In 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.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视 1626 年坎特伯雷选举和议会选举

1626 年，在坎特伯雷激烈的议会选举中落败后，托马斯·斯科特写信给坎特伯雷市民。最初，他计划将其提交给下议院，但案文很快变得太长，最重要的是，在评估中太有争议。学者们只能很高兴他对比赛进行了如此广泛的描述。他的书让我们看到了由酿酒商和旅馆老板主导的公司的“万能者”如何与斯科特谦逊的支持者作斗争。正如斯科特清楚地表明的那样，这场比赛并非偶然误会的结果；相反，它源于城市内部长期存在的分裂，这种分裂在 1621 年的选举中出现并一直持续到内战。在选举前几天，一群敬虔的牧师试图为斯科特集会选票，而“Rule-alls”则有系统地欺负选民。因此，尽管斯科特在选举中拥有最多的支持者，但有些人却因害怕而不敢大声表达他们的支持。在详细讨论了这一事件后，本文将重新评估有关斯图亚特早期选举的文献，尤其是马克·基什兰斯基 1986 年的著作《议会选举》。