Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations and notes
- 1 Introduction
- PART I THE ELECTORATE
- PART II ELECTIONS
- PART III AFTER THE ELECTION
- Appendices
- I Constituencies experiencing franchise disputes 1604-41
- II Case studies of disputes
- III The borough franchises in 1641
- IV Contested elections
- V Numbers of voters
- VI Voting and occupations in Hertford
- VII The provisions of bills to regulate elections
- VIII The arguments for a wider franchise
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
IV - Contested elections
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations and notes
- 1 Introduction
- PART I THE ELECTORATE
- PART II ELECTIONS
- PART III AFTER THE ELECTION
- Appendices
- I Constituencies experiencing franchise disputes 1604-41
- II Case studies of disputes
- III The borough franchises in 1641
- IV Contested elections
- V Numbers of voters
- VI Voting and occupations in Hertford
- VII The provisions of bills to regulate elections
- VIII The arguments for a wider franchise
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The occurrence of a contest is sometimes self-evident – when there is a local record of a poll, or a description of the event, or when there was an involved dispute in the House, there can be no doubt. But the records are not always so helpful, and often assumptions have to be made. I have assumed that when there was a petition or a protest in the House a contest had taken place, for nobody was likely to undertake the costly process of petitioning unless they had an interest in doing so. A further fairly safe assumption is when reference is made somewhere to the choice having been made by ‘the greater number of voices’ or some such phrase, albeit there is nothing else to substantiate the presumption. Additionally, where there is evidence of a franchise dispute in small towns, but no other data, I have concluded that a contest probably occurred, for a dispute there was less likely to be self-generated.
The definition of a contest can, unfortunately, be rather difficult, especially in closed franchises. When several gentlemen made approaches for a seat, or had requests made for them, and yet the only subsequent record is that two had been elected, often with the addition ‘unanimis assensis’, there is nothing to show that there was a contest. But presumably the gentlemen or their agents canvassed the governing body, and that body then proceeded to vote on their fate.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Representative of the People?Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts, pp. 216 - 222Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1975