Husting

A husting originally referred to a native Germanic governing assembly, the thing. By metonymy, the term may now refer to any event, such as debates or speeches, during an election campaign where one or more of the representative candidates are present. The term is used synonymously with stump in the United States.

Development of the term

The origin of the term comes from the Old English hasting or Old Norse húsþing, literally the "house thing," meaning the assembly of the household of personal followers or retainers of a king, earl or chief, contrasted with the "folkmoot," the assembly of the whole people.

"Husting," or more usually the plural "hustings," developed to mean a court of the city of London. This court was formerly the county court for the city and was held before the Lord Mayor, the sheriffs and aldermen, for the purpose of hearing pleas of land, common pleas and appeals from the sheriffs. It had probate jurisdiction and the ability to register wills. The Charter of Harthacnut (1032) contains a reference to "hustings" weights, which points to the early establishment of this court. It is doubtful whether courts of this name were held in other towns, but John Cowell (1554–1611) in his Interpreter (1601) s.v., "Hustings," says that according to Fleta there were such courts at Winchester, York, Lincoln, Isle of Sheppey and elsewhere. However, the passage from Fleta, as the New English Dictionary points out, does not necessarily imply this (II. lv. Habet etiam Rex curiam in civitatibus ... et in locis ... sicut in Hustingis London, Winton, est.).

This hustings court jurisdiction eventually became obsolete, but the court still sits occasionally for registering gifts made to the city. Today, the Hustings Court tradition can be found in some areas of the United States, such as in Virginia, where Hustings Courts formerly decided local criminal and other matters.^[1][2] In Richmond, Virginia, there is also a park called Hustings Court Square,^[3] where polling votes used to take place.

Eighteenth and early nineteenth century practice

The husting was a platform or pavilion, a temporary structure erected at the place of an election. The returning officer (in most borough constituencies the Mayor or equivalent civic dignitary, and in county elections the High Sheriff of the county) was responsible for the detailed timing of the election and the provision of a suitable husting. County elections took place at a single place of election, which was usually the county town or a large town.

On the appointed day the returning officer attended at the husting with the prospective candidates (or the agent of a candidate who was not present in person). The candidates, with a proposer and a seconder for each, addressed the assembled voters. This could sometimes be a difficult task in a large urban constituency, where unpopular speakers might be shouted down.

At the conclusion of the speeches, a show of hands was taken. This was an informal indication of the opinion of the voters and no official record was kept of how many voted for a particular candidate. Sometimes a candidate who found he had little support or otherwise did not want to continue declined to call for a poll. One example of this was seen in the 1784 election for the four seats of the City of London. William Pitt the Younger was proposed and "was returned on the show of hands, but removed himself from consideration before the polling was completed.^[4]

If after this process there were no more candidates nominated and willing to go to the poll than seats to be filled, the existing candidates were declared elected. This was called an "unopposed return". But if there remained more candidates than vacancies, the polling commenced.

During polling, each vote was declared openly on the husting, with the elector orally declaring for whom he was casting a ballot. The vote was recorded in a poll book, along with the name of each voter (which enabled further enquiries to be made about his eligibility to vote, if a scrutiny was called for at the end of the polling). In certain occasions, additional candidates were nominated as the polling continued, since this gave an opportunity for more speeches. Polling could continue for many days, so long as there were voters wanting to participate and the candidates desired to continue. A maximum of fifteen days for polling was imposed by law in the eighteenth century.

At the end of the polling, the returning officer was required to declare the result from the husting and return the members elected. This could be a problem after a hotly contested election, and rioting was not unheard of. The 1722 election in Westminster was declared void on account of such rioting.

Modern usage

A pre-election husting at the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency, England

In British usage during the 1800s, husting meant a platform in the Guildhall on which the London court was held. It evolved to mean a platform upon which the public nomination of candidates for a parliamentary election was made, and from which the candidate addressed the electors.

The Ballot Act 1872 did away with the public declaration of the nomination, however, so the term has not been used in that context since then. The word now refers to any meeting at which more than one candidate participates. This may involve a combination of a debate, speeches or questions from the electors.

The term is still in use at several universities in the U.K. and Ireland, in connection with student elections.

North America

In American political usage, there is no exactly equivalent term. The closest phrase is that a person is said to be "stumping" or "on the stump" when involved in any political campaigning, especially speech making. (See Stump speech (politics)).

In current Canadian usage the word is found only in the plural, to mean the campaign trail, or to refer to events of the campaign.^[5]

References

• Electoral Reform in England and Wales, by Charles Seymour (David & Charles Reprints 1970)

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "^{article name needed}". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.