared them not a little.

The more sober-sided attacks came from the opponents of overstrained prerogative and those who upheld the popular rights of representation against absolute monarchy; witness the following:—

“PLAIN DEALING,

Or a Second Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning home from choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament.

(PRINTED FOR T. B.)

Roger. Well overtook, neighbour. I see you are not a man of your word; did you not promise me, when we last met, that you would vote for our old members, that sat in the last Parliament, to be Knights of the Shire, to sit in the parliament at Oxford.

Humphrey. I thought to do so, but, by my brown cow, I have been over-persuaded to the contrary by my Landlord and his Chaplain, Mr. Tantivie, and a pestilent fine man, I think they said he was a courtier, that lay at my Landlord’s house; and what with arguments and wine, they drew aside my heart, and made me vote against my conscience.

Roger. ’Twas ill done, neighbour Numps, but all their artifices would not do, we have carried it by some hundreds for our old members, that stood so bravely for their country.

Humphrey. I am glad of it with all my heart, for, to tell you truly, tho’ my landlord had my voice, the old members had my heart, and I’ll never do so again.

Roger. I hear most of the Counties in England are of the same mind, and all the Burgess Towns, Cities, and Corporations; but what arguments could they use to alter thy mind?

Humphrey. First, I say, they made me continually drunk, and then my Landlord asked me so very civilly, and gave me so many good words, and fine promises what a kind Landlord he would be, that I forgot all your instructions; and methought he had invincible arguments to persuade me.

Roger. What were they?

Humphrey. Nay, I have forgot them; but I thought no Counsellor-at-Law, nor any Bishop, could have contradicted them: I now remember one argument that took with me; you know I was ever for the King, and he told me the King did not love the old Parliament-men, and therefore I should not vote for them; but I, being bold, asked him how he knew that.

Roger. What said he then?

Humphrey. Why he laid me as flat as a flounder, that is, he fully convinced me, for, said he, if the King had loved them he would not have dissolved them. I think that was demonstrable.

Roger. ’Tis no matter, tho’ the King did not love them, they lov’d you and your country, and you should so far have loved yourself, as not to have betrayed your own interest. What said the Courtier?

Humphrey. ‘Faith he said not much to me, but I suppose he had said enough to my Landlord.

Roger. And was this all your Landlord said to you? Had you nothing to say for yourself? You spoke rationally the last time we were together.

Humphrey. Nay, I was forward enough to speak I’ll assure you; and I told them I was sure our old members would be for the rooting up of Popery, and would stand stiffly against Arbitrary Government.

Roger. What said they then?

Humphrey. My Landlord laughed at me, and told me I had been among the Presbyterian Whigs, and bid me have a care of being cheated into Rebellion, by those two words Popery and Arbitrary Government. Then he showed me a printed paper, I think he called it The Mistress of Iniquity, which showed as plain as the nose on my face, that in ’41 they did as we do now, and by that means they brought one King to the block, and so they would now do by our present Sovereign, God bless him.

Roger. Alas! alas! and that frighted you, did it?

Humphrey. Frighted me, ay marry did it, and I think ’twould affright any honest man; you know I was always a King’s man, and I would be taught to join with those, or give my Voice for such, who, under the notion of crying against Popery and Arbitrary Government, would pull down the King and the Bishops, and set up a Commonwealth again.

Roger. Well, Numps, I believe thee to be an honest man, and there be many in this land of thy condition, that are not of any great reach in policies and tricks of State Mountebanks, and so may be easily persuaded, upon false grounds, to betray your country, your liberties, your lives, and religion.

Humphrey. Nay, that was not all; he then read another printed paper, with a hard name, I think it was Hercules Rideing, or something of jest and earnest which I laughed heartily at, and methought there were some things called ‘Querks,’ which made a jingling and noise in my ears, that I thought there was some spell in it, for it seemed to join with Mistress Iniquity, to make all the Presbyterians traitors, and most of the people of England mad and factious.

Roger. There is as much heed to be given to these pamphlets as to the jingling of Morrice-bells. They are hired to set the people together by the ears, and are Papists in masquerade; things set up to affright the people out of their senses, with the buy leave of ’41; wise men see through them, honest men are not affrighted at them, and fools and knaves only are led aside by them.

Humphrey. But don’t we do now as formerly, before the late wars? don’t we run in just the same steps as they did, who caused all the late bloody doings, as those pamphlets would make us believe?

Roger. I cannot tell what they mean by roads and highways; pray Hodge, we are now riding in the High-road to the next market-town; before the last Assizes, in this very road three or four Highwaymen rode in it too, and robbed several persons, and committed many villainous murders, and were at last caught and hanged for it; now therefore, because we are riding in the same Highway, must we honest men be accounted thieves, robbers, and murderers, and all others who travel this road? that’s a hard case.

Humphrey. You say right, neighbour Hodge, tho’ the gallows stand in the highway, we need not run our Heads against it, nor do anything to deserve it.

