Title: A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days
Author: Joseph Grego
Release date: May 24, 2016 [eBook #52156]
Language: English
| Note: | Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/American Libraries. See https://archive.org/details/historyofparliam00greg |
i
ii
“THE RIGHTS of WOMEN” or the EFFECTS of FEMALE ENFRANCHISEMENT iii
Apart from political parties, we are all concerned in that important national birthright, the due representation of the people. It will be conceded that the most important element of Parliaments—specially chosen to embody the collective wisdom of the nation—is the legitimate method of their constitution. Given the unrestricted rights of election, a representative House of Commons is the happy result; the opposite follows a tampering with the franchise, and debauched constituencies. The effects of bribery, intimidation, undue influence, coercion on the part of the Crown or its responsible advisers, an extensive system of personal patronage, boroughmongering, close or pocket boroughs, and all those contraband devices of old to hamper the popular choice of representatives, have inevitably produced a legislature more or less corrupt, as history has registered. Bad as were the workings of the electoral system anterior to the advent of parliamentary reform, it speaks volumes for the manly nature of British electors and their representatives that Parliaments thus basely constituted were, on the whole, fairly honest, nor unmindful altogether of those liberties of the subject they were by supposition elected to maintain; and when symptoms of corruption in the Commons became patent, the degeneracy was not long countenanced, the national spirit being sufficiently vigorous to crush the threatened evils, and bring about a healthier state of things.
The comprehensive subject of parliamentary elections is rich in interest and entertainment; the history of the rise, vi progress, and development of the complex art of electioneering recommends itself to the attention of all who have an interest in the features inseparable from that constitution which has been lauded as a model for other nations to imitate. The strong national characteristics surrounding, in bygone days, the various stages of parliamentary election—peculiarly a British institution, in which, of all people, our countrymen were most at home—are now, by an improved elective procedure, relegated to the limbo of the past, while the records of electioneering exist but as traditions in the present.
With the modifying influence of progress, and a more advanced civilisation, the time may come when the narrative of the robustious scenes of canvassing, polling, chairing, and election-feasting, with their attendant incidents of all-prevailing bribery, turbulence, and intrigue, may be regarded with incredulity as fictions of an impossible age.
It has been endeavoured to give the salient features of the most remarkable election contests, from the time when seats began to be sought after until comparatively recent days. The “Spendthrift Elections,” remarkable in the annals of parliamentary and party warfare, are set down, with a selection from the literature, squibs, ballads, and broadsides to which they gave rise. The illustrations are selected from the pictorial satires produced contemporaneously upon the most famous electoral struggles. The materials, both literary and graphic, are abundant, but scattered; it is hoped that both entertainment and enlightenment may be afforded to a tolerant public by the writer’s efforts to bring these resources within the compass of a volume. vii
| CHAPTER I. | |
|---|---|
| PAGE | |
| The assembling of parliaments—Synopsis of parliamentary history—Orders for the attendance of members—Qualifications for the franchise: burgesses, burgage-tenures, scot and lot, pot-wallopers, faggot-votes, splitting—Disqualifications: alms, charity, “faggots,” “occasionality”—Election of knights of the shire, and burgesses—Outlines of an election in the Middle Ages—Queen Elizabeth and her faithful Commons—An early instance of buying a seat in the Commons—Returns vested in the municipal corporations; “Money makes the mayor to go”—Privileges of parliament—“Knights girt with a sword”—Inferior standing of the citizens and burgesses sent to Parliament—Reluctance of early constituencies to sending representatives to parliament—Paid members—Members chosen and nominated by the “great families”—The Earl of Essex nominating his partisans and servants—Exemption from sending representatives to the Commons esteemed a privilege—The growth of legislative and electoral independence—The beginning of “contested elections”—Coercion at elections—Lords-lieutenant calling out the train-bands for purposes of intimidation—Early violence—Nugæ Antiquæ; the election of a Harrington for Bath, 1658-9; the present of a horse to paid members—The method of election for counties, cities, and boroughs—Relations of representatives with their constituents—The “wages” of members of parliament—“Extracts from the Proceedings of Lynn Regis”—An account rendered to the burgesses—The civil wars—Peers returned for the Commons in the Long Parliament after the abolition of the House of Lords. | 1 |
| CHAPTER II. | |
| Influence of administration under Charles I.—Ballad on the Commonwealth—House of Commons: “A General Sale of Rebellious Household Stuff”—The Parliament under the Restoration—Pepys and Prynne on the choosing of “knights of the shire”—Burgesses sent up at the discretion of the sheriffs—The king’s writ—Evils attending the cessation of wages to parliamentary representatives—Andrew Marvell’s ballad on a venal House of Commons—The parliament waiting on the king—Charles II. viii and his Commons—“Royal Resolutions,” and disrespect for the Commons—The Earl of Rochester on Charles II.’s parliament—Interference in elections—Independence of legislators versus paid members—The Peers as “born legislators and councillors”—“The Pensioner Parliament” coincident with the remission of salaries to members of the Commons—“An Historical Poem,” by Andrew Marvell—Andrew Marvell as a paid member; his kindly relations with his Hull constituents—Writ for recovering arrears of parliamentary wages—Uncertainty of calling another parliament—The Duke of Buckingham’s intrigues with the Roundheads; his “Litany”—Degradation of parliament—Parody of the king’s speech—Relations of Charles II. and his Commons—Summary of Charles II.’s parliaments—Petitioners, addressers, and Abhorrers—The right of petitioning the throne—The Convention Parliament—The Long Cavalier Parliament—The Pensioner Parliament and the statute against corruption—“The Chequer Inn”—“The Parliament House to be let”—The Habeas Corpus Parliament—The country preparing for Charles II.’s fourth parliament—Election ballads: “The Poll,”—Origin of the factions of Whigs and Tories—Whig and Tory ballads—“A Tory in a Whig’s Coat”—“A Litany from Geneva,” in answer to “A Litany from St. Omer”—The Oxford Parliament of eight days—“The Statesman’s Almanack”—A group of parliamentary election ballads, 1679-80—Ballad on the Essex petitions—The Earl of Shaftesbury’s “Protestant Association”—“A Hymn exalting the Mobile to Loyalty”—The Buckingham ballad—Bribery by Sir Richard “Timber” Temple—The Wiltshire ballad—“Old Sarum”—Petitions against prerogative—The royal pretensions to absolute monarchy—The “Tantivies,” or upholders of absolute kingly rights over Church and State—“Plain Dealing; or, a Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning home from choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament, 1681;” “Hercules Rideing”—“A Speech without-doors, made by a Plebeian to his Noble Friends”—Philippe de Comines on the British Constitution—On freedom of speech—A true Commonwealth—The excited state of parties at the summoning of the Oxford Parliament, 1681—Ballads on the Oxford Parliament—The impeachment of Fitz-Harris, and the proposal of the opposition to exclude the Duke of York from the “Protestant succession”—Squabble on privilege between the Peers and Commons—The Oxford Parliament dismissed, after eight days, on this pretence—“The Ghost of the Late Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford”—“On Parliament removing from London to Oxford”—“On his Majesty’s dissolving the late Parliament at Oxford”—A “Weeked” Parliament. | 22 |
| CHAPTER III. | |
| Electioneering on the accession of James II.—A parliament summoned by James II.—The municipal charters restored in the nature of bribes—Lord Bath, “the Prince Elector,” and his progress in the west—Electioneering strategies—How Sir Edward Evelyn was unjustly cozened out of his election—The constitution of James II.’s Parliament—Inferior persons “of no account whatever” chosen to sit in the Commons—The question of supplies, the royal revenue, and prerogative—Assembling of James II.’s parliament—The ix corrupt returns boldly denounced—Violence at the elections—The abdication of James II., and the “Convention Parliament”—Accession of the Prince of Orange—Ballad “On the Calling of a Free Parliament, Jan. 15, 1678-9”—Ballads on William III.’s Parliament: “The Whigs’ Address to his Majesty,” 1689; “The Patriots,” 1700—An election under William III., for the City of London—“The Election, a Poem,” 1701; the electors, the Guildhall, the candidates; Court-schemers versus patriotic representatives; and “the liberties of the people” versus the “surrendered Charters”—Electioneering under Queen Anne—The High Church party—“The University Ballad; or, the Church’s Advice to her Two Daughters, Oxford and Cambridge,” 1705—Whigs and “Tackers”—The Nonconformity Bill—Mother Church promises to “wipe the Whigs’ nose”—The “case of Ashby and White,” and the dispute thereon between the Lords and Commons—Breaches of privilege—“Jacks,” “Tacks,” and the “Occasional Conformity Bill”—Ballad: “The Old Tack and the New,” 1712—The Act against bribery—Past-masters of the art of electioneering—Thomas, Marquis of Wharton; his election feats, and genius for canvassing-Election, 1705—“Dyer’s Letters”—Reception of a High Church “Tantivy” candidate—Discomfiture of the “Sneakers”—Lord Woodstock’s electioneering ruse at Southampton, 1705—“For the Queen and Church, Packington”—Dean Swift on election disturbances in Queen Anne’s reign—Sir Richard Steele’s mishap when a candidate for election—Steele’s parliamentary career—“The Englishman” and “The Crisis”—Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, an accomplished hand at electioneering—Her ruse against Lord Grimston—“Love in a Hollow Tree”—Dr. Johnson on scandals revived at election-time—Failure of the High Church party to bring in the Chevalier—The accession of George I., and the Tory discomfiture—“The Whigs’ answer to the Tories”—The Jacobite and Hanoverian factions—Ballads upon “Nancy,” “the Chevalier,” and George of Hanover, 1716—The disaffected and their hatred to Sir Robert Walpole—Ballad: “King James’s Declaration”—The abortive Jacobite rising in 1715—Ballad: “The Right and True History of Perkin”—The end of Perkin’s attempt. | 56 |
| CHAPTER IV. | |
| Sir Robert Walpole “chaired” on his election for Castle Rising, 1701—“Robin’s Progress”—Walpole in Parliament—His offices—Impeached by the Commons for corruption on the death of George, Prince of Denmark—Returned for King’s Lynn—Firmly established in power on the accession of George I.—“A Tory Bill of Costs for an Election in the West, 1715”—The Septennial Act, 1716—The elections of 1721—Walpole’s “universal salve”—“The Election carried by Bribery and the Devil,” 1721—Municipal corruption—Ballad: “Here’s a Minion sent down to a Corporate Town”—The elections of 1727—“Ready Money, the Prevailing Candidate; or, the Humours of an Election,” 1727—“No bribery, but pockets are free”—Ballad: “The Laws against Bribery Provision may make”—“The Kentish Election, 1734”—“The Country Interest” versus “the Protestant Interest”—Vane and Dering versus Middlesex and Oxenden—Vane’s treat to his x electors—Walpole paraded in effigy—Hogarth’s design on the election of 1734: Sir Robert Fagg—“The Humours of a Country Election,” 1734—The first suggestion for Hogarth’s series of four election prints—Plays, operas, and poems on elections—The oath imposed upon electors—“A New-year’s Gift to the Electors of Great Britain,” 1741—“The flood of corruption”—Walpole, as “The Devil upon Two Sticks,” carried through the “Slough of Despond,” 1741—“A Satire on Election Proceedings,” dedicated to “Mayors and Corporations in general,” 1741—Walpole’s lease of power threatened—Satirical version of Walpole’s “Coat of Arms”—The Westminster election of 1741—Wager and Sundon versus Vernon and Edwin—A patriotic “Address to the Independent and Worthy Electors” of Westminster, 1741—Royal canvassers—“Scene at the Westminster Election,” 1741—Lord Sundon calls in the grenadiers to close the poll—The Westminster Petition, 1741—A new election—Wager and Sundon unseated; Edwin and Percival returned—Admiral Vernon and Porto Bello—“The Funeral of Independency,” 1741—“The Triumph of Justice,” 1741—Walpole defeated—“The Banner of Liberty displayed,” 1741—A ministerial mortification—Ballads upon the Westminster election of 1741—“The Independent Westminster Electors’ Toast”—“The Downfall of Sundon and Wager”—“The Independent Westminster Choice”—“The True English-Boys’ Song to Vernon’s Glory”—Triumph of the “Country party” or “Patriots”—“The Body of Independent Electors of Westminster” constituted into a society—Their anniversary dinners—A dinner-ticket, 1744—The Stuart rising of 1745—Lord Lovat’s trial—Meeting of “The Independent Electors of the City and Liberty of Westminster” at Vintners’ Hall, March, 1747—Jacobite toasts—“The Spy detected:” ejectment of a ministerial spy from Vintners’ Hall—The state of parties at the Westminster election, 1747—Earl Gower and his son, Lord Trentham—Falling-off of the Independent party—Trentham and Warren versus Clarges and Dyke—“The Two-Shilling Butcher,” 1747—The Duke of Cumberland and the Prince of Wales as rival canvassers—The Duke of Bedford’s support of Lord Trentham—“The Jaco-Independo-Rebello-Plaido”—“The Humours of the Westminster Election; or, the Scald Miserable Independent Electors in the Suds,” 1747—Jacobite vagaries—“Great Britain’s Union; or, the Litchfield Races,” 1747—The Jacobite rebellion—Political animosities carried on to the race-course—Alternate Whig and Tory race meetings—The Duke of Bedford horsewhipped at the Litchfield races on Whittington Heath—Ballad on the fracas: “The Lords’ Lamentation; or, the Whittington Defeat,” 1747—Trentham versus Vandeput, 1749—The fracas at the Haymarket Theatre—Frenchified Lord Trentham’s deadly attack on his own electors—Gallic valour and the Admiralty Board—Ballad: “Peg Trim Tram in the Suds; or, No French Strollers,” 1749—“Britannia Disturbed, or an Invasion by French Vagrants, addressed to the Worthy Electors of the City of Westminster,” 1749—Violence and bribery—“Aux Electeurs très dignes de Westminster”—The Duke of Bedford’s oppression and injustice to his tenants—Hogarth’s print of “A Country Inn-yard at the Time of an Election,” 1747—The Hon. John Child—“No Old Baby.” | 78 |
| CHAPTER V. | |
| The Pelham Administration—Corruption rife—“The Duke of Newcastle as the Complete Vermin-Catcher of Great Britain; or, the Old Trap new baited,” 1754—Ministerial bribes and baits—Boroughmongering—“Dissection of a Dead Member (of Parliament)”—A mass of corruption—Henry Pelham’s measures—The Jews’ Naturalization Bill, 1753—Death of Pelham—“His Arrival at his Country Retirement and Reception,” 1754—Pelham’s reception across the Styx—The elections of 1754—Humours of canvassing—The election for the City of London: “The Liveryman’s Levee,” 1754—“The City Up and Down; or, the Candidates Pois’d,” 1754—City candidates: Sir John Barnard, Slingsby Bethell, William Beckford, Sir Richard Glyn, Sir Robert Ladbroke, Sir Crispe Gascoyne, and Sir William Calvert—Sir Sampson Gideon, the loan contractor, and “The Jews’ Naturalization Bill”—“A Stir in the City; or, Some Folks at Guildhall,” 1754—Ballad on the City election at the Guildhall—“The Parliamentary Race; or, the City Jockies,” 1754—Ballad on “The Parliamentary Race for the City”—The London and Oxfordshire elections—“All the World in a Hurry; or, the Road from London to Oxford,” 1754—Ballad on “The London Election”—The Oxford Election; Candidates: Wenham and Dashwood versus Turner and Parker—Ballad on the Oxford election—The four election pictures by William Hogarth having reference to the county election for Oxfordshire, 1754—“The Election Entertainment”—Humours of an election feast—“The low habits of venal wretches”—“The New Interest” versus “The Old Interest”—Election party cries in 1754: “Give us our eleven days”—Ballad on alteration in the style—Party animosities—“Act against Bribery”—“Kirton’s Best”—“Canvassing for Votes,” 1754—“Punch, Candidate for Guzzledown”—“The Royal Oak” versus “The Crown,” otherwise “The Excise Office”—“The Polling Booth,” Oxfordshire, 1754—Ballad on the humours of polling—“Chairing the Members,” 1754—Burlesque on Bubb Dodington—The dangers of chairing—A ministerial dinner, 1754—Hogarth’s sketches of “Bubb Dodington and the Earl of Winchilsea”—Murderous incidents of the Oxfordshire election—Wrecking houses—Parliamentary interest versus place—Hawking “marketable ware”—Diary of Bubb Dodington (Lord Melcombe Regis)—Overtures from the Pelhams—Bubb’s “parliamentary interest”—A prime minister—“Bubbling” a boroughmonger—The intriguer over-matched—The Bridgwater Election, 1754—Details of an election contest in 1754, from Dodington’s diary—The Duke of Newcastle, an arch-negotiator—Bubb and his “parliamentary interest” bought for nothing—The vitiating effects of bribery and corruption on a representative legislature—“Burning a Prime Minister in Effigy,” 1756—Denunciations against venal ministers and the vital injuries they inflict on the constitution. | 125 |
| CHAPTER VI. | |
| John Wilkes, the pseudo “Champion of Liberty”—W. Hogarth as a partisan—His attack on Wilkes and Churchill, the North Briton, 45—Hogarth’s unfortunate political satires—“The Times,” Plate I., xii 1762—Lord Bute as Hogarth’s patron—“The Epistle to Hogarth,” by Churchill—“The Times,” Plate II., withheld from publication; given to the public in 1790—The demagogue tried in court at Westminster—Hogarth’s print of “John Wilkes, a patriot”—The North Briton, No. 45—Severe animadversions on Hogarth by Wilkes and Churchill—The “Bruiser,” Charles Churchill, by Hogarth—His reprisal—Hogarth, Wilkes, and Churchill: “A Bear Leader”—Wilkes’s illegal imprisonment on “a general warrant”—Wilkes in the Tower—“A Safe Place,” 1763—“Daniel cast into the Den of Lions; or, True Blue will never stain,” 1763—Wilkes set at liberty—His appearance in parliament, and duel—Wilkes absconds to Paris—Is outlawed for contempt of court—Returns from Paris, and contests the City of London at the general election, 1768—The City candidates—The nomination—The poll—Wilkes at the bottom of the poll—The adulation of the mob—Wilkes’s letter to the king—His submission to the Treasury—Wilkes a candidate for the county of Middlesex—“The Return of Liberty,” and “Liberty revived”—The Brentford election—Violent conduct of the “Wilkes and Liberty” mob—Candidates for Middlesex—“No. 45 N.B.”—Wilkes returned for Middlesex—Dr. Franklin on “Wilkes and the Brentford election”—“John Wilkes elected Knight of the Shire for Middlesex, March 28, 1768, by the Free Voice of the People”—More of the “Wilkes and Liberty” riots—The mob in London—Universal turbulence—The attack on the Mansion House—“The Laird of the Boot”—“The Rape of the Petticoat”—Lord Bute and the Princess of Wales—The Oxford Magazine on the valour of the Lord Mayor—The view taken by the Political Register—Ballad on Lord Mayor Harley’s seizure of the “Boot and Petticoat”—Surrender of Wilkes—Released by the rabble—His second surrender—“The Scot’s Triumph; or, a Peep behind the Curtain”—Wilkes a prisoner in the King’s Bench—The Wilkes riots in St. George’s Fields—Southwark in a state of siege—The military under arms—Wilkes’s address from the King’s Bench Prison, “To the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders of the County of Middlesex”—The mob demonstration outside the King’s Bench on the opening of parliament—The Riot Act read—The massacre of St. George’s Fields—The case of William Allen, deliberately assassinated—“The Scotch Victory; murder of Allen by a Grenadier.—St. George’s Fields, 1768”—The ministerial approval of the butcheries by the soldiers—Justice Gillam—The circumstances of the riot—The soldiers tried—The murderer shielded from justice; his escape, and subsequent pension—Horne Tooke as a witness—He brings the guilty to justice—The defence by the Government—“The Operation,” 1768—“Murder screened and rewarded” | 157 |
