4 ms·
"Prior to the 18th century, serving in Parliament was often regarded as an obligation to be accepted reluctantly, rather than an honour to be eagerly sought. Vo
by toyg 3y ago
"Prior to the 18th century, serving in Parliament was often regarded as an
obligation to be accepted reluctantly, rather than an honour to be
eagerly sought. Voluntarily relinquishing a seat was not, therefore,
something to be encouraged."
How times have changed. I'm sure a lot of that attitude was just posturing, but still: ambition for power had to be somewhat dressed up in clothes of virtue. Now we've fundamentally dispatched with virtue, and simply put up with the (supposedly) less scummy of the lot.
- michaelt 3y agoPrior to 1911, MPs didn't get paid. Which of course meant only the very rich could afford to seek election. Back in the 1850s paying MPs was a working class demand, hoping for working class communities to be represented by working class people.
- caf 3y agoIn those times it wasn't really a position of power, though - the crown in practice had considerable control over the parliament, and attending parliament would have often meant a considerable cost in time and money. Imagine jury duty, but it's on the other side of the world and you have to pay for your own flights and hotels.
- jrumbut 3y agoAnd also imagine that in a time where a new set of clothes cost a considerable share of your income.
- jrumbut 3y ago> I'm sure a lot of that attitude was just posturing I'm guessing that it had a lot to do with the differences in transportation and communication at the time. You had to leave your house and your fields and possibly your family and then go far away and start making the people back home, who are near your house with all your stuff in it, very angry at you. It was an interruption in the business that you the leading burgess in your town and a position of physical and financial (and reputational) vulnerability.