Roger. Shall not the people who feel the burden and groan under the oppression, and, having no other way of redress but a parliament, desire and petition for one, and cry out against such illegal and unjust proceedings, but presently they must be termed by these fellows seditious, factious, and such as would dethrone the King, and pull down the Bishops? Then all men must hereafter be afraid to speak, to vote, or to petition against grievances, lest they should be termed rebels, villains, and traitors.

---

Humphrey. O neighbour, my heart trembles! what a rogue was I to vote at random, when our all lies at stake! I did not think we had put such a trust into the hands of our Parliament-men; I thought, alas, as many do, that we chose only for form-sake, and that they were only called to Parliament to give the King money, and to do what he would have them; and we have paid so many taxes already, and given so much money, that I wished in my heart there would be no more parliaments in my days.

Roger. You see you were mistaken; ’tis the greatest trust that can be put into the hands of men, when we send to the parliament our representatives, for we entrust them with our religion, lives, liberties, and property, all we have; for they may preserve them to us, give them from us, and therefore, neighbour, we ought to be careful in whom we put this great trust, and not be persuaded by our Landlord or any flattering Courtier, or ‘horn-winding Tantivie’ of them all, to choose those whom we know not, and are not well assured of, and that we dare not confide in.”

Equally sound in argument is the following:—

“A SPEECH WITHOUT DOORS MADE BY A PLEBEIAN TO HIS NOBLE FRIENDS.

(PRINTED FOR B. T. 1681.)

Parliaments have been wont to take up some space at the first Meetings to settle the House, and to determine of unlawful elections, and in this point they never had greater cause to be circumspect than at this time: For by an abuse lately crept in, there is introduced a custom, which, if it be not seen and prevented, will be a great derogation of the honour, and a weakening of the power of your House, where the law giveth a freedom to Corporations to elect Burgesses, and forbiddeth any indirect course to be taken in their Elections, many of the Corporations are so base-minded and timorous, that they will not hazard the indignation of a Lord Lieutenant’s letter, who, under-hand, sticks not to threaten them, if he hath not the Election of the Burgesses, and not they themselves.

And commonly those that the Lords recommend are such as desire it for protection, or are so ignorant of the place they serve for, as that there being occasion to speak of the Corporation for which they are chosen, they have asked their neighbours sitting by, whether it were a sea or a land town?

The next thing that is required is Liberty of Speech, without which Parliaments have little force or power; speech begets doubts, and resolves them; and doubts in speeches beget understanding; he that doubts much, asketh often, and learns much; and he that fears the worst, soonest prevents a mischief.

This privilege of speech is anciently granted by the testimony of Philip Cominus, a stranger,24 who prefers our parliaments, and the freedom of the subject in them, above all other Assemblies; which Freedom, if it be broken or diminished, is negligently lost since the days of Cominus.

If Freedom of Speech should be prohibited, when men with modesty make repetition of the grievances and enormities of the kingdom; when men shall desire Reformation of the wrongs and injuries committed, and have no relation of evil thoughts to his Majesty, but with open heart and zeal, express their dutiful and reverent respect to him and his service; I say, if this kind of Liberty of Speech be not allowed in time of Parliaments, they will extend no farther than to Quarter-Sessions, and their Meetings and Assemblies will be unnecessary, for all means of disorder now crept in, and all remedies and redresses will be quite taken away.

As it is no manners to contest with the King in his Election of his Councillors and servants (for Kings obey no men, but their laws), so it were a great negligence, and part of Treason, for a subject not to be free in speech against the abuses, wrongs, and offences that may be occasioned by Persons in authority. What remedy can be expected from a prince to a subject, if the enormities of the kingdom be concealed from him? or what King so religious and just in his own nature, that may not hazard the loss of the hearts of his subjects, without this Liberty of Speech in Parliament? For such is the misfortune of most princes, and such is the happiness of subjects where Kings’ affections are settled, and their loves so far transported to promote servants, as they only trust and credit what they shall inform.

In this case, what subject dares complain? or what subject dares contradict the words or actions of such a servant, if it be not warranted by Freedom of a Parliament, they speaking with humility? for nothing obtaineth favour with a King, so much as diligent obedience.

The surest and safest way betwixt the King and his people, which hath the least scandal of partiality, is, with indifference, and integrity, and sincerity, to examine the grievances of the Kingdom, without touching the person of any man, further than the cause giveth the occasion: for otherwise, you shall contest with him that hath the prince’s ears open to hearken to his enchanting tongue, he informs secretly, when you shall not be admitted to excuses, he will cast your deserved malice against him, to your contempt against the King; and so will make the prince the shield of his revenge.

These are the sinister practices of such servants to deceive their Sovereigns; when our grievances shall be authentically proved, and made manifest to the world by your pains to examine and freedom to speak. No prince can be so affectionate to a servant, or such an enemy to himself, as not to admit of this indifferent proceeding: if his services be allowable and good, they will appear with glory; if bad, your labour shall deserve thanks both of Prince and country.

When justice shall thus shine, people will be animated to serve their King with integrity; for they are naturally inclined to imitate their princes in good or bad.

