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 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.”
The outlines of an election, when the state of “villainage,” approximating to feudal serfdom, was the condition of the labouring classes, have been sketched by Sir Francis Palgrave. From the pages of his “Truths and Fictions of the Middle Ages” we obtain a vivid picture of the manner of the quest for representatives to serve the king in parliament, as it might have presented itself to the faithful lieges in the fourteenth century, at the three annual seasons for summoning the chamber.