THE CANTERBURY ELECTION OF 1626 AND PARLIAMENTARY SELECTION REVISITED

Abstract

AbstractIn 1626, after losing a bitterly fought parliamentary election in Canterbury, Thomas Scott wrote Canterburie cittizens. Initially, he planned to present it to the House of Commons, but the text quickly became too lengthy and, most importantly, too controversial in its assessments. Scholars can only be glad that he produced such an extensive account of the contest. His book allows us to see how the ‘Rule-alls’ on the corporation, dominated by brewers and innkeepers, struggled against Scott's humbler supporters. As Scott makes abundantly clear, this contest was not a result of any chance misunderstanding; rather it stemmed from long-standing divisions within the city which emerged at the 1621 elections and continued well into the Civil War. For days before the election, a group of godly ministers sought to rally votes for Scott, while the ‘Rule-alls’ systematically bullied voters into line. Consequently, although Scott had the largest numbers of supporters at the election, some were too frightened to voice their support loudly. After discussing this episode in detail, the article will reassess the literature on early Stuart elections and particularly, Mark Kishlansky's 1986 book, Parliamentary selections.