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 VictoriaGrego, Joseph
History
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
Grego, Joseph
Great Britain -- Politics and government; Great Britain. Parliament -- Election
“Some of the addresses in the reign of the Stuarts breathed a
very free and independent spirit. That of the Quakers, upon the
accession of King James the Second, may serve as an instance.
It was conceived in the following terms:--
“‘We come,’ said they, ‘to testify our sorrow for the death of
our good friend Charles, and our joy for thy being made our
governor. We are told thou art not of the persuasion of the
Church of England, no more than we; wherefore we hope thou wilt
grant us the same liberty which thou allowest thyself. Which
doing, we wish thee all manner of happiness.’
“There we see the Quakers, with their usual plainness and
simplicity, very roundly tell his majesty, that he was not a
member of the church of England; a circumstance, which was
then thought by many, and hath since been declared by law, to
be sufficient to disqualify him for wearing the crown of these
Kingdoms.
“But how much more courtly and polite is the language of our
present Addressers. They not only pay the highest compliments
to the King, which he certainly deserves, they even offer
the most nauseous and fulsome flattery to his ministers and
servants, and express their entire approbation of every part
of their conduct. They must therefore approve of the robbery
committed upon the Duke of Portland, of the massacre in St.
George’s Fields, of the riot and murders at Brentford, of
withdrawing MacLaughlin from the cognizance of the laws, and of
pardoning Balfe and McQuirk after they had been fairly tried
and condemned by their country.
“But, not satisfied with declaring their approbation of the
conduct of the ministry, they express their utter abhorrence
and detestation of the conduct of those who have had the
presumption to oppose them. They must, therefore, _abhor_ the
conduct of the Freeholders of Middlesex, who chose Mr. Wilkes
and Mr. Serjeant Glynn, their representatives in parliament,
in spite of all the violent, outrageous, and illegal attempts
which the ministry made to prevent them. They must _abhor_
the conduct of the 139 independent members who voted against
the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from an august assembly, of
which they form the respectable, and perhaps even the most
wealthy, tho’ not the most numerous part. They must _abhor_
the conduct of the Citizens of London, of the Citizens of
Westminster, of the Freeholders of Middlesex, and of all the
other counties and corporations, who, in their instructions to
their representatives, have disapproved of those very measures
which the Addressers approve. In a word, they must abhor the
conduct, at least the sentiments, of ninety-nine parts in a
hundred of the people of England, who, if taken separately, and
fairly interrogated, would be found to entertain opinions very
different from those of the Addressers.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account