| CHAPTER VII. | |
| Death of Cooke, Tory member for Middlesex, 1768—A fresh election—Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes’s advocate, a Radical candidate for the vacant seat; opposed by Sir W. Beauchamp Proctor—Proctor’s mob of hired ruffians—“The Hustings at Brentford, Middlesex Election”, 1768—Prize-fighters employed to terrorize the electors—Dastardly attack on the hustings—Glynn’s “Letter to the Freeholders of Middlesex”—Proctor’s repudiation of the charge of xiii “hiring banditti”—Horne Tooke’s “Philippic” to Proctor—The true facts of the case—The circumstantial account given in the Oxford Magazine—The rioters beaten off—Electioneering manœuvres: summoning electors as jurymen—The bruisers recognized—Broughton engaged as generalissimo of the forces—An expensive contest—Glynn’s letter of acknowledgment to his constituents—The “Parson of Brentford”—Poetical tributes to Horne Tooke—Results of the injuries inflicted by the hired ruffians: Death of Clarke—“The Present State of Surgery; or, Modern Practice,” 1769—Trial of Clarke’s murderers—The bruisers defended by the ministers—Found guilty, and sentenced to transportation, but receive a royal pardon and pensions for life—Partial conduct and verdict of the College of Surgeons—“A Consultation of Surgeons”—The petitions and remonstrances addressed to the Throne—Colonel Luttrell sent to parliament, though not duly elected, to represent Middlesex in place of Wilkes—An unconstitutional vote of the Commons: “296 votes preferred to 1143”—Lord Bacon on the lawful power of Parliaments—The Crown and its advisers, and the odium attaching to their unconstitutional proceedings—Servile addresses—The loyal address from the “Essex Calves”—“The Essex Procession from Chelmsford to St. James’s Market for the Good of the Common-Veal,” 1769—Charles Dingley, “the projector”—The bogus city address—“The Addressers”—The fracas at the King’s Arms, Cornhill—A battle-royal—“The Battle of Cornhill,” 1769—Administrative bribes of preference “Lottery Tickets”—“The Inchanted Castle; or, King’s Arms in an Uproar,” 1769—Walpole’s account of the procession—“The Principal Merchants and Traders assembled at the Merchant Seamen’s Office to sign ye Address”—“Epistle to the North Briton,” 1769—The “Abhorrers” of Charles II.’s reign revived—The Administration arraigned with their crimes—Address of the Quakers to James II.—“The conduct of ninety-nine in a hundred of the people of England ‘Abhorred’”—The loyal address forwarded to St. James’s Palace—“The Battle of Temple Bar,”—The addressers routed—“Sequel to the Battle of Temple Bar: Presentation of the Loyal Address at St. James’s Palace,” 1769—The fight at Palace Yard—“The Hearse,” and Lord Mountmorres—The lost Address recovered—Account of the procession from the Political Register—The Town and Country Magazine—A royal proclamation against the rioters: Gazette Extraordinary—“The Gotham Addressers: or, a Peep at the Hearse”—“A Dialogue between the Two Heads on Temple Bar,” 1769 | 178 |
| CHAPTER VIII. | |
| More petitions and remonstrances to the king—Petition of the Livery of London—The king’s advisers denounced by the citizens—An arraignment of ministerial crimes and misdemeanours—Undue prerogative and its abuses—The alienation of our colonies, and the consequent loss of America—The king’s contemptuous reception of the city petition—Disrespect shown to the corporation at the Court of St. James’s—Threatening attitude of the military—An unscrupulous and tyrannical ministry—A poetical petition—The king visits the city petition with “severe censure”—A xiv more stringent remonstrance prepared—The violated “right of election”—An unrepresentative parliament—“The true spirit of parliaments”—“The constitution depraved”—The Coronation Oath violated—The king’s answer, condemning the former petition, and the city remonstrance—“Nero fiddled while Rome was burning”—Further popular agitations—Horne Tooke’s “Address to the Freeholders of the county of Middlesex”—“The Middlesex Address, Remonstrance and Petition”—“Constitutional liberties attacked in the most vital part”—“A self-elected and irresponsible Parliament”—The petitions from Middlesex and Kent received at St. James’s in silence—The Westminster remonstrance—Corrupt administration of the House of Commons—The king prayed to dissolve a parliament no longer representing the people—The right of petitioning impeached by the Commons—The king replies that “he will lay the remonstrance before parliament”—“Making a man judge in his own trial”—The undignified reception of the Westminster remonstrance—Parliamentary counter-petitions at the bidding of corrupt ministers—The city vote of thanks to Lord Chatham, for his patriotic “zeal for the rights of the people”—The king’s answer considered at a general assembly of the citizens—Alderman Wilkes on the violation of the rights of election and of the constitution—The recorder characterises the remonstrance as a libel—The conduct of ministers in the case of Colonel Luttrell’s election—A fuller remonstrance from the city—The results of the Revolution of 1788 contravened—The king’s answer—Beckford requests leave to reply—His dignified speech to the king—The king remains silent—“Nero did not fiddle while Rome was burning”—The courtiers abashed—The king prorogues parliament with an address approving of the conduct of both Houses—The citizens eventually triumph in “the cause of Liberty and of the Constitution”—Lord Chatham’s eulogium pronounced upon the “patriotic spirit of the metropolis”—Beckford and Chatham, the champions of popular rights—The national importance of their conduct at this crisis of our history—Civic honours paid to Beckford—His speech to the king inscribed on the monument erected to his memory in the Guildhall—The corrupt ministers cowed—An uncontested election for Westminster, 1770—Sir Robert Bernard’s nomination—His election, without expense or disorder—Speeches of Sir J. Hussey Delaval and Earl Mountmorres on the late conduct of the Government—The advantages of leaving the people to the legitimate exercise of their liberties, uninfluenced by the administrative interest, corruption, and undue influence, the usual features at an election. | 207 |
| CHAPTER IX. | |
| “The Spendthrift Election,” Northampton, 1768—Expensive contests, the defeated men appearing in the Gazette—Colchester; Hampshire—Three noble patrons adversaries at Northampton: the Earls of Halifax, Northampton, and Spencer—Open-house at ancestral seats—The “perdition of Horton”—The petition and scrutiny on the Northampton election—The event referred to chance—Cost of the contest—The results of the reckless expenditure upon the fortunes of the patrons—Sir Francis Delaval at Andover, 1768—His attorney’s bill: item, “to being Thrown out of window, £500”—Reckoning without the host—An hospitable entertainment—Returning xv thanks—The Mayor versus the Colonel—“Sir Jeffery Dunstan’s Address to the Electors of Garratt,” 1774: a parody upon election manifestoes-“Lord Shiner’s Appeal to the Electors of Garratt”—Bribery at elections, and “controverted election petitions”—Various methods of acquiring “Parliamentary interest”—Boroughs cultivated for the market, like other saleable commodities—Patronage—Buying up burgage-tenures—Recognized prices of votes—The Ilchester tariff—“Dispensers of seats”—Lord Chesterfield’s experience of borough-jobbing—The seven electors of Old Sarum—Typical sinks of corruption—Boroughbridge, Yorkshire—“The last of the Boroughbridges”—A solitary franchise-holder; one man returning two representatives—The bribery scrutiny, Hindon, 1774—203 bribed electors out of a constituency of 210—Wholesale corruption—Bribing candidates committed to the King’s Bench—A fine of “a thousand marks”—Boroughmongering at Milborne Port—Lord North’s agent—A wholesale purchase of “bailiwicks”—Supineness of the Commons and ministerial influence—Corrupt bargains ignored by the House—Illegal interference of peers and lords of parliament in elections; Westminster election, 1774—“Money, meat, drink, entertainment or provision”—The partiality of persons in power manifested at “election bribery commissions”—The “king’s menial servants disqualified”—“Direct solicitation of the peers”—Worcester, 1774, wholesale swearing-in of electors as special constables—Convenient formula for defeating evidence of bribery before the House—High-Sheriffs returning themselves, Abingdon, 1774—The instance of Sir Edward Coke—“The sheriff in no respect the returning officer for boroughs”—The election made void by the sheriff returning himself—Morpeth, 1774—An election determined by main force—The candidate forcibly returning “himself and friend”—A “bribing” candidate preferred to a “main-force” candidate—Petersfield, Hants—The Shaftesbury “Punch,”—Pantomimic method of distributing bribes—The mysterious “Glenbucket”—Sudbury, 1780—A wager on the result of a controverted petition—A mayor insisting upon carrying on an election all night—The Shaftesbury “Punch” outdone by the Shoreham “Christian Society”—A well-organized scheme for “burgessing business”—The “Society” a “heap of bribery”—Stafford, 1780; The price paid by R. B. Sheridan for his seat—Tom Sheridan a candidate for Stafford, on his father’s retirement, 1806—The successful candidate for Stafford presented with a new hat at the hustings, by a subscription of his constituents—“A Mob-Reformer,” 1780—The first entry into public life of William Pitt—“The spirit of the country in 1780”—Pitt seated for Appleby, one of Sir James Lowther’s pocket-boroughs—Pitt’s early political friends: the Duke of Rutland and Lord Euston—Pitt’s letter to his mother, Lady Chatham, on his coming election—No necessity to visit constituencies—Choice of seats offered to the young premier, 1784—Nominated for the City of London—Invited to stand for Bath, represented by his late father Earl Chatham—Pitt returned for the University of Cambridge, 1784, which he represented till his death—The dissolution delayed by the theft of the Great Seal from the Chancellor’s residence, 1784—Pitt’s letter to Wilberforce on the coming elections—Pitt “a hardened electioneerer”—The war carried into the great Whig strongholds—The subscription to forward Wilberforce’s return for Yorkshire—Earl Stanhope on “Fox’s Martyrs”—Fox’s courage under adversity—Wilkes returned as the ministerial representative for Middlesex—Wilkes’s xvi “address to the electors”—“The Back-stairs Scoured”—“The boldest of bilks”—“Reconciliation of the Two Kings of Brentford,” 1784—“The New Coalition,” 1784—Charles James Fox’s first entry into public life—Returned for Midhurst, 1769—His first speech on the Wilkes case—Wilkes at a levée: he denounces to the king his friend Glynn as a “Wilkite”—Canvass of Pitt’s friends—The poet Cowper’s description of Pitt’s cousin, the Hon. W. W. Grenville, seeking for suffrages—The amenities of canvassing in the old days: saluting the ladies and maids—A most loving, kissing, kind-hearted gentleman—W. W. Grenville and John Aubrey returned for Buckinghamshire, 1784 | 226 |
| CHAPTER X. | |
| The Great Westminster election of 1784—Wilkes’s famous election contest for Middlesex dwarfed by comparison-State of political excitement—Relations of parties in the Commons—Fox’s India Bill—“Carlo Khan”—Downfall of the Coalition Ministry—Pitt made premier by the will of the king—“Back-stair influence,” and Court intrigues—“The royal finger”—Hostility of the East India Company against Fox—An administration called to power with a working minority—Defeated on division—Vote of want of confidence—The House dissolved—The great election campaign—“The storm conjured up”—The popular aversion to the late Coalition Ministers shown at the hustings—“The royal prerogative exerted against the palladium of the people”—Horace Walpole on the situation—The Whig losses all over England—Fox’s contest for Westminster—A forty days’ poll—The metropolis in a state of ebullition—Party cries—The streets a scene of combat—The rival mobs—The Guards—Hood’s sailors; their violent partisanship and reckless attacks—The “honest mob”—Fox’s narrow escape—The Irish chairmen beat the sailor-mob—A series of pitched battles—Partial behaviour of the special constables—Their interference and violence—Flood of ballads and political squibs—Rowlandson’s caricatures on the contest—The odium revived against the late Coalition Ministry; turned to political account by the Court party—“The Coalition Wedding: the Fox and the Badger quarter their Arms”—“Britannia aroused; or, the Coalition Monsters destroyed”—Pitt’s election manœuvres; his bidding for the favour of the citizens—Pitt presented with the freedom of the city—“Master Billy’s Procession to Grocers’ Hall”—The king threatens to retire to Hanover in the event of a defeat—Ministerial wiles—Bids of place and pension—Extensive “ratting”—“The Apostate Jack Robinson, the Political Rat-catcher. N.B. Rats taken alive!”—“The Rival Candidates: Fox, Hood, and Wray”—Rival canvassers—“Honest Sam House, the Patriotic publican”—The hustings, Covent Garden—The “prerogative standard”—“Major Cartwright, the Drum-Major of Sedition”—“The Hanoverian Horse and the British Lion”—“Fox, the Incurable”—Fair canvassers—The ladies of the Whig aristocracy a bevy of beauty; the Duchess of Devonshire, the Countess of Duncannon, the Duchess of Portland, Lady Carlisle, etc.—“The Devonshire, or Most Approved Manner of securing Votes”—“A Kiss for a Vote”—Tory lady canvassers: Lady Salisbury, the Hon. Mrs. Hobart—“Madame Blubber, the Ærostatic Dilly”—Walpole’s xvii account of the canvassing—Fox’s favour with the fair—The Duchess of Devonshire’s exertions on behalf of the Whig chief—Earl Stanhope on “Fox’s Martyrs”—His account of the contested election—Pitt’s letters on the Westminster election, to Wilberforce, and James Grenville—Pitt’s account of the country elections—His anxiety about Westminster—Earl Stanhope’s summary of the Westminster election—Ballads on the contest—“The Duchess Acquitted; or, the True Cause of the Majority on the Westminster Election”—Tory libels on the Duchess of Devonshire—“The Wit’s Last Stake; or, the Cobbling Voters and Abject Canvassers”—“The Poll”—Animadversions against Sir Cecil Wray—“Lords of the Bedchamber”—“The Westminster Watchman”—A flood of jeux d’esprit—“On undue influence”—“A concise Description of Covent Garden at the Westminster election”—“Stanzas in Season”—The Prince of Wales a zealous partisan of Fox—“Lady Beauchamp, Lady Carlisle, and Lady Derby at the Hustings”—Poetical tributes—The Duchess of Devonshire saves the Whig cause at Westminster—“On the Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Duncannon canvassing for Fox”—“On a certain Duchess”—Horace Walpole’s nieces, the Ladies Waldegrave, “the three Sister Graces,” canvassing for Fox—“Epigram on the Duchess of Devonshire”—“Impromptu on her Grace of Devon”—“Ode to the Duchess”—“The Paradox of the Times”—A new Song, “Fox and Freedom”—The downfall of Wray—“The Case is Altered”—Bringing in outlying voters—“Procession to the Hustings after a Successful Canvass”—“Every Man has his Hobby-Horse”—Fox carried into the House by the duchess—Exit Sir Cecil Wray!—“For the Benefit of the Champion—a Catch.” “No Renegado!” Wray defeated—“The Westminster Deserter drumm’d out of the Regiment”—Apotheosis of the fair champion—“Liberty and Fame introducing Female Patriotism (the Duchess of Devonshire) to Britannia”—The close of the poll—Wray demands a scrutiny—Partial and illegal conduct of the high bailiff as returning-officer—Fox triumphant—The ovation—The chairing procession—Two days of festivities—The reception at Devonshire House—The Prince of Wales’s rejoicings—The fête at Carlton Palace—Rival interests—Mrs. Crewe’s rout—The tedious and prolonged progress of the scrutiny—Fox for Kirkwall—“The Departure”—Fox recovers damages against the high bailiff for illegality in refusing to make a return—The affair only settled a year later—“Defeat of the High and Mighty Balissimo Corbettino and his Famed Cecilian Forces, on the Plains of St. Martin,” 1785—Corbett ordered by the court to make his return—Cast in damages—Fox’s final majority | 257 |
| CHAPTER XI. | |
| Another Westminster election, 1788—Lord Hood appointed to the Admiralty Board, 1788—A fresh contest—Lord John Townshend, a candidate in the Whig interest—Defeat of Lord Hood—Two Whig members for Westminster—Mob violence, the Guards, Hood’s sailors—Ministerial support—“Election Troops bringing their Accounts to the Pay-table” (Treasury Gate), 1788, by J. Gillray—“An Independent Elector”—Helston, Cornwall, 1790—Lady xviii canvassers—A violent “eccentric”—“Proof of the Refined Feelings of an Amiable Character, lately a Candidate for a Certain Ancient City,” by J. Gillray—“The ‘Marplot’ of his Own Party”—Abuses of patronage—Traditions of boroughmongering—Accumulations of seats and parliamentary interests—Cartwright’s tables of pocket boroughs—Pitt’s early patron, Sir James Lowther—“The tyrant of the North”—“Pacific Entrance of Earl Wolf (Lord Lonsdale) into Blackhaven,” 1792—Great distress prevalent throughout the country, in 1795; its effect on political agitation—Political clubs clamour for parliamentary reform—The king and his advisers in disfavour—Revolutionary societies and the “Seditions Bill”—Gillray’s caricatures—“Meetings of Political Citizens at Copenhagen House,” 1795—Whig agitation against the threatened incursions on the “liberty of the subject”—“The Majesty of the People”—“A Hackney Meeting,” 1796—A threatened constitutional struggle averted by a dissolution of parliament, 1796—Pitt’s tactics—“The Dissolution; or, the State Alchymist producing an Ætherial Representation,” 1796—Mr. Hull’s costly electioneering experience at Maidstone, 1796—Horne Tooke unsuccessful at Westminster, 1790 and 1796—Fox and the favour of the mobocracy—“The Hustings, Covent Garden,” 1796—Electioneering squibs—The Anti-Jacobin and the member for Southwark—Canning’s lines on George Tierney, “The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-grinder,” 1797—Grey’s reform measure first moved in 1797—Defeat of the Whigs, and their temporary abstention from the debates—Increased political agitation out of doors—Great reform meetings—Medal commemorative of the gathering at Warwick—“Loyal Medal,” a parody of the “Greathead” patriotic medal—The secession of “the party”—Horne Tooke as a political agitator—The Brentford Parson’s pamphlets—Horne Tooke a political portrait painter, and the Anti-Jacobin—“Two Pair of Portraits, dedicated to the Unbiased Electors of Great Britain,” 1798—Meeting on the twentieth anniversary of Fox’s membership for Westminster—The Whig chief’s speech to his constituents—“The Worn-out Patriot; or, the Last Dying-Speech of the Westminster Representative at the Shakespeare Tavern,” 1800—Horne Tooke seated for “Old Sarum”—The opposition to his membership led by Temple—Lord Camelford’s nominees—“Political Amusements for Young Gentlemen; or, the Brentford Shuttlecock,” 1801—“Horne Tooke as the ‘Shuttlecock’”—Unexpected honours thrust upon Captain Barlow at Coventry, 1802—Middlesex Election for 1804—The Brentford Hustings—“A Long Pull, a Strong Pull, and a Pull All Together;” Sir Francis Burdett drawn to the poll—“The Governor in his Glory,” 1804—The Westminster election, 1806—The Radical Reformers—“Triumphal Procession of Little Paull”—“The Highflying Candidate mounting from a Blanket,” 1806—The coalition between Hood and Sheridan—Paull tossed at the hustings—Burdett for Middlesex—“Posting to the Election; or, a Scene on the Road to Brentford,” 1806—William Cobbett “A Radical Drummer,” 1806—“Coalition Candidates,” Hood and Sheridan—Sheridan disconcerted—“View of the Hustings in Covent Garden, Westminster Election,” 1806—“Who suffers?”—The general election, 1807—A split in the Radical camp—Differences between Burdett and Paull—“Patriots deciding a Point of Honour; or, the Exact representation of the Celebrated Rencontre which took place at Coombe Wood, between Little Paull the Tailor and Sir Francis Goose,” 1807—“The Poll of the Westminster Election,” 1807—“the Republican Goose at the Top, etc.”—Horne Tooke and Sir Francis xix Burdett—“The Head of the Poll; or, the Wimbledon Showman,” 1807—“The Chelmsford Petition; Patriots addressing the Essex Calves” | 289 |
| CHAPTER XII. | |
