A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days. Joseph Grego
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 10s.
May 1, 1641.—All the members that come after eight to pay 1s., and those that do not come the whole day to pay 5s.
April 19, 1642.—Those who do not come to prayers to pay 1s.
Feb. 14, 1643.—Such members as come after nine o’clock to pay 1s. 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