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 — John Shaqi
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
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 it was decided that Mr. Duncombe had
done his spiriting so clumsily that neither he nor his colleague could
be considered duly elected as burgesses to serve in the parliament in
question, and the petitioners ought to be returned in their places.
In 1826 the Earl of Radnor was patron of this same borough of Downton,
Sir T. B. Pechall and the Hon. Bouverie being its representatives, and
the votes being vested in the persons having a freehold interest in
burgage tenures and held of the Bishop of Winchester; the number of
voters is not given--possibly J. J. Stockdale (election agent), who
compiled the “Election Manual,” was unable to discover any.
It seems that, while they were permitted to exist, those qualifications
which surrounded burgage tenures were founded on shadowy premises; for
instance, Horsham (Sussex) was summoned to send burgesses to parliament
from the 28th of Edward I. According to Bohun, the Duke of Norfolk, as
lord thereof, held the entire election in his own hands, the bailiffs,
chosen by the duke’s steward in the court-leet held at Michaelmas,
having been the principal officers which returned members to serve
in parliament; while as to the constituents and their suffrages, the
qualifications for these add a fresh and startling paragraph to the
subject:--
“The house or land that pays twelve pence a year to the Duke,
is called a whole burgership; but these tenancies have been
splitted into such small parts, that he who has only so much
land, or part of a house, as pays two pence a year, is now by
custom entitled to vote for members to serve in parliament; but
it is the tenant of the freehold, though not resident in the
place, or occupier of the house, or land, that has the right to
vote.”
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account