| The “royal” Duke of Norfolk an enthusiastic “electioneerer”—Wilberforce’s electioneering experiences—His contest for Hull—The price of freemen—The great fight for Yorkshire, 1807—“The Austerlitz of Electioneering”—The candidates, Wilberforce, Lord Milton and Lascelles—The Fitzwilliam and Harewood interests—Three hundred thousand pounds expended—The voluntary subscription to defray the expenses of Wilberforce’s candidature—The poll—The county in a state of ferment—Election wiles; false rumours; “Bruisers”—All the conveyances bespoke—Wilberforce’s victory—His motives for the contest—“Groans of the Talents”—Personation—Female canvassers under false colours—Travelling expenses of electors—Carrying cargoes of freeholders by water—Kidnapping—The caricaturists on elections—Customary episodes of a Westminster election, delineated by Rowlandson and Pugin—George Cruikshank as an election caricaturist—The “Speaker’s Warrant” for committing Burdett to the Tower, 1810—“The Little Man in the Big Wig,” 1810—“The Election Hunter,” 1812—“Saddle White Surrey for Cheapside”—Southwark election, 1812—“The Borough Candidates”—“An Election Ball,” 1813—The Westminster election, 1818—“The Freedom of Election: or, Hunt-ing for Popularity and Plumpers for Maxwell,” 1818—“Hunt, a Radical Reformer”—“A Political Squib on the Westminster Election,” 1819—“Patriot Allegory, Anarchical Fable, and Licentious Parody”—Major Cartwright, an unsuccessful candidate—Cartwright’s Petition to the House of Commons on the needful reform of a corrupt representative system, 1820—Statistics of borough-mongering—“Sinks of corruption”—“353 members corruptly imposed on the Commons”—The coming elections of 1820—John Cam Hobhouse—His imprisonment—“Little Hob in the Well”—“A Trifling Mistake—corrected,” 1820—Radicals—“The Root of the King’s Evil; Lay the Axe to it,” 1820—The Riot Act—“The Law’s Delay. Showing the advantage and comfort of waiting the specified time after reading the Riot Act to a Radical Mob; or, a British Magistrate in the Discharge of his Duties, and the People of England in the Discharge of Theirs,” 1820—“The Election Day”—Dissolution of Parliament, 1820—“Coriolanus addressing the Plebs,” 1820—“Freedom and Purity of Election! Showing the Necessity of Reform in the Close Boroughs,” 1820—“Radical Quacks giving a new Constitution to John Bull,” 1820—Burdett and Hobhouse as Radical Reformers | 324 |
| CHAPTER XIII. | |
| The last parliament of George IV.’s reign—The country clamorous for retrenchment—The Tory régime growing irksome—The xx king’s illness, 1830—John Doyle’s caricatures upon public events (HB’s “political sketches”)—“Present State of Public Feeling Partially Illustrated,” 1830—Death of the king—“The Mourning Journal: Alas! Poor Yorick!”—“The Magic Mirror; or, a Peep into Futurity”—The Princess Victoria—Accession of William IV.—Whig prospects reviving—Brougham, “A Gheber worshipping the Rising Sun”—Wellington, a “Detected Trespasser”—Party intrigues—“Anticipation; or, Queen Sarah’s Visit to Bushy”—The old campaigner—“Un-Holy Alliance; or, an Ominous Conjunction”—The general election, 1830—“Election Squibs and Crackers for 1830. Before and After the Election”—Caricaturists, as politicians, usually above party prejudices—W. Cobbett returned for Oldham—“Peter Porcupine” an M.P.—“A Characteristic Dialogue”—Changes of seats—“The Noodle Bazaar”—Heads for Cabinets—John Bull and the Times—“The man that is easily led by the nose”—“Resignation and Fortitude; or, the Gold Stick”—“The Rival Candidates;” Boai and Grant—Wellington’s leadership threatened: “The Unsuccessful Appeal”—The popular will—Attacks upon the Wellington and Peel Ministry—Results of the general election unfavourable to the Cabinet—“A Masked Battery”—“A Cabinet Picture”—“Guy Fawkes; or, the Anniversary of the Popish Plot”—Defeat foreshadowed—“False Alarm; or, Much Ado about Nothing”—The Eastern Question fatal to Wellington’s Ministry—“Scene from the Suppressed Tragedy entitled the Turco-Greek Conspiracy”—“His Honour the Beadle (William IV.) driving the Wagabonds out of the Parish”—The adoption of liberal progress—Preliminary skirmishing—“The Coquet”—The ministry thrown out—“Examples of the Laconic Style”—“A very Prophetical and Pathetical Allegory,” 1831—Reform on the road—“Leap-Frog down Constitution Hill,” 1831—Another appeal to the country—“Anticipated Radical Meeting”—The dissolution—“Great Reform” Specialists; John Bull and his constitutional deformity—“Hoo-Loo-Choo, alias John Bull, and the Doctors”—“May-Day”—“Leap-Frog on a Level; or, Going Headlong to the Devil”—The Reformers having it all their own way—A swinging pace—Political squibs on the elections of 1831—The great battle of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill—“The New Chevy Chase,” a poetical version of the reform struggle—“Votaries at the Altar of Discord”—“Peerless Eloquence”—Slaughter of the Innocents—“Niobe Family”—Extinction of pocket boroughs—Reform at a breakneck pace—“John Gilpin”—William IV. carried away by the old Grey—“The Handwriting on the Wall: ‘Reform Bill!’”—A warning to reformers—Grey and “Brissot’s Ghost”—“Macbeth” and “The Tricoloured Witches”—Grey, Durham, and Brougham—Althorp and Russell—A tub to a whale—“A Tale of a Tub, and the Moral of the Tail”—Renovations at the King’s Head: “Varnishing—A Sign (of the Times)”—“The Rival Mount-o’-Bankes; or, the Dorsetshire Juggler”—Root-and-branch reform—“LINEal Descent of the Crown,” a hint from Hogarth’s works, 1832—Hobhouse in office—“The Cast-off Cloak”—Radicalism over-warm—“Mazeppa” (William IV.): “Again he urges on his wild career”—“Ministers in their Cups” | 343 xxi |
| CHAPTER XIV. | |
| John Doyle, a Tory Caricaturist—The Tories out in the cold—“The Waits,” 1833—Grey and the king—“Sindbad the Sailor and the Old Man of the Sea,” 1833—Parliamentary reform not carried far enough—Burdett, Hume, and O’Connell: “Three Great Pillars of Government; or, a Walk from White Conduit House to St. Stephen’s,” 1834—“Time running away with the Reform Bill”—General election, 1834-5—Party competition—“The Opposition ’Busses”—“Original Design for the King’s Arms, to be placed over the New Speaker’s Chair,” supporters, Burdett and Cobbett—“Inconveniences that might have arisen from the Ballot”—Bribery and violence discounted—General election of 1835—Broadside squibs on the Windsor election—Tory view of the decline of the British constitution, “A New Instance of the Mute—ability of Human Affairs,” 1837—Appeal to the Constituencies in 1837—“Going to the Fair with It: a cant phrase for doing anything in an extravagant way”—Contortions of statesmen to keep in place: “Ins and Outs”—“Fancy Ball: Jim Crow Dance and Chorus,” 1837—Conversion of Sir Francis Burdett from Radicalism to Toryism—“A Fine Old English Gentleman, one of Olden Time,” 1837—A bye-election for Westminster—Burdett opposed by Leader—“Following the Leader”—“May-Day in 1837”—Whig gambols—Sir Francis Burdett invites the verdict of his Westminster constituents upon his change of front—Thackeray’s pictorial squib on the event—“The Guide”—“The Rivals; or, Old Tory Glory and Young Liberal Glory,” 1837—Sir Francis Burdett re-elected—His valedictory speech at the Westminster hustings, 1837—His quarrel with Daniel O’Connell, the Liberator—Defeat of Leader—“The Dog and the Shadow”—“Race for the Westminster Stakes between an Old Thoro’bred and a Young Cock-tail; weight for age. The old ’un winning in a canter,” May, 1837—“Taking up a Fare: All the World’s a Stage”—Burdett’s attack on Democracy—“The Last and Highest Point at which the unheard-of Courage of Don Quixote ever did, or could arrive, with the Happy Conclusion”—“An Old Song to a New Tune”—“The Raddies”—Fate of Leader—“A Dead-horse: a sorry subject; what was once a Leader in the Bridgwater Coach”—“The Three Tailors of Tooley Street. We, the People of England”—“Reorganizing the (Spanish) Legion”—Burdett for North Wilts—“Grinding Young”—Lord Durham—“The Newest Universal Medicine”—ejected of Kilmarnock”—Joseph Hume defeated at Middlesex—“Figurative Representation of the Late Catastrophe!”—Dan O’Connell providing the rejected candidates with seats—“Great Western General Booking Office”—Hume for Kilkenny—“Shooting Rubbish”—The interval before parliament reassembled—“Retzsch’s Extraordinary Design of Satan Playing at Chess with Man for his Soul,” 1837—Party tactics—“A Game at Chess (again): the Queen in Danger”—“High Life below Stairs (inverted), as lately performed at Windsor by her Majesty’s servants”—“Election Day: a Poetical Sketch from Nature”—The hustings—The chairing—John Sterling’s poem, “The Election,” 1841—A New Election at Aleborough—Rival Houses—The Candidates—The attorneys—A corrupt bargain—The canvassing—Indirect bribing—The Bribery Act set at naught—Female voters, xxii a fanciful prospect by George Cruikshank—“Rights of Women; or, a View of the Hustings with Female Suffrage,” 1835—Memorable electioneering experiences: Two eminent writers as candidates for seats in parliament, 1857—Incidents in the canvassing of James Hannay—W. M. Thackeray’s contest at Oxford—Summary of bribery at elections: Bribery Acts | 374 xxiii |
1
A HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE OLD DAYS.
The subject of elections being so indissolubly bound up with that of parliamentary assemblages and dissolutions, it will not be out of place to glance at the progress of that institution. John was the first king recorded to summon his barons by writ; this was directed to the Bishop of Salisbury. In 1234 a representative parliament of two knights from every shire was convened to grant an aid; later on (1286) came the parliament of Merton; and in 1258 was inaugurated the assembly of knights and burgesses, designated the mad parliament. The first assembly of the Commons as “a confirmed representation” (Dugdale) was in 1265, when the earliest writ extant was issued; while, according to many historians, the first regular parliament met in 1294 (22 Edw. 1), when borough representation is said to have commenced. From a deliberative assembly, it became in 1308 a legislative power, without whose assent no law could be legally constituted; and in 1311, annual parliaments were ordered. The next progressive step was the election of a Speaker by the Commons; the first was Peter de la Mare, 1377. A parliament of one day (September 29, 1399), when Richard II. 2 was deposed, is certainly an incident in the history of this institution; the Commons now began to assert its control over pecuniary grants. In 1404 was held at Coventry the “Parliamentum Indoctum” from which lawyers were excluded (and that must have offered a marked contrast to parliaments in our generation). In 1407 the Lords and Commons assembled to transact business in the Sovereign’s absence. Reforms were clearly then deemed expedient: in 1413 members were obliged to reside at the places they represented,—this enactment has occasioned expense and inconvenience in obeying “the letter,” but appears to have otherwise been easily defeated as regards “the spirit;”1 in 1430 the Commons adopted the forty-shillings qualification for county members. A parliament was held at Coventry in 1459; this was called the Diabolicum. The statutes were first printed in 1483; in 1542 the privilege of exemption from arrest was secured to members; and in 1549 the eldest sons of Peers were admitted to sit in the Commons. With James I. commenced those collisions between the Crown and the representatives of the people which marked the Stuart rule. The Commons resisted those fine old blackmail robberies known during preceding reigns as “benevolences,” under which plea forced contributions were levied by the Crown, especially during Elizabeth’s reign. James I. pushed these abuses too far, in his greed for money.
The parliament of 1614 refused to grant supplies until grievances were redressed; James dismissed them, and imprisoned several members. This short session was known as the “Addled Parliament.” The “Long Parliament” assembled in 1640, and the House of Peers was abolished by it in 1649; and later on, a Peer sat in the Commons. This parliament, proving intractable, was dissolved by Cromwell in 1653. Under Charles II., with the restoration of monarchy, the Peers temporal resumed their functions, and in 1661 the Lords spiritual were allowed to 3 resume their seats, and the Act for triennial parliaments was unwisely set aside by the Commons. The relations between the Crown and the Commons were again becoming strained in 1667, when an Act excluding Roman Catholics from sitting in either House was forced through the legislature. From this point the narrative of electioneering incidents may commence, the more appropriately since it was at this time there arose the institution of the familiar party distinctions of Whig and Tory.
The orders for the attendance of members and the Speaker were somewhat curious; for instance, among the orders in parliament regulating procedure, the following are noteworthy:—
Feb. 14, 1606.—The House to assemble at eight o’clock, and enter into the great business at nine.
May 13, 1614.—The House to meet at seven o’clock in the morning, and begin to read bills at ten.
Feb. 15, 1620.—The Speaker not to move his hat until the third congée.
Nov. 12, 1640.—Those who go out of the House in a confused manner before the Speaker to forfeit 10s.
May 1, 1641.—All the members that come after eight to pay 1s., and those that do not come the whole day to pay 5s.
April 19, 1642.—Those who do not come to prayers to pay 1s.
Feb. 14, 1643.—Such members as come after nine o’clock to pay 1s. to the poor.
March 21, 1647.—The Speaker to leave the chair at twelve o’clock.
May 31, 1659.—The Speaker to take the chair constantly every morning by eight o’clock.
April 8, 1670.—The back door in the Speaker’s chamber to be nailed up during the session.
March 23, 1693.—No member to take tobacco into the gallery, or to the table, sitting at committees.
Feb. 11, 1695.—No news-letter writer to presume to meddle with the debates, or disperse any in their papers.
Orders touching motions for leave into the country:—
Feb. 13, 1620.—No member shall go out of town without open motion and licence in the House.
March 28, 1664.—The penalty of £10 to be paid by every knight, and £5 by every citizen, etc., who shall make default in attending.
Nov. 6, 1666.—To be sent for in custody of the serjeant. 4
Dec. 18, 1666.—Such members of the House as depart into the country without leave, be sent for in custody of the serjeant-at-arms.
Feb. 13, 1667.—That every defaulter in attendance, whose excuse shall not be allowed this day, be fined the sum of £40, and sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower till the fine be paid.
That every member as shall desert the service of the House for the space of three days together (not having had leave granted him by the House, nor offering such sufficient excuse to the House as shall be allowed), shall have the like fine of £40 imposed on them, and shall be sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower; and that the fines be paid into the hands of the serjeant-at-arms, to be disposed of as the House shall direct.
April 6, 1668.—To pay a fine of £10.
A few words of explanation regarding technicalities will be found in place, since the qualifications of voters have a distinctive language of their own, used to indicate their various degrees of electoral privilege. The terms, “burgage tenures,” “scot and lot,” “pot-wallopers,” “splitting,” “faggot votes,” etc., occur constantly, and it may be desirable to indicate in advance the meanings attached to these enigmatical expressions.
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. 5
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 6 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. 7
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.
The sheriff, Sir Roger de Swigville, mounted on a 8 noble steed worthy of so stout a knight, rides up to the county court, the scene of the elections of the period, where is gathered a goodly assemblage of mounted gentry; the sheriff’s javelin-men about him, his silken and broidered banner waving in the breeze; and forthwith is displayed the sacred scrap of parchment, the “king’s writ,” informing the estates of the realm in the learned Latin tongue, that a parliament is to be holden at Westminster, Winchester, York, or elsewhere. The baronage and freeholders are bidden to choose a worthy and discreet knight of the shire for the county, to aid the king with his advice,—duly providing for his expenses during the term while parliament may sit, and for his charges going and returning; but first taking due care to ascertain if the great baron of the county—De Clare or De Bohun—has not already signified, through his steward or attorney, whom he would have chosen. The name of Sir Fulke de Braose is mentioned—yonder handsome “chivaler” who, hawk on wrist, is watching the proceedings; but that gay knight preferreth the excitements of war or sport, and at the Words “election” and “parliament,” he hastily withdraws from the crowd, and spurreth off as fast as his good horse may carry him. The “Chiltern Hundreds” was a sanctuary where knights, anxious to avoid the honour of being sent to the senate, frequently sought refuge.
It was Elizabeth who took a practical course with her faithful Commons, and in businesslike fashion admonished them not to waste their time in long and vain discourses, but to apply themselves at once to their function—that of voting supplies, and, on occasions, of granting “benevolences,” that is, forced loans to the Crown.
According to some writers, the earliest recorded instance of corruption in electioneering matters occurred under date 1571, but the incident hardly comes under the description of bribery. In the “Parliamentary History” (i. 765), it is stated from the journals of 1571, that one Thomas Long 9 was returned for the borough of Westbury, Wilts, who, “being found to be a very simple man, and not fit to serve in that place, was questioned how he came to be elected.” It seems that extreme simplicity was so unusual in the House that its presence was easily detected; in any case, Thomas Long acted up to his reputation, and replied with a frankness not commonly exhibited in the admissions made before election committees and their perquisitions: “The poor man immediately confessed to the House that he gave to Anthony Garland, mayor of the said town of Westbury, and one Watts of the same, £4 for his place in parliament.” This was certainly a modest consideration for a seat, when it is considered that famous electioneering tacticians, like the Duke of Wharton, in a later generation, exhausted ample fortunes in the traffic of constituencies. Moreover, this simple purchaser of a place in parliament, though he forfeited his bargain, did not lose his money; “an order was made that the said Garland and Watts should repay unto the said Thos. Long the £4 they had of him.” Although the actual briber escaped scot-free, the inquiry terminated with the infliction of a severe penalty on those who had been convicted of venality, “a fine of £20 being assessed for the queen’s use on the said corporation and inhabitants of Westbury for their scandalous attempt.” This precept was not without its use, and in the future history of this species of corruption it will be found that mayors and corporations—in whose influence once rested that “merchantable property,” the right of selecting representatives—grew more experienced in iniquitous ways, and exacted the highest tariff for the saleable commodity they offered, besides making choice of more cunning purchasers, and, moreover, generally managed to get not only the best of the bargain, but contrived to avoid being forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains; the proverb still remains, a relic of the days in which it had its origin, “Money makes the mayor to go.”
The privilege of parliament which protected the persons 10 of members was already sought after in Elizabeth’s days for its incidental advantages; thus, John Smith, whose name is mentioned in the “Parliamentary History,” presented himself to be elected for Camelford, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors—a ruse which was allowed to succeed by a tolerant chamber,—privilege, however, and the continuance of his seat were voted by 112 to 107.
Mr. Norton, in 1571, speaks of “the imperfection of choice, too often seen, by sending of unfit men;” and he notices as one cause, “the choice made by boroughs, for the most part of strangers.”
Interference in elections by the territorial lords, or by the Church, was resented about this time:—
“A penalty of £40 proposed upon every borough that should elect at the nomination of a nobleman, one great disorder, that many young men, not experienced, for learning sake were often chosen. Proposed that none under thirty years of age should be returned.”