---

If any man shall pervert this good meaning and motion of yours, and inform his Majesty, ’Tis a Derogation from his Honour to yield to his subjects upon Conditions, his Majesty shall have good cause to prove such men’s eyes malicious and unthankful, and thereby to disprove them in all their outer actions; for what can it lessen the reputation of a Prince whom the subject only and wholly obeyeth, that a Parliament which his Majesty doth acknowledge to be his highest Council, should advise him, and he follow the advice of such a Council? What dishonour rather were it to be advised and ruled by one Councillor alone, against whom there is just one exception taken of the whole Commonwealth?

Marcus Portio saith, that that Commonwealth is everlasting, where the Prince seeks to get obedience and love, and the subjects to gain the affection of the Prince; and that Kingdom is unhappy where their Prince is served out of ends and hope of reward, and hath no other assurance of them but their service.”

The substitution of Oxford, “the hot-bed of Toryism,” for Westminster as the place of assembly for what proved Charles II.’s last parliament, was violently opposed by the members, who naturally resented this royal manœuvre of cutting off the representatives from the protection of the citizens. A petition remonstrating against the change was presented by Essex and sixteen other Peers; this darkly set forth dangers to the Crown, and reminded the king of the disasters which had always followed similar departures from the rule of London parliaments. Charles frowned, but took no heed. The parliament, forced into submission, attended at Oxford, Shaftesbury and other adherents taking with them a body-guard of armed retainers, citizens of London, wearing the Association green ribbons, with the legend, “No Popery: no Slavery!”

The doctors were dispossessed from their seats to make way for the legislators:—

Parliament met March 21, 1681. Of its short existence of eight days, three were consumed in formalities, the choice of a Speaker, and other preliminaries. The course of the action of the members was predetermined. They were to insist on the banishment and exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession. The impeachment was to be proceeded with of Fitz-Harris, who was imprisoned and awaiting trial, on an information of Everard, for being the author of a treasonable libel; it was understood, or at least expected, that the Duchess of Portsmouth and others of the Court would be implicated in his confession. The Lords voted that he should be proceeded against at Common Law, by which decision the Commons were craftily involved in a struggle for privilege and power with the Peers, who were also less impatient than themselves to carry the Exclusion Bill, the Lower House resolving that “it is the undoubted right of the Commons in parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in parliament any Peer or Commoner for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour; and that the refusal of the Lords to proceed in parliament upon such impeachment is a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution.”26

This squabble between the two branches of the legislature exactly answered the king’s occasions; he made this a pretence for again dissolving the parliament, thus saving his brother and the Duchess of Portsmouth from the designs of the Commons. As it was, Charles coolly dismissed them as impracticable and useless, telling them, “he perceived there were great heats between the Lords and Commons, and their beginnings had been such as he could expect no good success of this parliament, and therefore thought fit to dissolve them.” This was on the 28th of March. On this point the Rev. J. W. Ebsworth, M.A., who has edited the “Bagford Ballads,” which illustrate the last years of the Stuarts, remarks—

“Had they been in London, there can be no doubt they would have resisted, calling the City to support them, and voted themselves permanent, to the defiance of the King and a commencement of civil war. He saw their plan, and conquered them.”

It was the lesson of “forty-one” to be taught again, as was prophetically hinted by “the ghost of the late Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford.” In reference to the tyranny of the Commons, as opposed to the absolutism of the Crown, we find a Loyal Poem, entitled—

“THE PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED AT OXFORD.

March 28, 1681.

The actual “Oxford Poem” in the Bagford Collection is addressed:—

“ON PARLIAMENT REMOVING FROM LONDON TO OXFORD.

“THE WHIGS’ DOWNFALL.

For a fine, ancient, divine-right-of-kings effusion commend us to the following full-flavoured High Tory manifesto:—

“TO MR. E. L. ON HIS MAJESTY’S DISSOLVING THE LATE PARLIAMENT AT OXFORD.

CHAPTER III.
PARLIAMENTS AND ELECTIONEERING UNDER JAMES II., WILLIAM III., AND QUEEN ANNE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ON THE CALLING OF A FREE PARLIAMENT.
January 15, 1668-9.

The Whigs, who had effected the Revolution which placed William III. on the throne, were now in the enjoyment of place and power, to the mortification of the discomfited Tories, whose vexation on the aspect of affairs, which gave them no prospect of a return to office, found expression in satirical attacks upon their more successful adversaries.

“THE WHIGS’ ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.

Disappointment, and a long spell of disfavour at Court, embittered the Tory wits, and lent a barb to those satirical shafts which they freely launched at their powerful opponents, the Whigs in office and in parliament.

“THE PATRIOTS. 1700.

A poetic effusion, one of the relics of a parliamentary election in the reign of William III., was printed in 1701. It is entitled “The Election, a Poem,” and evidently describes an election for the city of London; the scene of the incident is the Guildhall, where the electoral struggle was fought out beneath the shelter of the civic guardians, Gog and Magog. This production, redolent of the savour of the seventeenth century, is interesting as displaying the nature of “election squibs” under an early guise. The poem opens with a brief introduction of the principal performers, and alludes to the scene of the contest.