A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days. Joseph Grego
II.’s parliaments discloses—the discords of the previous reign were revived; the “town and country party” petitioned zealously for the reassembling of parliament, while the Court party counter-petitioned “to declare their abhorrence of the late tumultuary petitioning.” Those who were urging on the struggle for popular representation and freedom were designated Petitioners, the king’s “friends” were voted “betrayers of the liberties of the people, and abettors of arbitrary power,” and expressively stigmatized as Abhorrers;9 from these two parties, which were ready to exterminate one another, arose the nicknames of Whigs and Tories, as is explained in Tindal’s “Rapin.”10
The “Abhorrers,” who were the mainstay of Charles’s utterly unconstitutional procedure, although as courtiers they hoped for their reward from the king, did not get much tolerance from the Commons: when the parliament at last reassembled, several members were expelled from the House on this pretence alone, and they consigned to the Tower that Sir Francis Withers who had been knighted for procuring and presenting the loyal address from the city of Westminster; the majority at the same time recording, as a gage of battle to their opponents, the resolution (October, 1680), “That it is the undoubted right of the subject to petition for the calling of a parliament, and that to traduce such petitions as tumultuous and seditious is to contribute to the design of altering the constitution.” The Tories at that time and long after maintained the doctrines of “divine hereditary indefeasible right, lineal succession, passive obedience, prerogative, etc.”
That a determined attitude was felt to be fitting is exhibited in the protests of the House, printed for circulation, like the following:—
“Wednesday, October 27, 1680.
“Two Unanimous votes of this present Honourable and Worthy Parliament concerning the subjects’ rights in Petitioning.
”Resolved, Nemine Contradicente—
That it is and ever hath been the undoubted Right of the subjects of England to petition the King for calling and sitting of parliaments, and redressing of Grievances.
“Resolved, Nemine Contradicente—
That to traduce such Petitioning is a violation of duty, and to represent it to his Majesty as Traitorous and seditious, is to betray the Liberty of the Subjects, and contributes to the design of subverting the ancient, legal Constitution of this Kingdom, and the Introducing Arbitrary Power.
”Ordered—That a Committee be appointed to enquire of all those Persons as have offended against these Rights of the subject.
“London: Printed for Francis Smith, Bookseller, at the Elephant and Castle, near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill.”
Francis Smith was the publisher—
“who suffered a Chargeable Imprisonment in the Gaol of Newgate, in December last, for printing and promoting Petitions for the Sitting of this present Parliament.”
He is referred to with acrimony in the ballads by Tantivy and courtier bards, among the “pestiferous crew of republican scribes.”
Charles’s first parliament was, amid the confusion of the time (the revolution subverted and royalty restored), barely constituted; it lasted from April 25, 1660, to December 29th, and, being assembled without the king’s writ, was, with customary royal ingratitude for “past favours,” considered by Charles as the Convention Parliament.11 The long Cavalier Parliament, some portion of which, like the king, was in the pay of Louis XIV., is stigmatized to posterity as the “Pensionary” Parliament; it met May 8, 1661, and lasted until January 24, 1679; the members were doubly corrupt, accepting money-bribes or lucrative offices from the Court, or being, according to Barillon’s clear declarations, in the pay of France and Holland, as regarded the patriotic members, who fiercely denounced the venality of the Court. In 1675 the oath against bribery was opportunely inaugurated, providing against corruption either from the Crown or from any ambassador or foreign minister. The Pensionary Parliament, which began its career by servile loyalty, and was merciless against Republicans, towards its close opposing the unreasonable extension of prerogative became factious and insubordinate, arrogating to itself the control of legal procedure, and, according to the opinions of extreme Royalists, generally proving itself a “scourge.”
The popular view of this venal legislature is given in the following version:—
“A PENSIONER PARLIAMENT:
ANSWER TO THE BALLAD CALLED ‘THE CHEQUER INN.’
“Curse on such representatives!
They sell us all, our bairns and wives,
(Quoth Dick with indignation);
They are but engines to raise tax,
And the whole business of their acts
Is to undo the nation.
“II.
“Just like our rotten pump at home,
We pour in water when ’twon’t come,
And that way get more out,
So when mine host does money lack,
He money gives among the pack,
And then it runs full spout.
“III.
“By wise Volk, I have oft been told,
Parliaments grow nought as they grow old,
We groan’d under the Rump,
But sure this is a heavier curse,
That sucks and drains thus ev’ry purse,
By this old Whitehall pump.”
Another warning note is struck in the following ballad, aimed at the reprobated Pensionary Parliament:—
“THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE TO BE LET.
“1678.
“Here’s a House to be let,
For Charles Stuart swore
By Portsmouth’s honour
He would shut up the door.
“Enquire at the Lodgings
Next door to the pope,
At Duke Lauderdale’s head
With a cravat of Rope,
“And there you will hear
How next he will let it,
If you pay the old price
You may certainly get it.
“He holds it in-tail
From his Father, who fast
Did keep it long shut,
But paid for’t at last.”
Charles II.’s third, or Habeas Corpus Parliament, showed a determination to exceed its predecessor in opposing the Court, and seemed ambitious of imitating that of 1640, the reminiscences of which were still of a portentous character, and filled with dread as regarded the survivors of those uncompromising times:—
“The Habeas Corpus act is past, And so far we are safe; He can’t imprison us so fast, But straight we have relief; He can’t deny us aught we ask, In