From the “Parliamentary History” we secure the account of a disputed return for Buckinghamshire in the year 1603, set down by the sheriff as returning officer:—
“About eight o’clock he came to Brickhill; was there told by Sir George Throckmorton and others that the first voice would be given for Sir Francis Goodwin; he answered ‘he hoped it would not be so,’ and ‘desired every gentleman to deal with his freeholders.’ After eight went to the election.... After the writ was read, he first intimated the points of the proclamation, then jointly proposed Sir John Fortescue and Sir F. Goodwin. The freeholders cried, first, ‘A Goodwin, a Goodwin!’ Every Justice of the Peace on the bench said, ‘A Fortescue, a Fortescue!’”
Election proceedings began early in those days, and parliamentary hours were equally matinal. From the pamphlets, tracts, and broadsides of the Stuart era it may be noted that the Speaker took his place in the House at eight o’clock in the morning.
“The knights girt with swords by their sides,” as returned for the shires of the counties, were important personages, the influential families retaining this prerogative 11 in their houses for generations; the names of the great county families may be traced, according to their respective localities, for more than a century in uninterrupted succession as the county members, as may be observed in the compendious lists of the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliaments summoned in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Chaucer relates of his Frankleyn—
It was, as Hannay has expressed it, the great gentry who seem to have accepted the girding of the sword, in something like turns, as both a dignity and a duty. “From such men the House of Commons took that high, that gentle tone, which has often been so justly boasted of by its great men, and which it is to be hoped it will retain, through whatever changes are destined for it.” The dignity of representation in the earlier stages of parliamentary history does not appear to have extended beyond the knights of the shires; those of this select order might, if they had the ambition, contest among themselves, but it is difficult to imagine electoral contests among the representatives of a less exalted class—the citizens and burgesses, whose election was at first very much at the discretion of the sheriffs. When the real parliamentary strength lay in the baronage, the worthies who came up from the cities and boroughs to advise about taxation were not much regarded originally, and seem to have conducted themselves, during their brief visits to the Commons House, with a docility of demeanour, supposed to be in keeping with their native obscurity; as, for the most part, they were but nominees or placemen of Peers and Lords of parliament, of ecclesiastical hierarchs, of officers of State, or put forward by lords of manors, influential families, and dispensers of preferment of one kind or another, a retiring and deferential line of conduct was due from these mere parliamentary “pawns” to their patrons. This state of subjection 12 appears foreign to the independence by presumption associated with the character of a member of parliament, and might be taken as belonging only to a feudal epoch; but with rare intervals of self-assertion on the part of the people, such as happened during the civil wars—when the equipoise of society was unsettled for a space—it must be admitted that at least a considerable portion of the Commons under the boroughmongering and patronage-monopolizing days, which reached to 1831, was not far removed from the condition of semi-vassalage as described, until the revision and extension of the representative system assimilated the constitution of the Commons in earnest to what by a plausible fiction it was “on trust” for generations assumed to be.
It is shown that in the early days of the representative system the high obligation of sending members to parliament was regarded as a burden instead of a privilege by many boroughs, and that exemption from this duty was a boon for which sacrifices were cheerfully made; moreover it was a “right” which constituencies managed to leave in abeyance, intermitting in many instances for a century or more. By the same rule, electoral bodies were relieved to get rid of their responsibilities, before the days of sordid trafficking, and while venal boroughmongering was still an undeveloped branch of gain: it was at first accepted by the cities and boroughs as a kindly service on the part of a great man to choose the citizens and burgesses for parliament; “influence” was not considered “undue” when it was exercised in dictating the choice of what by a traditional figment were considered the popular representatives. Thus, in Elizabeth’s reign, quite as a matter of course, Devereux, Earl of Essex, was busying himself in providing such nominees as he thought fitting for various places, as appears from the following letter, addressed to Richard Bagot, of Staffordshire, and printed with the “Memorials of the Bagot family,” 1592:—
“After my very hartie commendacions. I have written several 13 letters to Lichfield, Stafford, Tamworth, and Newcastle for the Nomination and Election of certain Burgesses for the Parliament to be held very shortlie; having named unto them, for Lichfield, Sir John Wingfield and Mr. Broughton. For Stafford, my kinsman Henry Bourgcher, and my servant Edward Reynolds. For Tamworth, my servant Thomas Smith. For Newcastle, Dr. James. Whom because I do greatlie desire to be preferred to the said places, I do earnestlie pray your furtherance by the credit which you have in those towns.”
The mere dealing in “parliamentary interest” was still undeveloped as regarded its monetary aspect, but party strengthened its ranks by nominating candidates, first, because it was the “will and pleasure” of those who held the influence; secondly, when the possessor of several boroughs began to realize he could utilize his seats in many ways, electioneering science took a new departure, and boroughs and “burgage tenures” began to be cultivated for the market like any other trafficable commodity.
“Formerly,” says Waller, “the neighbourhood desired the member to sit, and there was an end; but now it is a kind of empire. Some hundred years ago, some boroughs sent not; they could get none to serve; but now it is a fashion, and a fine thing they are revived.”
The ancient system was shaken in the early Stuart days: under Charles I. we find ministers still writing of those “seats which were safe,” and where, such as in the “Cinque Ports,” patronage could secure the election of placemen; but opposition was ripe in the land, and when the stand was to be made against the Crown “in many places the elections were managed with much popular heat and tumult.” The strength of the Church was matched against dissent—“that incredible heresy;” then began Puritan corporations which exhibited a “factious activity” in the boroughs, and thus raised to white heat the indignation of territorial magnates; thence did lords of the manor bestir themselves for the assertion of traditional privileges, by easy degenerations swollen into prescriptive rights and oppressive tyrannies. Hence attempted coercions; 14 “certain lord-lieutenants of the counties were accused of making an improper use of the Train-bands,” the beginning of the system of electioneering intimidation. Thus we are informed that, in the year 1639:—
“In many places the elections were managed with much popular heat and tumult by the countenance of those English nobility and gentry of the Scottish faction. At the County election for Essex, for instance, the Earl of Warwick made good use of his lord-lieutenancy, in sending letters out to the captains of the Train-bands, who having power to charge the people with arms, durst not offend, which brought many to his side. Those ministers who gave their voices for my Lord of Warwick, as Mr. Marshal and others, preached often out of their own parishes before the election. Our corporation of Essex, consisting most of Puritans, and having had their voices in electing their own burgesses, and then to come to elect knights, is more than the greatest lord of England hath in their boroughs; the multiplicity of the people are mean-conditioned, and most factious, and few subsidy-men; and therefore in no way concerned in the election.
“A man having but forty shillings a year freehold hath as great a voice in the election as any; and yet this man is never a subsidy-man, and, therefore, no way concerned in the election for his own particular; and when the statute was made two centuries earlier (in 1430) forty shillings, it was then twenty pound in value now. And it were a great quiet to the state if it were reduced to that; and then gentlemen would be looked upon, and it would save the ministers a great deal of pains, in preaching from their own churches.”
About 1640, although absolute intimidation was not common, it at least was resorted to in the case of one candidate, who suffered therefrom, and evidently entered a subsequent protest. In Nalson’s papers it is recorded:—“A paper sent to the Secretary of State by Mr. Nevil, of Cressing Temple, the unsuccessful candidate, whose life was threatened. ‘It was said among the people that if Nevil had the day they would tear the gentleman to pieces.’” Walpole, otherwise unscrupulous in his resort to corruption of various kinds, appears to have avoided downright violence; it was reserved for the Pelhams and the Duke of Grafton to bring armed force to the hustings by way of intimidating opposition—an unsatisfactory state of affairs which reached its most unconstitutional proportions under the administration of William Pitt, when those 15 Court candidates selected from the two services received the support of both army and navy; when the guards and sailors surrounded the hustings, and menaced such as were prepared to record votes for candidates other than their employers. Much might be written of the struggles in which envenomed adversaries were led into personal encounters; and rival factions, as between the Cavaliers and Roundheads, went to great lengths in their hostilities: but when the excitement cooled down, the honour of sitting for a borough did not, as a rule, excite fierce competition, at least, anterior to the Revolution which dismissed the Stuarts; members were proposed and accepted in a half-hearted way, and the burgesses sent to Parliament seemed little ambitious of the honour.
The method in which a member was selected in the middle of the seventeenth century for the city of Bath, even then a place of importance,2 which a short while after became a celebrated centre for election contests and ministerial and party intrigues, may be studied with all its simple minutiæ among the “Nugæ Antiquæ,” (vol. ii.) prepared from the family papers of the Harringtons, landed proprietors in the locality, who, from father to son, had represented the citizens in successive sessions:—
“To our much honoured and worthie Friend, J. Harrington, Esq., at his house at Kelston, near Bathe.
“Worthie Sir,
“Out of the long experience we have had of your approved worth and sincerity, our Cittie of Bathe have determined and settled their resolutions to elect you for Burgess of the House of Commons in this present Parliament, for our said Cittie, and do hope you will accept the trouble thereof: which if you do, our desire is you will not fail to be with us at Bathe on Monday next, the eighth of this instant, by eight of the morning at the furthest, for then we proceed to our 16 election. And of your determination we entreat you to certifie us by a word or two in writing, and send it by the bearer to
“Bathe.”
There is some obscurity as to the dates; according to Willis, John Harrington sat for Bath 1658-9.
The progress of these negotiations is set down in the diary of the worthy gentleman selected to serve:—
“Dec. 26.—Went to Bathe and dined with the Mayor and Citizens; conferred about my election to serve in parliament, as my father was helpless and ill able to go any more; went to the George Inn at night, met the Bailiffs, and desired to be dismissed from serving; drank strong bear and metheglin; expended about iiijs.; went home late, but could not get excused, as they entertained a good opinion of my father.
“Dec. 28.—Went to Bathe; met Sir John Horner; we were chosen by the Citizens to serve for the city. The Mayor and Citizens conferred about Parliament business. The Mayor promised Sir John Horner and myself a horse apiece when we went to London to the Parliament, which we accepted of....
“Thursday, Dec. 31.—Went to Bathe; Mr. Ashe preached [this was before the members, probably in state at the Abbey]. Dined at the George Inn with the Mayor and 4 citizens; spent vjs. in wine.
“Laid out in victuals at the George Inn xjs. 4d. “Laid out in drinking vijs. iid. “Laid out in tobacco and drinking vessels iiijs. 4d. “Jan. 1.—My father gave me £4 to bear out my expenses at Bathe.”
The members were salaried at this time, being allowed from two shillings to three shillings and fourpence, and in exceptional cases five shillings, per day during the sessions of the Commons, although in many instances no more than two shillings was the recognized fee;3 these wages were 17 generally raised by the town, and paid in a lump sum at the close of the sessions.
The writ directs two knights to be chosen out of every county, two citizens out of every city, and two burgesses out of every borough. The counties were well known, and had long been ascertained; but the sheriffs had it left to their discretion as to the cities and boroughs. They were the dominicæ civitates and burgi regis, viz. such as had charters from the king and paid a fee-farm rent in lieu of the customs and other advantages and royalties that belonged to the Crown; but these not being named in the writ, the sheriffs took great liberties, either by summoning such as had no right, or omitting others, who ought to have been summoned: this arose from the nature of the institution.
“The representation of the nation in parliament was then a burden to the people, the elected being paid by their electors; nor doth it appear that the representatives at that time had any advantage more than their wages. Cities and boroughs were, therefore, not fond of returning representatives to Parliament, and it was reckoned a privilege to be exempted, and to obtain which there are more instances than one of petitions having been presented. Sheriffs would frequently act in a very partial and arbitrary manner, and out of pique return many poor boroughs, who were not able to pay their representatives, and omit others who were able, in order to show favour towards them.”
This became a veritable grievance, and, in 5 Rich. 2, a law was made to hinder these arbitrary proceedings, and several boroughs were, by charter from the Crown, exempted from what they would have esteemed a hardship and burden upon them.
Colchester returned members to Parliament 23 Edward 1; as endorsed upon the writs in 7 Edward 4, only five burgesses, named in the return, chose for that Parliament. At that time, service was thought a burden, and exemption was allowed by way of reward for loyal 18 services rendered; thus Richard II., in consideration of the burgesses of Colchester rebuilding and fortifying the walls of their town against the king’s enemies, granted them an exemption for the space of five years.
Beyond the very modest wages allowed by constituencies to their representatives during their sojourns in London at the three sessions of parliament, it was generally held a matter of courtesy to present the two representatives with a horse apiece to help them on their way; and expenses by the road, at the allowances stipulated, were added in with the fixed pay of so much per day for the duration of parliament, which sum was generally allowed to accumulate, and redeemed at the close of the session, when the members came back to report themselves to their constituents and give an account of their stewardship.
In respect of Middlesex, which has been represented in parliament from the first general summons of the knights of the shire in the reign of King Edward I., a reservation was made. The city of Westminster, where parliament was usually held, being within this county, the knights had only their fees for attendance, and no allowance for coming and going, as in other counties. “In the second year of King Henry V. (1414), the Bishop of London complained that his tenants of Fulham were taxed towards the expenses of the knights of the shire for this county, upon which a writ was issued for discharging the said tenants, in case it should appear they had not been formerly taxed.”
The sums paid to members were in all cases very moderate; but these allowances appear to have varied even for the same place. The interesting “Extracts from the Proceedings of Lynn Regis, 1430 to 1731,” as printed in Archæologia (vol. xxiv.), supply evidence of the dealings of that corporation with their parliamentary representatives, as set down in the “Hall Books.” The parliamentary warrant was read in the mother-tongue, and sealed after the election of burgesses to serve in the Commons. The manner of election by a committee on the jury principle 19 seems to have prevailed; thus, in 1433, the king’s writ was publicly read for electing members of parliament. “And for electing them the Mayor called two of the twenty-four (the court of Livery) and two of the common council, which four chose two more of the twenty-four, and two of the common council, and they chose four others, who all unanimously chose John Waterden and Thomas Spicer, to be Burgesses in Parliament.”
The year previous, the burgesses went to parliament in May, and returned in July, when, as was customary, a report was submitted before the mayor as to the manner in which the corporation had been represented, and how far its interests had been promoted by the members; when accounts were compared and a settlement was agreed upon for wages due, to be raised by a special rate, thus:—
“July 23. John Waterden reported the transactions of Parliament, at which time was granted by the Corporation half a fifteenth, to be paid in at two several payments; viz. at Martinmas next, and at Martinmas then next following. That ye Parliament held from ye 12th day of May to Thursday next before ye feast of St. Margaret, on which day ye Parliament ended, and so ye Parliament held for 70 days. And so there is owing to them, for their appearance for 73 days, 6s. and 8d. for each day, of which they received before their journey or passage one hundred shillings, and there remains £19 6s. 8d.”
From this entry it seems evident that these members received 3s. 4d. each. Ten years later, January 10, 1442, two burgesses were chosen, but, for some unexplained cause, the fees were lowered.
“And it was ye same day ordered, by ye assent of ye whole congregation, that ye Burgesses chosen for Parliament shall be allowed each of them two shillings a day and no more.”
At the same time, various instructions were given touching renewal and confirmation of the Charter; and the burgesses on their return to Lynn—
“did well and discreetly declare those things which were substantially done and acted for ye Mayor in ye Parliament.”
“April 18, 1442. The Burgesses of ye last Parliament ingeniously and seriously related several transactions of ye said Parliament.” 20
As a qualification to serve, it was, as a rule, deemed essential that the member should be “an individual either bearing office or being resident in the borough,” and persons residing elsewhere were held inadmissible; thus:—
“Feb. 1664. Two letters, one from Sir Robert Hitchin, Kt., ye other from Sir Henry Spelman, Kt., desiring to be elected Burgesses for ye next Parliament; forasmuch as ye Statute of ye 1st of Henry 5 (1413) doth appoint that Burgesses should be men residing and free in ye Borough at ye time of their election, it is agreed to answer their letter that ye corporation is minded to chuse according to ye Statute.”
In March, the mayor and recorder were straightway elected burgesses for the next parliament, and enacted under “June 20. The mayor to have ten shillings per day for serving in parliament.” This specially high allowance was possibly due to the extra state which the mayor of a corporation like King’s Lynn would be expected to support in the metropolis, to impress the citizens with the consequence and honour of the borough. The fee speedily dwindled again, and, in 1642, when the kingdom was in a state of ebullition, during the Long Parliament, a general prescript appears to have been instituted as to the fees due to members, and the possible difficulties of collecting them. It is thus noted:—
“Oct. 15. An order from ye House of Commons to ye Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, to require them to pay to Mr. Toll and Mr. Percivall, their Burgesses in Parliament, the same allowance as formerly per day, being 5s.”
“1643, Jan. 3. In answer to ye above order to ye House of Commons to acquaint them that heretofore no Parliamentary wages have been paid before ye Parliament ended, nor then out of ye town stock, but by ye freemen and inhabitants, saving of late of mere bounty ye Burgesses were diversely rewarded by ye representative body. Also ye impossibility of performing ye said order, there being no town stock, ye revenues not being sufficient to defray ye necessary charges in common; besides, extraordinary expenses unavoidably fall upon us daily for ye safety of this town and ye kingdom.”
The Rump Parliament, 1649, had abolished the House of Peers, but some of the Upper Chamber became burgesses to parliament, and this secured admission to the Commons. 21 Lynn Regis came forward hospitably on this emergency, and the head of the proud house of Salisbury had reason to feel grateful for the privilege of being sent to parliament at a time when the order of Peers was abolished through the spontaneous suffrages of the people.
“Jan. 16, 1649. Ordered that a letter be written to ye Right Honble. ye Earl of Salsbury, by ye Mayor from this house, to give him knowledge that this house have granted him ye freedom of this Burgh, and that the comonalty of this Burgh hath elected him a Burgess of ye Parliament of England.”
This honour, which had rarity to recommend it, elicited a graceful and earnest letter from the new member.
“Gentlemen,
“As ye precedent you have made in choosing me to be your Burgess is unusual (I believe), if not ye first among you, so do it lay ye greater obligation upon me, neither is that favour a little heightened by my being so much of a stranger to you as indeed I am; and as you have here an open and free acknowledgment from me of your kind and good affections in so unanimous an election of me to serve you in Parliament, as your letter doth express, so cannot they merit or you expect more thanks than I do really return unto you for them. You have been pleased cheerfully (as you say) to confer your freedom upon me. I shall ever be zealous in maintaining yours, and, as I am not ignorant of the great trust you have placed in me, so shall you never be deceived in it; for ye addresses you are to make me (as your occasion shall require) they shall not be so many as cheerfully received, and whatsoever may concern the public good or yours, shall ever be pursued with all faithfulness by him that is
The days of the Long Parliament were fruitful in frank out-of-door expressions of opinion under the rule of Charles I. and the Commonwealth; but, although political feelings were embittered, it does not appear that the franchise was exposed to any undue influence worth recording. A certain amount of governmental favour was reckoned of use in isolated instances; this patronage was considered safe to return nominees for such places as the Cinque Ports. But few election squibs, pure and simple, can be discovered before the Restoration. Ballads are less rare; these for the most part deal with the broader party relations, and are confined within discreet limitations, for “privilege of parliament” was rigorously enforced under Cromwell. On the disappearance of the Commonwealth, the spirits of the Cavalier wits and rhymsters revived, with all the more liveliness for their long-enforced repression. As an animated and characteristic example of the ballads produced at the close of the stern conventicle régime, we include the jeux d’esprit written upon the moribund parliament, when it was no longer formidable,—dissolution having, for the time being, shorn its far-reaching and vengeful claws, while a changed head of the State had rendered its return to a lease of power extremely problematical. It is fair to say that, for the most part, the disappearance of this straight-laced and tyrannical House of Commons was hailed as a national relief: the theory of flying “to ills we know not of” had yet to be realized with 23 the gradual development of the Merry Monarch’s selfish and ruinous system, the most iniquitous ever tolerated.
