A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days. Joseph Grego
pretexts by which they were disabled or disfranchised—an oppression which reduced representative government to a mere pretence. Yet, although these glaring illegalities were patent, they had offered such temptations as to have been condoned successively by either party in power.
At length the evils of this system were forced upon the attention of the legislature, as certain burgesses of Aylesbury (Bucks) resisted the authority of the venal officers which had prevailed unchallenged hitherto, and at length brought a criminal action against William White and other constables of the borough. One Matthew Ashby had been permitted to vote at previous elections, but on the recent occasion was denied the privilege, as his vote happened to be in favour of the candidate who had not secured the official interest. The trial came on, and proved a complicated affair. The constables lost the day at the assizes, being cast in damages. Brought before the Queen’s Bench, a majority of two judges supported the constables, although the third, Chief Justice Holt, was opposed to them. The House of Lords reversed this judgment, confirming the award of the assizes. The Commons grew indignant with the Peers at threatened encroachments, and voted that Ashby, in prosecuting his action, had committed “a breach of privilege”—that delicate offence so swiftly and severely visited with condemnation. Lastly, the Lords fulminated their censures on the Commons for crying injustice; at their order the Lord Keeper sent “a copy of the case and of their resolutions to all the Sheriffs of England, to be communicated to all the Boroughs in their counties,” enlightening all concerned upon prevailing malpractices, and serving as a caution for the future—a proceeding highly provoking to the Commons, who were powerless to hinder it. They turned their indignant wrath upon the five burgesses of Aylesbury, who followed suit to Ashby, against White: when their actions were brought against the borough constables, as returning officers, for the refusal of their votes, “the House of Commons, on plea of breach of privilege, committed the five to Newgate, where they lay imprisoned three months.” By a curious turn of the tables, when their trial came on at the Queen’s Bench, Chief Justice Holt declared they ought to be discharged, but, being remanded, the prisoners were removed into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and the Commons were covered with disgrace by the after-proceedings. The dilemma was obviated by the queen interfering with a prorogation, followed by a dissolution on the 5th of April, 1705, which thus concluded the last session of Queen Anne’s first parliament.
The “loyal Tackers,” who fought so hard to get their own way under the easy sovereignty of their “gracious Anna,” were occasionally treated to hard rubs by their opponents, the stedfast Whigs, whose prospects again brightened at the close of Anne’s reign.
“THE OLD TACK AND THE NEW.
“The Tack34 of old, was thought as bold As any Tack could be, Sir; Nor is the Age yet void of Rage, As any man may see, Sir.
“The Tack before was Thirty-four,
Besides an even Hundred;
But now, alas! So low it was,
That people greatly wonder’d.
“If Tacks thus lose, It plainly shows,
The Spirit of the Nation;
That we may find, For Time, behind,
They’ll lose their Reputation.
“Before the Jacks35 were said to Tack Our loyal fine Pretences; But here folks say, The Humour lay To bring us to our Senses.
“Religious Laws, was then the Cause,
Occasional Conforming;
Did not agree with true Piety,
And set the Church a storming.
“But now ’tis come, they Tack in fine,
After a great Consumption;
And therefore thought to have it brought
In, by way of Resumption.
“Thus Projects, and thus Patriots chang’d,
The House appear’d so civil;
Both Tacks, which cost such Pains were lost,
And thrown out to the Devil.”
In 1695, the legislature passed a severe act against bribery and treating, the first of a series of similar preventative measures which have been found requisite from time to time down to our own day.
That this act was needed is proved by the records of the immense sums expended in corrupting the suffrage. Addison’s patron, Thomas, Marquis of Wharton, is calculated to have spent eighty thousand pounds of his own fortune in electioneering. This spirited nobleman, who was one of the most energetic Whigs, and largely instrumental in bringing over the Prince of Orange, has been regarded as the greatest adept at electioneering which England ever saw, and, says Hannay, “may pass as the patriarch of the art in this country.” It is certain that his abilities were admirably adapted to the purpose of exercising this control. It was his policy “to forward the designs of an oligarch by the attraction of a demagogue,” a branch of higher art, which has had imitators in this age. He managed to return from twenty to thirty members, at an expenditure of thousands, backed by a happy persuasive knack of carrying all before him. Nor did he stop at an occasional duel by the way. In the general election of 1705 alone, he spent twelve thousand pounds. But cash, pluck, enterprise, and activity would have been less conspicuous had they not been supplemented by what has been called a “born genius for canvassing,” as is proved from the “Memoirs” which appeared shortly after his death in 1715. Wharton’s biographer introduces the subject of an electoral contest for the borough of Wicombe, at the beginning of Anne’s reign. His Whig lordship having recommended two candidates of his own choice, the staunch Church party, in a flutter of indignation, put up two High Tory candidates, and money was freely spent on both sides. A friend of one of the High Church candidates being desirous of witnessing the progress made by this canvasser, was invited down to Wicombe to watch the proceedings, and it was he who imparted the details to the compiler of the “Memoirs.”36 The “Tantivy” party arrived to find my Lord Wharton before them, accompanied by his two protégées, going up and down the town securing votes for the Whig interest. The Tory candidates and a very few followers marched on one side of the street, Lord Wharton’s candidates and a great company on the other.
“The gentleman, not being known to my lord or the townsmen, join’d with his lordship’s men to make discoveries, and was by when my lord, entering a shoemaker’s shop, asked ‘where Dick was.’ The good woman said ‘her husband was gone two or three miles off with some shoes, but his lordship need not fear him—she would keep him tight.’ ‘I know that,’ says my lord, ‘but I want to see Dick and drink a glass with him.’ The wife was very sorry Dick was out of the way. ‘Well,’ says his lordship, ‘how does all thy children? Molly is a brave girl I warrant by this time.’ ‘Yes, I thank ye, my lord,’ says the woman: and his lordship continued—‘Is not Jemmy breeched yet?”
This conversation convinced the witness that his friend’s chances were hopeless in opposing a great Peer who could display such an intimate knowledge of the electors and their families. To the said marquis does Dr. Percy attribute the famous Irish ballad of “Lillibulero,” which is said to have had effects more powerful than the philippics of Demosthenes or the orations of Cicero, and certainly contributed not a little towards the revolution in 1688.
In the days of Queen Anne, the arrival of a popular candidate of the High Tory type was welcomed in a stately manner by the supporters of the “Church” cause, as appears from “Dyer’s Letters.”
“May 5th.—From Exon, we have an account of the honourable reception there of John Snell, Esq., one of the representatives in the late parliament, an honest, loyal, and brave Tacker, who arrived from London on the 1st inst., having been met some miles out of town by above 500 horse and some 1000 foot, composed of the neighbouring gentry, with the clergy, aldermen, and principal citizens; who conducted him to his own house with the city