From the pages of Pepys we are reminded that members of parliament were paid for their services up to Charles II.’s reign.
It might be expected that the secretary’s “Diary” would contain some pertinent observation upon elections; he has set down a good deal upon parliamentary matters that is curious and enlightening, but the diary ceases in May, 1669, and the more remarkable election contests commenced later.
Samuel Pepys was evidently as indifferent as were the courtiers of his day to the relatively vital importance of the Commons to the State. While accompanying the reforming member William Prynne, who had accused Sir G. Carteret of selling places,4 from Whitehall to the Temple, the diarist in return for the hospitality of his coach, endeavoured to obtain some information by the way as to the manner of holding parliaments, and whether the number of knights and burgesses were always the same. To which Prynne replied—
“that the latter were not; but that, for aught he can find, they were sent up at the discretion, at first of the Sheriffs, to whom the writs were sent to send up generally the Burgesses and citizens of their county, and he do find that heretofore the Parliament-men, being paid by the country, several boroughs have complained of the Sheriffs putting them to the charge of sending up Burgesses.”
This conversation was in January, 1668; in March, Pepys describes his dining with certain counsel retained 25 by creditors of the navy, the secretary having been to Cursitor Street to arrange assignments on the Exchequer to the tune of £1,250,000 in favour of these creditors. The counsel were pleased to flatter Mr. Secretary upon a recent performance of his in the Parliament House, and, finding himself with four learned lawyers, Pepys, with his dinner, enjoyed what he calls “a great deal of good discourse about parliament”—
“their number being uncertain, and always at the will of the king to increase, as he saw reason to erect a new borough. But all concluded the bane of the Parliament hath been the leaving off the old custom of the places allowing wages to those that served them in Parliament, by which they chose men that understood their business and would attend it, and they could expect an account from, which now they cannot, and so the Parliament is become a company of men unable to give account for the interest of the place they serve for.”
Andrew Marvell, member for Hull, who had enjoyed much experience of men and measures, found fit subject for satire among the corrupt comrades who now surrounded him in parliament.
From his “good discourse on parliament,” Mr. Secretary Pepys, by a happy coincidence, straightway betook himself to that palace, where he had the privilege of being well received, and in which, under the Stuarts, more curious 26 scenes were witnessed than falls to the lot of even the average of princely abodes:—
“Thence to Whitehall, where the Parliament was to wait on the King, and they did: and he did think fit to tell them that they might expect to be adjourned at Whitsuntide, and that they might make haste to raise their money: but this, I fear, will displease them, who did expect to sit as long as they pleased.”
A truly regal reception, and a most unceremonious mode of dismissing the “chosen of the people.” The wits of the day thus tersely summed up the situation of affairs:—
Perhaps the most felicitous sallies were due to the pen of that gifted reprobate, the Earl of Rochester, at times the alter ego of the Merry Monarch, but who finally, after enjoying boundless favour by diverting the king at his own royal expense as often as at that of his subjects, pointed a shaft with too galling a barb, and flitted away from a Court whose vileness he both exposed and shared in equally liberal measure:—
Later, Pepys is in conference with the king and the Duke of York (April, 1668) upon no less a subject than 27“about the Quakers not swearing, and how they do swear in the business of a late election of a Knight of the Shire of Hertfordshire in behalf of one they have a mind to have,” which diverts the monarch mightily.
We have seen how the juris-consultists who lived contemporaneously with the system of “paid members” considered the impartiality of representatives was protected from outside influences by the receipt of a small independence; later on we find that, owing to a dispute between the two Chambers, the impression was arrived at by the Peers that no salaried judges can be deemed impartial, and that hereditary legislators are the only reliable tribunals whence unimpeachable justice could be secured.
On a question of privilege between the Lords and Commons (May, 1668), when the latter took upon themselves to remedy an error of the Upper Chamber, Lord Anglesey informed the Commons that the Lords were “Judices nati et Conciliarii nati, but all other Judges among us are under salary, and the Commons themselves served for wages; and therefore the Lords, in reason, were the freer Judges.”
The circumstance of receiving a salary does not appear to have compromised the independence of members, but to the contrary, as they were thus enabled to keep their honesty the purer, by resisting the venal attacks of the Court. The integrity of members seems to have suffered when their fees were no longer recognized. The “Pensioner Parliament” came into existence precisely at the epoch when representatives remitted “their wages;” a significant circumstance, but indicative of the times; when selfishness usurped the place of patriotism, members sacrificed the modest retainers designed to keep them honest, that they might be the less fettered to bargain in their own interests.
The proverbial incorruptibility of Andrew Marvell is a 28 case in point. This example of a true patriot is erroneously said to have been the last member who received wages from his constituents. He died in 1678, M.P. for Hull.5 Others, his contemporaries, maintained the right, and suffered their arrears to accumulate, as a cheap resource at the next election. Marvell more than once, in his correspondence, speaks of members threatening to sue their boroughs for pay.6 Lord Braybrooke, in his notes to Pepys’s “Diary,” refers to a case, noticed by Lord Campbell in his “Life of Lord Nottingham,” where the M.P. for Harwich, in 1681, petitioned the Lord Chancellor, as that borough had failed “to pay him his wages.” A writ was issued “De expensis Burgensium levandis.” Lord Campbell adds, “For this point of the People’s Charter [payment of wages] no new law is required.”7
Pepys’s later allusions concern the constantly threatened dissolutions; in November, 1668, he records, “The great discourse now is that the Parliament shall be dissolved and another called, which shall give the King the Dean and Chapter’s lands, and that will put him out of debt,” concluding with a hint that the subtle and “brisk” Duke of Buckingham, at that time the actual ruler of the kingdom, “does knowingly meet daily with Wildman and other Commonwealth-men,” the while deceiving Charles into the belief that his intrigues were of a more tender nature.
At Whitehall, the same month, Pepys acquires some 29 fresh and rather significant information upon the subject of the Commons; it is imparted to him that—
“it was not yet resolved whether the Parliament should ever meet more or no, the three great rulers of things now standing thus:—The Duke of Buckingham8 is absolutely against their meeting, as moved thereto by his people that he advises with, the people of the late times, who do never expect to have anything done by this Parliament for their religion, and who do propose that, by the sale of the Church lands, they shall be able to put the King out of debt: my Lord Keeper is utterly against putting away this and choosing another Parliament, lest they prove worse than this, and will make all the King’s friends, and the King himself, in a desperate condition: my Lord Arlington [being under suspicion, owing to his mismanagement of money in Ireland] knows not which is best for him, being to seek whether this or the next will use him worse. It was told me that he believes that it is intended to call this Parliament, and try them for a sum of money; and, if they do not like it, then to send them going, and call another, who will, at the ruin of the Church perhaps, please the King with what he will have for a time.”
These passages need no comment, the accepted ideas upon representative government under the House of Stuart were such as to fill constitutional minds with amazement. This view is endorsed by a popular ballad of the day:—
The inconsistency of the king’s behaviour, and the triviality of his mind—when applied to matters of business, 30 and especially that of parliament—is happily held up to ridicule by one of his contemporary wits, who has thus parodied the expected speech from the throne:—
”My Lords and Gentlemen,
“I told you at our last meeting the Winter was the fittest time for business; and truly I thought so, till my Lord Treasurer assured me the Spring was the best season for salads and subsidies: I hope, therefore, that April will not prove so unnatural a month as not to afford some kind showers on my parched Exchequer, which gapes for want of them. Some of you perhaps will think it dangerous to make me too rich; but I do not fear it, for I promise you faithfully whatever you give me I will always want; and altho’ in other things my word may be thought a slender authority, yet in that you may rely upon me, I will never break it.
“My Lords and Gentlemen, I can bear my straits with patience; but my Lord Treasurer does protest to me, that the Revenue, as it now stands, will not serve him and me too; one of us must pinch for it if you do not help me. I must speak freely to you, I am under circumstances, for, besides my Harlots on service, my reformado Concubines lie heavy upon me. I have a passable good estate, I confess; but, Gads-fish, I have a great charge upon’t. Here’s my Lord Treasurer can tell, that all the money design’d for the next summer’s guards must of necessity be apply’d to the next year’s cradles and swaddling clothes. What shall we do for ships then? I hint this only to you, it being your business, not mine. I know by experience I can live without ships; I liv’d ten years abroad without, and never had my health better in my life; but how you will be without I leave to yourselves to judge, and therefore hint this only by the by; I don’t insist upon it. There’s another thing I must press more earnestly, and that is this. It seems a good part of my revenue will expire in two or three years, except you will be pleased to continue it. I have to say for’t, Pray why did you give me so much as you have done, unless you resolve to give on as fast as I call for it? The nation hates you already for giving so much, and I will hate you too if you do not give me more; so that if you stick not to me, you must not have a friend in England. On the other hand, if you will give me the revenue I desire, I shall be able to do those things for your Religion and Liberty that I have had long in my thoughts, but cannot effect them without a little more money to carry me through. Therefore look to’t, and take Notice that if you do not make me rich enough to undo you, it shall lie at your doors, for my part I wash my hands 31 on’t. But that I may gain your good opinion the best way is to acquaint you what I have done to deserve it out of my royal care for your religion and your property. For the first, my proclamation is a true picture of my mind: he that cannot, as in a glass, see my zeal for the Church of England, does not deserve any farther satisfaction, for I declare him wilful, abominable, and not good. Some may perhaps be startled, and cry—how comes this sudden change? To which I answer I am a changeling, and that’s sufficient, I think. But to convince men farther that I mean what I say, there are these arguments. First, I tell you so, and you know I never break my word. Secondly, my Lord Treasurer says so, and he never told a lie in his life. Thirdly, my Lord Lauderdale will undertake it for me, and I should be loth by any act of mine he should forfeit the credit he has with you.
“I must now acquaint you, that by my Lord Treasurer’s Advice, I have made a considerable retrenchment upon my expenses in Candles and Charcoal, and do not intend to stop there, but will, with your help, look into the late embezzlements of my dripping-pans and kitchen stuff; of which, by the way, upon my conscience, neither my Lord Treasurer nor my Lord Lauderdale are guilty. I tell you my opinion, but if you should find them dabbling in that business, I tell you plainly I leave ’em to you; for I would have the world know I am not a man to be cheated.
“My Lords and Gentlemen, I desire you to believe me as you have found me; and I do solemnly promise you, that whatsoever you give me shall be specially manag’d with the same conduct, trust, sincerity, and prudence, that I have ever practised since my happy Restoration.”
The commencement of party warfare as now recognized in parliamentary life may be dated from the Stuarts, and to account for the designations of Whig and Tory it is necessary to glance back at the parliamentary troubles of Charles II., 1679-1680, when that monarch, acting under the encouragement of Louis XIV., was inclined to make a misguided attempt to govern without a legislative chamber. In 1679 the monarch refused a Speaker to his Commons, finding that functionary obnoxious; and between this date and 1681 parliament was prorogued seven times: in fact—as a summary of Charles II.’s parliaments discloses—the discords of the previous reign were revived; the “town and country party” petitioned zealously for the reassembling 32 of parliament, while the Court party counter-petitioned “to declare their abhorrence of the late tumultuary petitioning.” Those who were urging on the struggle for popular representation and freedom were designated Petitioners, the king’s “friends” were voted “betrayers of the liberties of the people, and abettors of arbitrary power,” and expressively stigmatized as Abhorrers;9 from these two parties, which were ready to exterminate one another, arose the nicknames of Whigs and Tories, as is explained in Tindal’s “Rapin.”10
The “Abhorrers,” who were the mainstay of Charles’s utterly unconstitutional procedure, although as courtiers they hoped for their reward from the king, did not get much tolerance from the Commons: when the parliament at last reassembled, several members were expelled from the House on this pretence alone, and they consigned to the Tower that Sir Francis Withers who had been knighted for procuring and presenting the loyal address from the city of Westminster; the majority at the same time recording, as a gage of battle to their opponents, the resolution (October, 1680), “That it is the undoubted right of the subject to petition for the calling of a parliament, and that to traduce such petitions as tumultuous and seditious is to contribute to the design of altering the constitution.” The Tories at that time and long after maintained the doctrines of “divine hereditary indefeasible right, lineal succession, passive obedience, prerogative, etc.” 33
That a determined attitude was felt to be fitting is exhibited in the protests of the House, printed for circulation, like the following:—
“Wednesday, October 27, 1680.
“Two Unanimous votes of this present Honourable and Worthy Parliament concerning the subjects’ rights in Petitioning.
”Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,—
That it is and ever hath been the undoubted Right of the subjects of England to petition the King for calling and sitting of parliaments, and redressing of Grievances.
“Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,—
That to traduce such Petitioning is a violation of duty, and to represent it to his Majesty as Traitorous and seditious, is to betray the Liberty of the Subjects, and contributes to the design of subverting the ancient, legal Constitution of this Kingdom, and the Introducing Arbitrary Power.
”Ordered—That a Committee be appointed to enquire of all those Persons as have offended against these Rights of the subject.
“London: Printed for Francis Smith, Bookseller, at the Elephant and Castle, near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill.”
Francis Smith was the publisher—
“who suffered a Chargeable Imprisonment in the Gaol of Newgate, in December last, for printing and promoting Petitions for the Sitting of this present Parliament.”
He is referred to with acrimony in the ballads by Tantivy and courtier bards, among the “pestiferous crew of republican scribes.”
Charles’s first parliament was, amid the confusion of the time (the revolution subverted and royalty restored), barely constituted; it lasted from April 25, 1660, to December 29th, and, being assembled without the king’s writ, was, with customary royal ingratitude for “past favours,” considered by Charles as the Convention Parliament.11 The long Cavalier Parliament, some portion of which, like the king, was in the pay of Louis XIV., is stigmatized to posterity as the “Pensionary” Parliament; it met May 8, 34 1661, and lasted until January 24, 1679; the members were doubly corrupt, accepting money-bribes or lucrative offices from the Court, or being, according to Barillon’s clear declarations, in the pay of France and Holland, as regarded the patriotic members, who fiercely denounced the venality of the Court. In 1675 the oath against bribery was opportunely inaugurated, providing against corruption either from the Crown or from any ambassador or foreign minister. The Pensionary Parliament, which began its career by servile loyalty, and was merciless against Republicans, towards its close opposing the unreasonable extension of prerogative became factious and insubordinate, arrogating to itself the control of legal procedure, and, according to the opinions of extreme Royalists, generally proving itself a “scourge.”
The popular view of this venal legislature is given in the following version:—
35
Another warning note is struck in the following ballad, aimed at the reprobated Pensionary Parliament:—
Charles II.’s third, or Habeas Corpus Parliament, showed a determination to exceed its predecessor in opposing the Court, and seemed ambitious of imitating that of 1640, the reminiscences of which were still of a portentous character, and filled with dread as regarded the survivors of those uncompromising times:—
Charles very naturally found this parliament beyond his control, so it was prorogued May 27, 1679, to the 36 14th of August, but dissolved on the 10th of July. The whole country was in commotion during August and September in electioneering contests, preparing for the fourth parliament. It is to be regretted that electioneering broadsides have, as a rule, been allowed to perish; they would prove a mine of curious information.
The following is a pertinent allusion to the eventualities of the “poll:”—
The opprobrious terms of Whigs and Tories were freely exchanged. Here is a Whig’s view of the “king’s men:”—
The wit lay rather with the Cavaliers, though it must be confessed their opponents had the best of the argument when reasoning on facts.
The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose, is given in “A New Ballad” (Narcissus Luttrell’s Collection):—
By way of answer, the Tories exulted in their loyalty:—
The Court party denounced—
37
The designs of the various factions were thus summed up:—
The Tories retaliated upon their antagonists with interest, though they feared the zealots not a little, as the following ballad illustrates:—
One of the most popular “counter-blasts” to the Whig pretensions is embodied in the following parody, which enjoyed considerable favour, though not equal to Andrew Marvell’s diatribes “on the other side:”—
The newly elected parliament, the materials of which were equally unpalatable to the Court party, was summoned to meet in October, 1679, but, prorogued during the royal pleasure, it did not actually meet until October 21, 1680. The interval was marked by the presentation of loyal addresses and petitions for its reassembling. Further prorogued on the 10th of January, it was dissolved on the 18th, to be followed by the “Oxford Parliament” of eight days, which was dissolved on March 28, 1681. The nation saw itself on the verge of civil war, and, remembering what it had suffered—while opposing the encroachments of the Crown and autocratic exactions—from the opposite extremes of anarchy and fanaticism, the people were resigned to temporize, and thus Charles was allowed to rule without a parliament until his death.
The following satire is well-founded, and pertinent to the prevalent state of affairs:—
Being an excellent new Ballad, in which the qualities of each month are considered, whereby it appears that a parliament cannot meet in any of the old months; with a proposal for mending the Calendar. Humbly offered to the packers of the next parliament,”
—which, as it fell out, never reassembled during the reign of the Merry Monarch. The rhymster, after rehearsing the sufficient reasons why every month, from January to December, is unfitted, according to the royal inclinations, for the assembling of a parliament, concludes with a prayer by way of—
The political squibs of this time are chiefly written by Cavaliers, and give a one-sided view, from which, however, much may be gathered. Though not actually election addresses, they refer to the claims which the electors of the kingdom found themselves constrained to address to the throne.
Among the collection of “Bagford Ballads,” so capably edited and illustrated by J. W. Ebsworth, M.A.,12 is a group of parliamentary election ballads, apparently of the date 1679-80, and relating to Essex, Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, and the Universities. The Titus Oates plot; the Duke of York and his threatened exclusion from the succession; the impeachment by the Commons of a secretary of State, of Lord Danby, lord-treasurer; with the opposing designs of the Papists and the rabid Dissenters; and, above all, the petitions and the counter-petitions, seem the leading topics of these satires: but they do not contain much enlightenment upon elections, pure and simple. “The Essex Ballad,” humorously explains the modus operandi of the “abhorred” petitions.
41
The grievances of the petitioning constituencies are farcically rehearsed, the king is prayed that he will not “quite forget the Senate,” and the writer goes on to describe the signatories of this “Anti-Popish Bull.” When all hands had been set to the roll, it was found that—
“Ribbons green,” were the badges of the Protestant Association, at the head of which was Shaftesbury, “the popular favourite,” or “Sejanus,” as his enemies designated him. Vide “A Litany from Geneva:”—
The obstinate and infatuated zealots, who would insist on keeping up the pretence that parliaments were essential to the constitutional government of the kingdom, were, with the suspected association, treated to all the witticisms 42 Cavalier balladists could bring to bear against preposterous attempts to assail the royal prerogative, and enforce the just balance of the State:—
The members representing Buckingham town in the fourth parliament of Charles II., 1679, were Lord Latimer and Sir Richard Temple.
The Buckingham ballad, “The Sale of Esau’s Birthright,” which relates to these members, is interesting from an electioneering point, as proving bribery, and as showing there were only thirteen electors of this limited constituency concerned in this particular return. Six voted, according to a list at the end of the ballad, “for their king and country,” and seven for Lord Latimer and Sir Timber Temple (the Earl of Danby, in another version), “for popery and their Town Hall” (“Sir R. T. his Timber, Chimney-money and Court,” according to another version). It seems certain that Sir Richard Temple had offered a present of timber for the Town Hall—in fact, some years later he is called “Timber Temple” (“State Poems”)—which was regarded as a bribe; it also appears that some delay had arisen in its payment.
The other electors were a barber, two maltsters, a baker, and a farmer; the peppery ballad castigates the former, and concludes with a groan against the members returned:—
“The Wiltshire20 Ballad,” also belonging to this so-called “group of election ballads,” professes to be—
The Court party lost no opportunity of abusing their opponents of the Constitutional and Protestant party; they not only did the Whigs the favour to hate them cordially, but, as their own satires abundantly demonstrate, they also dreaded and feared them not a little.
The more sober-sided attacks came from the opponents of overstrained prerogative and those who upheld the popular rights of representation against absolute monarchy; witness the following:—
Or a Second Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning home from choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament.
(PRINTED FOR T. B.)
Roger. Well overtook, neighbour. I see you are not a man of your word; did you not promise me, when we last met, that you would vote for our old members, that sat in the last Parliament, to be Knights of the Shire, to sit in the parliament at Oxford.
Humphrey. I thought to do so, but, by my brown cow, I have been over-persuaded to the contrary by my Landlord and his Chaplain, Mr. Tantivie, and a pestilent fine man, I think they said he was a courtier, that lay at my Landlord’s house; and what with arguments and wine, they drew aside my heart, and made me vote against my conscience.
Roger. ’Twas ill done, neighbour Numps, but all their artifices 46 would not do, we have carried it by some hundreds for our old members, that stood so bravely for their country.
Humphrey. I am glad of it with all my heart, for, to tell you truly, tho’ my landlord had my voice, the old members had my heart, and I’ll never do so again.
Roger. I hear most of the Counties in England are of the same mind, and all the Burgess Towns, Cities, and Corporations; but what arguments could they use to alter thy mind?
Humphrey. First, I say, they made me continually drunk, and then my Landlord asked me so very civilly, and gave me so many good words, and fine promises what a kind Landlord he would be, that I forgot all your instructions; and methought he had invincible arguments to persuade me.
Roger. What were they?
Humphrey. Nay, I have forgot them; but I thought no Counsellor-at-Law, nor any Bishop, could have contradicted them: I now remember one argument that took with me; you know I was ever for the King, and he told me the King did not love the old Parliament-men, and therefore I should not vote for them; but I, being bold, asked him how he knew that.
Roger. What said he then?
Humphrey. Why he laid me as flat as a flounder, that is, he fully convinced me, for, said he, if the King had loved them he would not have dissolved them. I think that was demonstrable.
Roger. ’Tis no matter, tho’ the King did not love them, they lov’d you and your country, and you should so far have loved yourself, as not to have betrayed your own interest. What said the Courtier?
Humphrey. ‘Faith he said not much to me, but I suppose he had said enough to my Landlord.
Roger. And was this all your Landlord said to you? Had you nothing to say for yourself? You spoke rationally the last time we were together.
Humphrey. Nay, I was forward enough to speak I’ll assure you; and I told them I was sure our old members would be for the rooting up of Popery, and would stand stiffly against Arbitrary Government.
Roger. What said they then?
Humphrey. My Landlord laughed at me, and told me I had been among the Presbyterian Whigs, and bid me have a care of being cheated into Rebellion, by those two words Popery and Arbitrary Government. Then he showed me a printed paper, I think he called it The Mistress of Iniquity, which showed as plain as the nose on my face, that in ’41 they did as we do now, and by that means they brought one King to the block, and so they would now do by our present Sovereign, God bless him.
Roger. Alas! alas! and that frighted you, did it?
Humphrey. Frighted me, ay marry did it, and I think ’twould 47 affright any honest man; you know I was always a King’s man, and I would be taught to join with those, or give my Voice for such, who, under the notion of crying against Popery and Arbitrary Government, would pull down the King and the Bishops, and set up a Commonwealth again.
Roger. Well, Numps, I believe thee to be an honest man, and there be many in this land of thy condition, that are not of any great reach in policies and tricks of State Mountebanks, and so may be easily persuaded, upon false grounds, to betray your country, your liberties, your lives, and religion.
Humphrey. Nay, that was not all; he then read another printed paper, with a hard name, I think it was Hercules Rideing, or something of jest and earnest which I laughed heartily at, and methought there were some things called ‘Querks,’ which made a jingling and noise in my ears, that I thought there was some spell in it, for it seemed to join with Mistress Iniquity, to make all the Presbyterians traitors, and most of the people of England mad and factious.
Roger. There is as much heed to be given to these pamphlets as to the jingling of Morrice-bells. They are hired to set the people together by the ears, and are Papists in masquerade; things set up to affright the people out of their senses, with the buy leave of ’41; wise men see through them, honest men are not affrighted at them, and fools and knaves only are led aside by them.
Humphrey. But don’t we do now as formerly, before the late wars? don’t we run in just the same steps as they did, who caused all the late bloody doings, as those pamphlets would make us believe?
Roger. I cannot tell what they mean by roads and highways; pray Hodge, we are now riding in the High-road to the next market-town; before the last Assizes, in this very road three or four Highwaymen rode in it too, and robbed several persons, and committed many villainous murders, and were at last caught and hanged for it; now therefore, because we are riding in the same Highway, must we honest men be accounted thieves, robbers, and murderers, and all others who travel this road? that’s a hard case.
Humphrey. You say right, neighbour Hodge, tho’ the gallows stand in the highway, we need not run our Heads against it, nor do anything to deserve it.
Roger. Shall not the people who feel the burden and groan under the oppression, and, having no other way of redress but a parliament, desire and petition for one, and cry out against such illegal and unjust proceedings, but presently they must be termed by these fellows seditious, factious, and such as would dethrone the King, and pull down the Bishops? Then all men must hereafter be afraid to speak, to vote, or to petition against grievances, lest they should be termed rebels, villains, and traitors.
48
Humphrey. O neighbour, my heart trembles! what a rogue was I to vote at random, when our all lies at stake! I did not think we had put such a trust into the hands of our Parliament-men; I thought, alas, as many do, that we chose only for form-sake, and that they were only called to Parliament to give the King money, and to do what he would have them; and we have paid so many taxes already, and given so much money, that I wished in my heart there would be no more parliaments in my days.
Roger. You see you were mistaken; ’tis the greatest trust that can be put into the hands of men, when we send to the parliament our representatives, for we entrust them with our religion, lives, liberties, and property, all we have; for they may preserve them to us, give them from us, and therefore, neighbour, we ought to be careful in whom we put this great trust, and not be persuaded by our Landlord or any flattering Courtier, or ‘horn-winding Tantivie’ of them all, to choose those whom we know not, and are not well assured of, and that we dare not confide in.”
Equally sound in argument is the following:—
(PRINTED FOR B. T. 1681.)
Parliaments have been wont to take up some space at the first Meetings to settle the House, and to determine of unlawful elections, and in this point they never had greater cause to be circumspect than at this time: For by an abuse lately crept in, there is introduced a custom, which, if it be not seen and prevented, will be a great derogation of the honour, and a weakening of the power of your House, where the law giveth a freedom to Corporations to elect Burgesses, and forbiddeth any indirect course to be taken in their Elections, many of the Corporations are so base-minded and timorous, that they will not hazard the indignation of a Lord Lieutenant’s letter, who, under-hand, sticks not to threaten them, if he hath not the Election of the Burgesses, and not they themselves.
And commonly those that the Lords recommend are such as desire it for protection, or are so ignorant of the place they serve for, as that there being occasion to speak of the Corporation for which they are chosen, they have asked their neighbours sitting by, whether it were a sea or a land town?
The next thing that is required is Liberty of Speech, without which Parliaments have little force or power; speech begets doubts, and resolves them; and doubts in speeches beget understanding; he that doubts much, asketh often, and learns much; and he that fears the worst, soonest prevents a mischief. 49
This privilege of speech is anciently granted by the testimony of Philip Cominus, a stranger,24 who prefers our parliaments, and the freedom of the subject in them, above all other Assemblies; which Freedom, if it be broken or diminished, is negligently lost since the days of Cominus.
If Freedom of Speech should be prohibited, when men with modesty make repetition of the grievances and enormities of the kingdom; when men shall desire Reformation of the wrongs and injuries committed, and have no relation of evil thoughts to his Majesty, but with open heart and zeal, express their dutiful and reverent respect to him and his service; I say, if this kind of Liberty of Speech be not allowed in time of Parliaments, they will extend no farther than to Quarter-Sessions, and their Meetings and Assemblies will be unnecessary, for all means of disorder now crept in, and all remedies and redresses will be quite taken away.
As it is no manners to contest with the King in his Election of his Councillors and servants (for Kings obey no men, but their laws), so it were a great negligence, and part of Treason, for a subject not to be free in speech against the abuses, wrongs, and offences that may be occasioned by Persons in authority. What remedy can be expected from a prince to a subject, if the enormities of the kingdom be concealed from him? or what King so religious and just in his own nature, that may not hazard the loss of the hearts of his subjects, without this Liberty of Speech in Parliament? For such is the misfortune of most princes, and such is the happiness of subjects where Kings’ affections are settled, and their loves so far transported to promote servants, as they only trust and credit what they shall inform.
In this case, what subject dares complain? or what subject dares contradict the words or actions of such a servant, if it be not warranted by Freedom of a Parliament, they speaking with humility? for nothing obtaineth favour with a King, so much as diligent obedience.
The surest and safest way betwixt the King and his people, which hath the least scandal of partiality, is, with indifference, and integrity, and sincerity, to examine the grievances of the Kingdom, without touching the person of any man, further than the cause giveth the occasion: for otherwise, you shall contest with him that hath the prince’s ears open to hearken to his enchanting tongue, he informs secretly, when you shall not be admitted to excuses, he will cast your deserved malice against him, to your contempt against the King; and so will make the prince the shield of his revenge.
These are the sinister practices of such servants to deceive their 50 Sovereigns; when our grievances shall be authentically proved, and made manifest to the world by your pains to examine and freedom to speak. No prince can be so affectionate to a servant, or such an enemy to himself, as not to admit of this indifferent proceeding: if his services be allowable and good, they will appear with glory; if bad, your labour shall deserve thanks both of Prince and country.
When justice shall thus shine, people will be animated to serve their King with integrity; for they are naturally inclined to imitate their princes in good or bad.
If any man shall pervert this good meaning and motion of yours, and inform his Majesty, ’Tis a Derogation from his Honour to yield to his subjects upon Conditions, his Majesty shall have good cause to prove such men’s eyes malicious and unthankful, and thereby to disprove them in all their outer actions; for what can it lessen the reputation of a Prince whom the subject only and wholly obeyeth, that a Parliament which his Majesty doth acknowledge to be his highest Council, should advise him, and he follow the advice of such a Council? What dishonour rather were it to be advised and ruled by one Councillor alone, against whom there is just one exception taken of the whole Commonwealth?
Marcus Portio saith, that that Commonwealth is everlasting, where the Prince seeks to get obedience and love, and the subjects to gain the affection of the Prince; and that Kingdom is unhappy where their Prince is served out of ends and hope of reward, and hath no other assurance of them but their service.”
The substitution of Oxford, “the hot-bed of Toryism,” for Westminster as the place of assembly for what proved Charles II.’s last parliament, was violently opposed by the members, who naturally resented this royal manœuvre of cutting off the representatives from the protection of the citizens. A petition remonstrating against the change was presented by Essex and sixteen other Peers; this darkly set forth dangers to the Crown, and reminded the king of the disasters which had always followed similar departures from the rule of London parliaments. Charles frowned, but took no heed. The parliament, forced into submission, attended at Oxford, Shaftesbury and other adherents taking with them a body-guard of armed retainers, citizens of London, wearing the Association green ribbons, with the legend, “No Popery: no Slavery!” 51
The doctors were dispossessed from their seats to make way for the legislators:—
Parliament met March 21, 1681. Of its short existence of eight days, three were consumed in formalities, the choice of a Speaker, and other preliminaries. The course of the action of the members was predetermined. They were to insist on the banishment and exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession. The impeachment was to be proceeded with of Fitz-Harris, who was imprisoned and awaiting trial, on an information of Everard, for being the author of a treasonable libel; it was understood, or at least expected, that the Duchess of Portsmouth and others of the Court would be implicated in his confession. The Lords voted that he should be proceeded against at Common Law, by which decision the Commons were craftily involved in a struggle for privilege and power with the Peers, who were also less impatient than themselves to carry the Exclusion Bill, the Lower House resolving that “it is the undoubted right of the Commons in parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in parliament any Peer or Commoner for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour; and that the refusal of the Lords to proceed in parliament upon such impeachment is a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution.”26 52
This squabble between the two branches of the legislature exactly answered the king’s occasions; he made this a pretence for again dissolving the parliament, thus saving his brother and the Duchess of Portsmouth from the designs of the Commons. As it was, Charles coolly dismissed them as impracticable and useless, telling them, “he perceived there were great heats between the Lords and Commons, and their beginnings had been such as he could expect no good success of this parliament, and therefore thought fit to dissolve them.” This was on the 28th of March. On this point the Rev. J. W. Ebsworth, M.A., who has edited the “Bagford Ballads,” which illustrate the last years of the Stuarts, remarks—
“Had they been in London, there can be no doubt they would have resisted, calling the City to support them, and voted themselves permanent, to the defiance of the King and a commencement of civil war. He saw their plan, and conquered them.”
It was the lesson of “forty-one” to be taught again, as was prophetically hinted by “the ghost of the late Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford.” In reference to the tyranny of the Commons, as opposed to the absolutism of the Crown, we find a Loyal Poem, entitled—
The actual “Oxford Poem” in the Bagford Collection is addressed:—
For a fine, ancient, divine-right-of-kings effusion commend us to the following full-flavoured High Tory manifesto:—
56
With the accession of James II. a fresh era of parliament commences. It was the first object of the newly proclaimed king to secure a liberal allowance, settled for life, such as would make him independent of “his faithful Commons.” His late brother having attempted to govern without that section of the legislature in which is vested the control of supplies, was, towards the close of his reign, getting to the end of his resources, derived from foreign pensions for the most part. Evelyn records that within a month of Charles’s death a parliament was summoned, and “great industry used to obtain elections which might promote the Court interest, most of the Corporations being now, by their new charters, empowered to make what return they pleased.” These liberties were, however, restored in the nature of bribes, the new charters granted by the Court being held as considerations for the election of such as were reckoned in the interests of that faction. Evelyn himself discloses this damaging fact: “It was reported that Lord Bath carried down with him into Cornwall no fewer than fifteen charters, so that some called him the ‘Prince Elector.’” This was an “electioneering job” on a gigantic scale, and the new parliament seems to have been returned on these corrupt principles where it was possible. On the same authority, we are enlightened concerning another piece of electioneering strategy, which proves that, as Praed has wittily told in verse, expediency has ever been proved the ruling policy 57 on both sides. Under the 8th of April, 1685, the diary records—
“This day my brother of Wotton and Mr. Onslow were candidates for Surrey against Sir Adam Brown and my cousin Sir Edward Evelyn, and were circumvented in their election by a trick of the Sheriff’s,30 taking advantage of my brother’s party going out of the small village of Leatherhead to seek shelter and lodging, the afternoon being tempestuous, proceeding to the election when they were gone, they expecting the next morning; whereas before and then they exceeded the other party by many hundreds, as I am assured. The Duke of Norfolk led Sir Edward Evelyn’s and Sir Adam Brown’s party. For this Parliament very mean and slight persons (some of them gentlemen’s servants, clerks, and persons neither of reputation nor interest) were set up; but the country would choose my brother whether he would or no, and he missed it by the trick above-mentioned. Sir Adam Brown was so deaf that he could not hear one word. Sir Edward Evelyn31 was an honest gentleman, much in favour with his majesty.”
On the 22nd of May, 1685, the new king met his parliament (with his crown on his head), and the Commons being introduced to the House of Lords, read his speech, to the effect that he resolved to call a parliament from the moment of his brother’s decease, as the best means to settle all the concerns of the nation; that as he would invade no man’s property, so he would never depart from his own prerogative; and that as he would take care of their religion and property,—
“so he doubted not of suitable returns of his subjects’ duty and kindness, especially as to settling his revenues for life, for the many weighty necessities of government, which he would not suffer to be precarious; that some might possibly suggest that it were better to feed and supply him from time to time only, out of their inclination to frequent parliaments; but that that would be a very improper method to take with him, since the best way to engage him to meet oftener would be always to use him well, and therefore he expected their compliance speedily, that this session being but short, they might meet again to satisfaction;”
a speech which, in spite of its palpable duplicity, was 58 received with acclamation by the House. “So soon as the Commons were returned, and had put themselves into a Grand Committee, they immediately put the question, and unanimously voted the revenue to his Majesty for life.” This ready subserviency is explained, as it transpires, from Evelyn’s account, that the new members were not all that could be desired:—
“Mr. Seymour made a bold speech against many of the elections; and would have had those members who (he pretended) were obnoxious, to withdraw, till they had cleared the matter of their being legally returned: but no one seconded him. The truth is, there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were universally censured, many of them being persons of no condition, or interest in the nation, or places for which they served, especially in Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk, etc., said to have been recommended by the Court, and from the effect of the new charters changing the electors, as in Lord Bath’s famous western tour, when that nobleman is said to have quietly put down the names of all the officers of the Guards into the charters of the Cornwall boroughs; whence Seymour told the House in his speech that if this was digested, they might introduce what religion and laws they pleased, and that though he never gave heed to the fears and jealousies of the people before, he was now really apprehensive of Popery.
“By the printed list of members, of 505 there did not appear to be above 135 who had been in former Parliaments, especially that lately held at Oxford.”
Under the same date, 1685, Burnet mentions that complaints came up from all parts of England of the injustice and violence used in elections.
James II. got on no better with his parliaments than his predecessor; on his abdication at the Revolution, a convention parliament was assembled, which ratified the late changes, and offered the sovereignty to William of Orange and Mary his consort. The political squibs upon this topic are not wanting in point:—
The Whigs, who had effected the Revolution which placed William III. on the throne, were now in the enjoyment of place and power, to the mortification of the discomfited Tories, whose vexation on the aspect of affairs, which gave them no prospect of a return to office, found expression in satirical attacks upon their more successful adversaries.
Disappointment, and a long spell of disfavour at Court, 60 embittered the Tory wits, and lent a barb to those satirical shafts which they freely launched at their powerful opponents, the Whigs in office and in parliament.
A poetic effusion, one of the relics of a parliamentary election in the reign of William III., was printed in 1701. It is entitled “The Election, a Poem,” and evidently describes an election for the city of London; the scene of the incident is the Guildhall, where the electoral struggle was fought out beneath the shelter of the civic guardians, Gog and Magog. This production, redolent of the savour of the seventeenth century, is interesting as displaying the nature of “election squibs” under an early guise. The poem opens with a brief introduction of the principal performers, and alludes to the scene of the contest.
The bard describes the “City Godmother,” an obsolete mistress, whose traditions were with the Tories of the past:—
In vain does the antique beldame recall the “bad old times” of fanaticism and oppression (when in a former reign the civic charters were taken away perforce), and exhort the sympathies of the crowd to turn from Whiggism and embrace the abuses of the Stuarts:—
Next comes the hustings:—
The author first introduces the candidates who were obnoxious to him, and he certainly roasts them royally, and serves with a right pungent sauce. Priso, the first candidate to appear before the freeholders, had degraded himself as a tool of the late Court, and when in possession of the chair had basely surrendered the liberties of the city corporation.
Candidate number two, Child, was, it is hinted, in the 62 interests of the “prince over the water,” whom he was hopeful of converting from popery.
The sentiments put into the mouths of the candidates contain enlightenment upon city matters, as well as upon prominent citizens, both under the reign of William III. and his predecessors from the Restoration. Another candidate is thinly disguised under the nickname of “the Czar.” He is made to thus candidly address the “medley voting crowd:”—
The poetaster has nothing but good repute to shower on the late representatives of the city of London; he bids his Muse—
64
Another favourite and patriotic candidate is “Asto,” who—
The other candidates—“friends to their country all,” according to the bard—are christened “Witho,” “Hethban,” and “Pastor.”
With the death of William III. the Tory prospects revived, and their attacks became bolder. In alluding to the accident which caused the king’s end, the party lyrists showed no compassion for “a fallen foe.”
One of the ballads in the Bagford collection applies to the elections which took place in Queen Anne’s reign (the first parliament dissolved April 5, 1705); this High Tantivy effusion of the Tory Alma-Mater is rather long-winded, and we must be content with a brief extract:—
One of the forty-nine verses of which “The University Ballad” consists contains an allusion to an important collision between the two Chambers upon disputed elections, which came about in Queen Anne’s reign:—
The names first given refer to the disputants, while Sir H—— in all probability is one of the University’s parliamentary representatives, Sir Heneage Finch, son of Finch, Lord Keeper and Chancellor. He was returned in 1678, 1688, 1695, and also in 1701 and 1702. The important dispute in question, which is not without interest, as it bears a special reference to election practices which were at one time prevalent, arose between the Lords and Commons on the occasion of the Aylesbury returns, and the case came before parliament in 1703-4. It seems to have been the tactics of those persons whose party held a majority in the House, to decide all disputed elections so as to strengthen their own side. “The majority,” meaning the government, legislated thus partially, conveniently ignoring the energetic protests against such flagrant injustice—the condonation of direct bribery and downright perjury, according to the allegations of the minority; who, it is said, when the turn of the wheel came which raised them to power, invariably endorsed the policy of their predecessors by repeating the same evil practices. The investigation brought to light the illegitimate nature of election returns, proving that it had long been the habit of constables and similar officials to secure for such candidates as would pay them sufficiently, their return for parliament by obtaining 67 a majority of votes for the person who purchased their connivance: thus, after the seat was, in advance, put up to the highest bidder, pains were taken to ascertain in whose favour each vote was likely to be given; those burgesses who were not to be cajoled or bribed into voting for the candidate adopted by the constables were prevented from voting otherwise, under various pretexts by which they were disabled or disfranchised,—an oppression which reduced representative government to a mere pretence. Yet, although these glaring illegalities were patent, they had offered such temptations as to have been condoned successively by either party in power.
At length the evils of this system were forced upon the attention of the legislature, as certain burgesses of Aylesbury (Bucks) resisted the authority of the venal officers which had prevailed unchallenged hitherto, and at length brought a criminal action against William White and other constables of the borough. One Matthew Ashby had been permitted to vote at previous elections, but on the recent occasion was denied the privilege, as his vote happened to be in favour of the candidate who had not secured the official interest. The trial came on, and proved a complicated affair. The constables lost the day at the assizes, being cast in damages. Brought before the Queen’s Bench, a majority of two judges supported the constables, although the third, Chief Justice Holt, was opposed to them. The House of Lords reversed this judgment, confirming the award of the assizes. The Commons grew indignant with the Peers at threatened encroachments, and voted that Ashby, in prosecuting his action, had committed “a breach of privilege”—that delicate offence so swiftly and severely visited with condemnation. Lastly, the Lords fulminated their censures on the Commons for crying injustice; at their order the Lord Keeper sent “a copy of the case and of their resolutions to all the Sheriffs of England, to be communicated to all the Boroughs in their counties,” enlightening all concerned upon prevailing malpractices, and serving as a caution 68 for the future—a proceeding highly provoking to the Commons, who were powerless to hinder it. They turned their indignant wrath upon the five burgesses of Aylesbury, who followed suit to Ashby, against White: when their actions were brought against the borough constables, as returning officers, for the refusal of their votes, “the House of Commons, on plea of breach of privilege, committed the five to Newgate, where they lay imprisoned three months.” By a curious turn of the tables, when their trial came on at the Queen’s Bench, Chief Justice Holt declared they ought to be discharged, but, being remanded, the prisoners were removed into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and the Commons were covered with disgrace by the after-proceedings. The dilemma was obviated by the queen interfering with a prorogation, followed by a dissolution on the 5th of April, 1705, which thus concluded the last session of Queen Anne’s first parliament.
The “loyal Tackers,” who fought so hard to get their own way under the easy sovereignty of their “gracious Anna,” were occasionally treated to hard rubs by their opponents, the stedfast Whigs, whose prospects again brightened at the close of Anne’s reign.
In 1695, the legislature passed a severe act against bribery and treating, the first of a series of similar preventative measures which have been found requisite from time to time down to our own day.
That this act was needed is proved by the records of the immense sums expended in corrupting the suffrage. Addison’s patron, Thomas, Marquis of Wharton, is calculated to have spent eighty thousand pounds of his own fortune in electioneering. This spirited nobleman, who was one of the most energetic Whigs, and largely instrumental in bringing over the Prince of Orange, has been regarded as the greatest adept at electioneering which England ever saw, and, says Hannay, “may pass as the patriarch of the art in this country.” It is certain that his abilities were admirably adapted to the purpose of exercising this control. It was his policy “to forward the designs of an oligarch by the attraction of a demagogue,” a branch of higher art, which has had imitators in this age. He managed to return from twenty to thirty members, at an expenditure of thousands, backed by a 70 happy persuasive knack of carrying all before him. Nor did he stop at an occasional duel by the way. In the general election of 1705 alone, he spent twelve thousand pounds. But cash, pluck, enterprise, and activity would have been less conspicuous had they not been supplemented by what has been called a “born genius for canvassing,” as is proved from the “Memoirs” which appeared shortly after his death in 1715. Wharton’s biographer introduces the subject of an electoral contest for the borough of Wicombe, at the beginning of Anne’s reign. His Whig lordship having recommended two candidates of his own choice, the staunch Church party, in a flutter of indignation, put up two High Tory candidates, and money was freely spent on both sides. A friend of one of the High Church candidates being desirous of witnessing the progress made by this canvasser, was invited down to Wicombe to watch the proceedings, and it was he who imparted the details to the compiler of the “Memoirs.”36 The “Tantivy” party arrived to find my Lord Wharton before them, accompanied by his two protégées, going up and down the town securing votes for the Whig interest. The Tory candidates and a very few followers marched on one side of the street, Lord Wharton’s candidates and a great company on the other.
“The gentleman, not being known to my lord or the townsmen, join’d with his lordship’s men to make discoveries, and was by when my lord, entering a shoemaker’s shop, asked ‘where Dick was.’ The good woman said ‘her husband was gone two or three miles off with some shoes, but his lordship need not fear him—she would keep him tight.’ ‘I know that,’ says my lord, ‘but I want to see Dick and drink a glass with him.’ The wife was very sorry Dick was out of the way. ‘Well,’ says his lordship, ‘how does all thy children? Molly is a brave girl I warrant by this time.’ ‘Yes, I thank ye, my lord,’ says the woman: and his lordship continued—‘Is not Jemmy breeched yet?”
This conversation convinced the witness that his friend’s chances were hopeless in opposing a great Peer who could 71 display such an intimate knowledge of the electors and their families. To the said marquis does Dr. Percy attribute the famous Irish ballad of “Lillibulero,” which is said to have had effects more powerful than the philippics of Demosthenes or the orations of Cicero, and certainly contributed not a little towards the revolution in 1688.
In the days of Queen Anne, the arrival of a popular candidate of the High Tory type was welcomed in a stately manner by the supporters of the “Church” cause, as appears from “Dyer’s Letters.”
“May 5th.—From Exon, we have an account of the honourable reception there of John Snell, Esq., one of the representatives in the late parliament, an honest, loyal, and brave Tacker, who arrived from London on the 1st inst., having been met some miles out of town by above 500 horse and some 1000 foot, composed of the neighbouring gentry, with the clergy, aldermen, and principal citizens; who conducted him to his own house with the city music playing before him, the streets echoing with these acclamations—‘God bless the loyal Tackers, and send the Sneakers more honesty and courage.’”
According to the Tories, all who were opposed to the “Tackers” of their order must be stigmatized to the public as “Sneakers.”
The Whigs were equally unscrupulous in the audacity of their assertions; the fatally damaging effect of a startling calumny, no matter how improbable, so that it be bold enough, exploded on an opponent by way of surprise—a resource much relied upon when matters looked desperate at these times of unsparing warfare—is illustrated in the next extract:—
“May 15th.—The Lord Woodstock, son of the Earl of Portland, has carried it at Southampton against Fred Tilney, Esq., a loyal and worthy gentleman, which was done by this trick:—that gentleman happening to pay his reckoning in that town with about 70 Loudores, which he had received there, the Whig party immediately gave out he was a French pensioner, which calumny answered their purpose.”
“May 29th.—Since my last, we have had an account of several elections, which I leave to the Gazette to enumerate: only the management of some of them is worth notice, particularly for the county 72 of Worcester, where Sir John Packington and Mr. Bromley carried it gloriously against Mr. Walsh, who was set up by the Dissenters. Sir John Packington had a banner carried before him, whereon was painted a church falling, with this inscription—‘For the Queen and Church, Packington.’ It was observable, that while they were marching through the Foregate-Street, they met the Bishop’s coach, in which was a Non-Con. teacher, going to poll for Capt. Walsh, but the horses (at the sight of the church, as ’twas believed) turned tail, overturned and broke the same, and very much bruised the Holder-Forth’s outward man; and this raised no small admiration that the Bishop’s horses should be afraid of a church.”
The commotion which in the days of Queen Anne was manifested in the public thoroughfares at an electioneering epoch is incidentally pictured by Dean Swift, in his “Journal to Stella:”—
“Oct. 5, 1710.—This morning Delaval came to see me, and went to Kneller’s, who was in town. On the way we met the electors for parliament-men, and the rabble came about our coach, crying, ‘A Colt! A Stanhope! etc.’ We were afraid of a dead cat, or our glasses broken, and so were always of their side.”
Among the lost illustrations of the humours of elections is the ballad, “full of puns,” which Swift mentions having produced on that said Westminster election; for any trace of which we have vainly searched among the political pamphlets and poetical broadsides of the Queen Anne era.
It is Swift who relates the untoward catastrophe which awaited his friend, Richard Steele, the improvident “Tatler,” who, having a design to serve in the last parliament of Queen Anne, resigned his place of Commissioner of the Stamp Office in June, 1713, and was chosen for the borough of Stockbridge, in Hampshire, one of the snug constituencies swept away by the Reform Bill a century or so later. The Dean writes of Dick’s adventures on this errand:—
“There was nothing there to perplex him but the payment of a £300 bond, which lessened the sum he carried down, and which an odd dog of a creditor had intimation of and took this opportunity to recover.” 73
Steele’s parliamentary career was brief. He had not been long in the House before he contrived to get expelled, and gave deadly offence to the queen, by writing “The Englishman” and “The Crisis” against the Jacobite Tories. With the advent of his “Protestant hero,” George I., Steele secured patronage, knighthood, and a seat in the first parliament, where he sat for the since-notorious Boroughbridge, Yorkshire.
A deeply designed stroke of electioneering policy is credited to Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, who excelled in the subtle tactics invaluable in these emergencies, which raised her to the level of Wharton in election fame, while promoting the success of her nominees. Lord Grimston happened to oppose her grace’s candidates. Now, Lord Grimston, as is related by Johnson, had written a heavy play, “Love in a Hollow Tree,” having become ashamed of which bantling, he did his best to suppress it:—
“But the Duchess of Marlborough had kept one, and when he was against her at an election, she had a new edition of it printed, and prefixed to it, as a frontispiece, an elephant dancing on a rope; to show that his Lordship’s writing comedy was as awkward as an elephant dancing on a rope.”37
It was so much a matter of course that everything in a man’s life should tell against him, if he had the temerity to stand for parliament, that Johnson, when interrogated by Boswell, “whether a certain act of folly would injure a friend of theirs for life?” replied, 74“It may perhaps, sir, be mentioned at an election,”—the duchess’s feat probably presenting itself to Johnson’s mind at the time.
Hannay, in his sparkling essay on “Electioneering,” also relates the following:—“Mamma,” said a young candidate to his parent in deep confidence, one nomination day, “tell me truly, is there anything against my birth?”—an ingenious precaution in view of eventualities which the youth not imprudently employed to prepare himself for the worst, and that he might not he taken by surprise at the hustings.
The Tories were forced, after their failure to proclaim the Pretender as successor to Queen Anne, to subscribe their loyalty on the accession of George I. This they did with a reservation, as hinted by their opponents, who now held the good things of the administration:—
It was not without reasonable suspicions of the Jacobite party that the ministers of George I. deemed it prudent to keep the Commons they had, rather than face a fresh election, since a general mistrust was abroad. From an effusion upon the bell-ringing in 1716, on the anniversary of Queen Anne’s coronation, it appears this tribute of respect to the memory of the late sovereign was regarded as a Tory manifesto:—
According to the lyrist, the papists were tired of praying for Walpole’s abrupt end; but the conclusion 75 exhibits the feeling then prevailing—and which was justified by after-events,—that the prolonged sessions of parliament under the new Septennial Act offered some defence against the schemes of their opponents; in fact, the tables were turned, and the Whigs of this parliament dreaded the machinations of the Tories, much as the Abhorrers and courtiers detested and feared the Whigs under Charles II.
The Pretender, whose cause looked hopeful at the time of his “dear sister’s” decease, was treated by the Whig satirists with all the ridicule their pens could command:—
76
Whatever prospects the Pretender and his good friends the Tories might have cherished on the accession of George I., were abruptly put to flight after the abortive rising in 1715; this ill-advised attempt, and the consequences of its utter failure, are wittily set forth in the ballad:—
78
A fair representation of a chairing scene is given as the second of a series of eight plates which, under the title of “Robin’s Progress,” satirically delineates the career of Sir Robert Walpole. The newly elected member is seated, tranquilly enough, in a capacious arm-chair, raised aloft by his supporters; there are a few “bludgeon-men” among his followers. Hats are thrown into the air, and a general sense of satisfaction is shown to prevail. One of the party, evidently a person of influence, is made to exclaim, “No bribery, no corruption!” A group of more distrustful persons is pictured in the foreground; an elector observes, “I wish we mayn’t be deceived,” while his confederate is declaring, “I smell a rat!” Whatever “undue influence” might have been hinted on this occasion, Walpole had not at that early date (1701) developed the arts of corruption and electioneering, then synonymous; his proficiency in these branches was of later growth. Although not strictly a contemporaneous picture of the event, the engraving which represents the chairing of Sir Robert Walpole on his election for Castle Rising, Norfolk, in 1701, is the earliest of our election illustrations as regards the date of the incident depicted. Walpole, in succession to his father, sat for Castle Rising, in the last two short parliaments which preceded the death of William III., and at once distinguished himself as an active and able ally of the Whig 79 party, then holding the power of administration. In 1702, he was chosen member for King’s Lynn, and represented that borough in several successive parliaments. After, with the interest of George, Prince of Denmark, filling the posts of secretary at war, 1708, and treasurer of the navy, 1709, the Tory advisers of the latter part of Queen Anne’s reign dismissed Walpole from all his posts. The Commons in 1711 voting him guilty of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption in his office as secretary at war, it was resolved to expel him from the House, and that he should be committed to the Tower. Under this vindictive persecution, he was, by his party, regarded as a martyr to the cause, nor does there appear sufficient proof to justify this severity. Encouraged by Walpole’s energetic tactics, his constituents remained firm, and he was re-elected by 80 the burgesses of Lynn in 1713-14, and, though the House declared the return void, yet the electors persisted in their choice, and Walpole took a decided part against the queen’s Tory ministry, until “the turn of the wheel,” which raised the Elector of Hanover on the English throne as Queen Anne’s successor, threw back the power of administration into the hands of Walpole and the Whigs, and once more reduced the Tories to vent their mortification in unscrupulous attacks and misrepresentations, while they were themselves exerting all their abilities for the subversion of the House of Hanover and the restoration of the exiled Stuarts. The bitterness of party warfare was mostly manifested at election times. A burlesque “Bill of Costs” was printed in the Flying Post (Jan. 27, 1715), “for a late Tory election in the West,” in which part of the country the Tory interest was strongest:—
WALPOLE CHAIRED. 1701. (From “Robin’s Progress.”)
(Dr. Newton’s Collection.)
| £ | s. | d. | |
| Imprimis, for bespeaking and collecting a mob | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Item, for many suits of knots for their heads | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| For scores of huzza-men | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For roarers of the word “Church” | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For a set of “No Roundhead” roarers | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For several gallons of Tory punch on church tombstones | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| For a majority of clubs and brandy-bottles | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| For bell-ringers, fiddlers, and porters | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| For a set of coffee-house praters | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For extraordinary expense for cloths and lac’d hats on show days, to dazzle the mob | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| For Dissenters’ damners | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For demolishing two houses | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| For committing two riots | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| For secret encouragement to the rioters | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For a dozen of perjury men | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| For packing and carriage paid to Gloucester | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| For breaking windows | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| For a gang of alderman-abusers | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| For a set of notorious lyars | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| For pot-ale | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| For law, and charges in the King’s Bench | 300 | 0 | 0 |
| £1460 | 0 | 0 |
81
It will be observed in this “bill” that bribery is not put down as one of the prominent features of an election at this period; violence was, as yet, found to be more effective than corruption.
In March, 1721, when the first of the succession of triennial parliaments dissolved, the country was already in a state of fermentation at the prospect of the coming contest. Violence was now utilized in new methods, such as beating off voters of opposition candidates; while hostile electors were surrounded by mobs hired for the purpose, and cut off from the polling-booths; and in some cases voters were carried off forcibly, and locked up until the election was over.
In country boroughs much agitation was manifested, and in several places, such as Coventry, formidable riots took place.
The metropolis shared the general excitement. It was on this occasion that the Westminster contest began to be regarded as of the first consequence, it being a point of ambition with the rival parties to return their candidates for this constituency, the results of which conflict were expected to exercise an influence upon other places. The election for this city set in uproariously in 1721, and, as the progress of these electioneering memorials will demonstrate, it continued the same throughout its history, even when in other places the elections were tranquil and uneventful.
The Tories did not allow Walpole to triumph without a struggle for the ascendency, although, by his foresight, and a lavish employment of his universal salve—gold, he managed to diminish the influence both of his opponents and of the mobocracy; and in the new House the Government secured a powerful majority, leaving the Tory organs, towards the close of the elections, when the results were no longer doubtful, to vent their spleen in political squibs and caricatures. Thus, on the 31st of March, the Post Boy announces two satirical prints—one, 82“Britannia stript by a Villain, to which is added, the True Phiz of a Late Member,” which seems to have disappeared completely; and the other, “The Prevailing Candidate; or the Election carried by Bribery and the D——l;” which, according to all accounts, is the earliest existing contemporary caricature upon the subject of electioneering; and is, moreover, one of the best examples of these productions as published in the reign of George I.
THE PREVAILING CANDIDATE; OR THE ELECTION CARRIED BY BRIBERY AND
THE D——L.
(Dr. Newton’s Collection.)
The candidate, it is implied, is a Court nominee; the screen is used to conceal the true movers of the wires, who are at the back of the canvasser; their reflection is shown in the mirror behind, above the console-table, on which bags of money are in readiness to be used for bribery. The wooden shoes symbolize a threatened relapse to 83 slavery. The screen is to typify the seven years of the last parliament—the first of the septennial parliaments; the year 1716 is marked “Septennial Act”—“Part of the Succession Act repealed;”—1720 registers the “South Sea Act,”—“Act to indemnify South Sea Villains;” and 1721 the “Quarantine Act, cum multis aliis;” the other years are blanks. The accompanying verses explain the meaning intended to be conveyed by the principal figures. The personage bribed is the mayor of the place. These functionaries for a long time held the elections in their power, and were amenable to corrupt treatment; in fact, they were expected to make the bargain most advantageous for the court of livery or aldermen, in whom the votes were generally vested. Hence the old saying, “Money makes the mayor to go.”
The elections of 1727, in spite of the exertions of Bolingbroke and Pulteney in the Craftsman, and the intrigues of the former with the Duchess of Kendal, mistress of George I., were a disappointment to the Tories and “patriots,” i.e. Jacobites. On the death of George I. their prospects were even less promising. Queen Caroline, the consort of 84 George II., was the steadfast friend of Walpole, and although the Bolingbroke faction paid their court to the mistress of the new king, as they had done in the last reign to that of his predecessor, they gained nothing by their motion, as George II. was governed by his wife in political questions. The hopes placed by the Tories in the elections were altogether frustrated; in the parliament chosen in 1727 the ministerial majority was greater than before, and their opponents were reduced to vent their mortification in strictures against the bribery, corruption, undue influence, and those secret intrigues in which they were themselves such adepts.
Of the few caricatures to which this contest gave rise that best known is entitled “Ready Money the Prevailing Candidate; or the Humours of an Election;” and even in this the satirical allusions appear to have a general rather than a specific application. This picture, like most of the caricatures of the time, is slightly allegorical; the scene is evidently the outskirts of a town; colossal statues of “Folly” and “Justice” are shown at either side. As the title implies, bribery is the motive power of the entire action. In the centre is a figure with his back to the spectator; the rear of this person’s coat is covered with pockets, into which those interested in the work of buying votes are dropping money; the recipient is declaring, “No bribery, but pockets are free.” Another gentleman, with his hat raised in the air, is crying, “Sell not your country.” A whole body of electors behind these plausible individuals are standing ready to be bought; an agent is canvassing this group for their votes, with a money-bag to meet their requirements. To the right, a man is kneeling to secure a heap of pieces, which are lavishly scattered about, while another person is stooping to press a well-filled bag of money upon his acceptance as “a small acknowledgment.” One of the candidates, handsomely attired, and with a feathered hat, is carried on a litter by four bearers, much like “Chairing a member;” he has bags of money in both 85 hands, and his progress is marked by a shower of gold “for his country’s service.” At the door of an inn stands a figure whose head is supplemented with antlers—“He kissed my wife, he shall have my vote!” “Folly” is personated by a male effigy, also emptying out money-bags to his votaries: before his altar a candidate is kneeling amidst his canvassing tickets; he is exclaiming, “Help me, Folly, or my cause is lost.” In the foreground is the figure of an ancient philosopher, who is made to say, “Let not thy right hand know what thy left does;” his left hand is accommodatingly held behind his back, and this an agent is filling with pieces. A person dressed like a Covenanter is crying, “See here, see here!” The emblematical figure of “Justice,” blind, and with her attributes of sword and scales, has her altar deserted. One man is admonishing his neighbour to “Regard Justice;” the other, who has a sack of unlawful treasure on his shoulder, replies, “We fell out: I lost money by her.” A modishly dressed candidate, hat in hand, is pressing a bag of money on another individual, who seems to have been bribed already, but is willing to accept further emoluments—“’Twill scarce pay, make it twenty more.”
O Cives! Cives! quærenda Pecunia primum est Virtus post Nummos.
READY MONEY, THE PREVAILING CANDIDATE; OR, THE HUMOURS OF AN ELECTION. (Dr. Newton’s Collection.)
A copy of verses sets forth the morality of this plate:—
THE KENTISH ELECTION, 1734.
A realistic version of the hustings appeared under the title of “The Kentish Election, 1734.” The locality of the gathering here represented is probably Maidstone in Kent. A large open space on the outskirts of the town is the 87 scene of action. The candidates and their numerous supporters are raised above the multitude, and standing on the hustings. Round this erection is a great crowd of electors, many of whom are on horseback.
In the foreground, a mounted clergyman is at the head of a procession of his flock, all wearing favours in their hats, and professing themselves supporters of the “Protestant Interest,” i.e. Whigs; two of them carry staves and books; the “gauges” in their hands seem to indicate that they are gaugers or excisemen, i.e. placemen: it must be noted that the chief grievance against Walpole and his administration at this time was the attempt to tax tobacco and wines. The Opposition party-cry is “No Excise,” with the names of “Vane and Dering,” the successful candidates, in whose honour, with that of the “Country Interest,” i.e. Tories, which they had pledged themselves to promote, the followers of their party wear sprigs of oak in their hats—a memorial of the Restoration of the Stuarts. The party-cry of their antagonists is for “King and Country,” and “Middlesex and Oxenden.” Sir George Oxenden had voted for the Government and in favour of the Excise Bill; he sat for Maidstone before the dissolution, April, 1734. The Earl of Middlesex was not a member of the former Parliament. These gentlemen finally threw up the poll, the victory of their opponents being assured, May 16, 1734. Of the successful candidates, Viscount Vane and Sir Edward Dering, the former had voted against the Excise Bill, and the latter was absent on the division. Something in the way of influencing suffrages seems to have been done on a large scale by Viscount Vane. Two hogsheads of French brandy were sent down to his seat in Kent (according to the Daily Post), together with sixty dozen of knives and forks, in preparation for the entertainment his lordship offered the freeholders. The Grub Street Journal devotes some attention to the treats with which the successful candidates regaled their constituents at an early stage of their canvass, and these hospitalities were returned in kind. 88
“At a meeting lately at the Swan Tavern in Cornhill, of about 100 substantial worthy citizens of London, freeholders of the County of Kent, the Right Hon. the Lord Vane and Sir Edw. Dering, Bart., candidates in the Country Interest, were entertained in an elegant manner by the freeholders,” etc. It is further stated that “these candidates were met at about two miles from Westerham, in Kent, by 300 freeholders on horseback, and dined at the George Inn, where healths were drunk to the glorious 205”—this being the number of members whose votes placed the Government in a minority upon the Excise Bill. Nor was wanting what later statesmen have termed “the fine old English Institution” of parading the Minister in effigy.
“The populace, to show their zeal on this occasion, dressed up a figure of a certain Excise gentleman (Sir Robert Walpole to wit) with blue paper round his shoulders (intended for the riband of the Garter, always alluded to with spite by the prime minister’s adversaries), a pipe in his mouth (Tobacco Bill), and several Florence flasks about his neck (referring to the proposed duty on wines), then mounted him upon a mule, and led him round the town in procession.” (The Grub Street Journal.)
On the same authority (No. 230), under date Wednesday, May 23, 1734, is announced the sudden demise of the leading candidate: “On Monday, about five in the afternoon, the Right Hon. the Lord Visc. Vane dropt down dead of an apoplexy, just as he was taking leave of a gentleman, at his seat at Fairlawn in Kent” (Daily Post).
An early design upon bribery at elections is attributed to Hogarth. This plate was produced during the canvass in 1734, just twenty years before the commencement of the famous “Election” series by the same artist. The print is a small etching, and represents Sir Robert Fagg, an old baronet, seated on horseback, holding a purse in one hand, and offering a bribe of money to a young woman who is standing by his horse’s head; on her arm is a basket of eggs; she is laughing at the canvasser. Sir Robert Fagg 89 was member for Steyning, Sussex. Concerning the baronet it is written, in “The Art of Politicks”—
“The Humours of a Country Election,” of which the first version appeared in 1734, beyond the light it offers upon the subject in question, is curious and interesting, as Mr. F. G. Stephens is inclined to suggest40 that Hogarth may have borrowed the idea of illustrating the chief incidents of an election from the “Humours” therein described. The plate is in three divisions, and forms the frontispiece to the collection of songs published under the title of “the Humours of a Country Election” in 1734, at which time there was a general election; it was republished in 1741,41 under similar circumstances. The print is sufficiently described by the original advertisement, inserted at the time of its publication in the Grub Street Journal (No. 233), June 13, 1734. “This Day is publish’d (Price One Shilling), Neatly printed, and stitched in blue paper, ‘The Humours of a Country Election.’”
90
“With a curious frontispiece explanatory of the same in the following particulars:—
“I. The candidate welcomed into the town by music and electors on horseback, attended by a mob of men, women, and children. The candidates saluting the women, and amongst them a poor cobbler’s wife, to whose child they very courteously offer to stand God-father. II. The candidates are very complaisant to a country clown, and offering presents (a bag marked 50l.) to the wife and children. The candidates making an entertainment for the electors and their wives, to whom they show great respect; at the upper end of the table the parson of the parish sitting, his clerk standing by him. III. The place of electing and polling, with mob attending. The members elect carried in procession in chairs, upon men’s shoulders, with music playing before them; attended by a mob of men, women, and children huzzaing them. To which is added the character of a Trimmer in verse, &c.”
“A new Year’s Gift (for the year 1741) to the Electors of Great Britain,” contains the information that “The Oath imposed upon Electors—the only preservative of public Liberty from the secret and fatal attacks of Bribery and Corruption,” was as follows:—
“‘I, —— ——, do swear, I have not received, or had myself, or any person whatsoever, in Trust for me, or for my Use and Benefit, directly or indirectly, any sum or sums of money, Office, Place, or employment, gift, or reward, or any promise, or security for any money, office, employment, or gift, in order to give my vote at this Election, and that I have not been polled before at this Election,
“Let every man of common sense judge whether an oath so wisely framed and strictly worded can possibly admit of any equivocation, to cover the base villainy of taking a bribe to his country’s ruin; and what shall we think of those men who dare tempt others to the 91 breach of a duty so sacred! Ought they not to be stoned, or hooted out of society, as the destroyers of public Faith, Virtue, Religion, and Liberty? Do not such agents for the Devil compass his ends most effectually, by seducing men from the indispensable duties they owe to God and their country, to themselves and their posterity?
THE HUMOURS OF A COUNTRY ELECTION. 1734.
“Wisely, therefore, hath that good Law annexed the shameful penalties of the pillory to the breach of that Sacred Oath, with a large Fine of Five Hundred Pounds; and justly excluded all base perjurers from the most valuable Rights and Privileges of Englishmen, in the following paragraphs:—
“‘And be it enacted, That whosoever shall be convicted of false swearing, shall incur and suffer the Pains and Penalties as in a case of wilful and corrupt Perjury.
“And whosoever shall receive or take any money or other reward, by way of Gift, Loan, or other device, or agree or contract for any Money, Gift, Office, or Reward whatsoever, to give his vote, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of Five Hundred Pounds, and be for ever disabled to vote in any Election of any Member to Parliament, and be for ever disabled to hold any public office.’
“Will any man, pretending to common honesty, thus basely forfeit his Birthright, his most glorious privilege as an Englishman, by a shameful perjury for the Lucre of a Bribe? Can such a Bribe make him and his posterity happy in the midst of his country’s ruin, and the just contempt and abhorrence of all his neighbours? No, surely: but when the small wages of his iniquity are spent, he must, like the Traitor Judas, hang himself, or starve to death; because no man can either pity, or deal with such a perjured abandoned wretch.
“Artful corruptors of the present times may flatter weak minds with hopes of being admitted to vote without taking the Oath; but it is a vain delusion; since the Law allows the Candidates or any two of the Electors to put the Oath to whomsoever they please; and surely there are at least Two Honest Men in every Borough of the Kingdom, who will think it their duty to bring Corruption to the Test of this just and necessary Oath, to the eternal infamy of all Corruptors, and the Corrupted.”
The oath thus explicitly explained was in sober earnest administered by the lawyers retained in the respective interests, as illustrated by Hogarth in his “Polling Booth,” 1754. It is rather alarming to think of the huge amount of perjury which has followed electioneering. The general elections of the spring of 1741 were a trying ordeal for Walpole; all the well-worn clamours were revived, the “Convention” was once more torn to shreds, 92 and fresh attacks upon the “excise projects” were turned to bitter political account. Amidst a shower of squibs, both literary and pictorial, we find the caricature, “Dedicated to the worthy Electors of Great Britain,” of “The Devil upon Two Sticks,” in which Walpole, as the “Asmodeus” of the situation, is represented as being supported upon the shoulders of two of his bought-majority to ford the “Slough of Despond,” already crossed by some of his followers, who, though in safety on the bank, bear evident marks of the dirty ordeal through which they have been compelled to struggle upon “Robin’s” account. Britannia and her patriotic friends(?) remain high and dry on the other shore; below the satire appears a pointed indication of the unpopular Walpolians, as “Members who voted for the Excise and against the Convention.”
To the worthy Electors of Great Britain. Walpole carried through the “Slough of Despond.”
THE DEVIL ON TWO STICKS. 1741.
“A Satire on Election Proceedings” was given to the public in pictorial guise on the occasion of the appeal to the constituencies in May, 1741; the specific part of this squib was aimed at Walpole’s unpopular taxes and similar enactments, and the whole was dedicated to “Mayors and Corporations in general.” A dying elector—who, from the evidence of a paper inscribed “£50,” and seen in his pocket, has sold himself to party—is in the hands of a ministerial candidate and the personage of Evil; who are, between them, dragging the moribund and venal voter towards a precipice, “the Brink of Despotism, poverty, and destruction, inevitable if such courses are continued.” The candidate or agent is apparently heedless of the precipice 93 at his feet; he is waving his hat in exultation, and shouting, “A vote, a vote, a dead vote for us!” The devil, who is the deepest of the party, is asserting with plausibility, “I’ll have the Majority, I warrant you!” His pocket contains the measures which had destroyed Walpole’s popularity and at that time foreshadowed his fall—fancifully supposed to have had their suggestion in the brain of the arch-fiend himself: “Standing Army,” “Lotteries,” “Cyder” (tax), “Stamp Act,” “Bribes,” and “Address.” The demon is expelling “False reports against the City of London—all wind”—patriotism having at that era its head-quarters in the corporation; his hoof has trampled upon the shield of Britannia, crushed down by “Press-warrants,” “Council of Satan,” and the ministerial policy—“Neglect the seamen till the moment they are wanted, lest my beloved press-warrants should be forgot—my friends shall boldly call them lawful.” Walpole, whose tenure of office notoriously depended on the results of the elections in progress when this violent squib was launched, is further indicated in “The Foundation we go upon;” “we” being by implication the prime minister and the devil; the foot of the latter rests upon these “Ways and means—Public Money, Promises, Titles, Contracts, Pensions, Preferments, Places—and by threatening to displace,” etc., besides current coin for corruption. A further instance of Walpole’s disfavour is embodied in a paper concerning the army: “My Majority shall vote for a numerous Land Force in time of Peace; to be established with a double proportion of officers!—the best proof of my influence:”—the source of that vaunted influence is shown in a bag of money, marked “Sinking Fund,” from whence pours the stream of corruption—in the shape of broad pieces—upon which the prime minister placed a reliance he did not attempt to disguise, but, on the contrary, of which he cynically boasted.
Beneath is a coat of arms, a favourite figure with the satirists, as if designed for the sign of a tavern; the bearings 94 are, 1. A fox running away with a goose. 2. “Checquy,” i.e., as in the sign of the Chequers; the words, “Time-servers Intire;” behind appear a bottle and two glasses, tobacco-pipes, and bribes. “£100, £50, £40, £2,”—to suit all appetites; on a riband above the shield is the legend:—“Votes are sold for Wine and Gold.” The crest of the card would be a suitable escutcheon for Hogarth’s comprehensive election satires which appeared in the contest of 1754.
Another coat of arms, also aimed at the credit of the prime minister, was reissued as appropriate to this season:—“To the glory of the Rt. Honble. Sir Robert Walpole,” “A great Britt.,” alluding to the motto of “S(ir) R(obert) W(alpole)’s Arms,” supplies an ironical and explanatory text:—
“There is another Device at the Base, the Arch, in the shape of a Coat of Arms, which is bound round with a Garter, and hath these words inscribed upon it:—Honi soit qui Mal y pense; ‘Evil be to him, that evil thinks.’ What is most remarkable in this Coat is, that it bears three axes on one side, and that the crest is a Man’s Head, with a strange sort of Cap, which hath a Ducal Coronet at the bottom by way of Border;”
—thus suggesting that Walpole deserved decapitation, while the ballads of the day were all for finding a gibbet for “false Bob.” As to the print itself, it is said:—
“I am glad to hear that it hath already met with the approbation and encouragement of a very great Family; and I hope shortly to see it displayed in the richest colours upon Fans, and wrought into Screens and Hangings for the use and ornament of the Palace of Norfolk;”
—referring to Houghton Hall, the seat of Sir Robert Walpole, a residence well known to fame.
The popular interest excited by the Westminster contest generally seemed to make that election the most prominent in every appeal to the country. On the dissolution of parliament, April 28, 1741, when the fate of Walpole’s Administration was known to depend upon the aggregate return of his nominees, the ministers expected to bring in 95 their friends who had previously sat for Westminster; the first great opposition to the Government had its rise there, where the Court was supposed to possess an unbounded influence. In the “Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole” the circumstances of the contest are thus summarized:—
“The representatives in the last Parliament were Sir Charles Wager, First Lord of the Admiralty; and Lord Sundon, a Lord of the Treasury; and it was supposed they would have been rechosen, as usual, without opposition. But Lord Sundon was very unpopular; he had been raised from a low condition to an Irish Peerage through the interest of his wife, who had been favourite bed-chamber woman to Queen Catherine, wife of George II. The other candidate, Sir Charles Wager, was unexceptionable, both in his public and private character; but his attachment to the Minister was a sufficient objection. Some electors of Westminster proposed, very unexpectedly, Admiral Vernon, then in the height of his popularity, and Charles Edwin, a private gentleman of considerable fortune. The opposition, at first despised, became formidable; and Sir Charles Wager being summoned to convoy the King to Holland, the management of the election was entrusted to ignorant vestrymen and violent justices. The majority of the electors were decidedly in favour of the Ministerial candidate; but Lord Sundon was imprudently advised to close the poll, to order a party of Guards to attend, and, while the military power surrounded the hustings, the High Bailiff returned him and Sir Charles Wager. This imprudent conduct highly exasperated the populace, the Guards were insulted, Sundon was attacked, and narrowly escaped with life. The example of the opposition at Westminster diffused a general spirit throughout the kingdom, and violent contests were excited in all quarters. Large sums of money for supporting the expenses were subscribed by Pulteney, the Duchess of Marlborough, and the Prince of Wales, who contracted great debts on this memorable occasion, and the managers of the opposition employed this money with great advantage.”
This account, by W. Coxe, epitomizes the situation. George (Bubb) Dodington was active on this occasion, directing the manœuvres of the Leicester House faction, on behalf of the heir to the throne, in opposition to the ministers of his father, the king. Naturally the view taken by Walpole’s biographer is favourable to that minister, who was at this time looked upon as the under-hand enemy of his country. He was accused of favouring 96 Spain and France; and the taking of Porto Bello by Admiral Vernon, which was not, after all, a brilliant affair, but chiefly due to the cowardice of its defenders, was regarded as quite as much of a victory over the prime minister as over England’s foes. These sentiments characterize the spirit abroad on the Westminster contest of 1741, which gave rise to many songs, broadsides, and pictorial satires uniformly unfavourable to the minister and his adherents.
The kind of influence or coercion brought to bear is described in an “Address to the Independent and Worthy Electors,” which was issued by the “patriotic party,” May 5th:—
“Notwithstanding the extraordinary methods used by some of the Burgesses of the Westminster Court, the select vestries of several of the parishes, and the High Constable; who has in his own name, and by his own power, taken upon him to summon the inhabitants to give their Poll against Admiral Vernon and Mr. Edwin; we have been already so successful in our endeavours to retrieve the independency of this City and Liberty, in the Election for the next Parliament, that the old members have but a very inconsiderable majority (if any) of Good Votes against
The Glorious Admiral Vernon, And Charles Edwin, Esq.,who stand upon the Country Interest.
Therefore, Gentlemen, now is the time for completing what we have so successfully begun; since it is certain that almost the whole of the Interest on the other side is already near poll’d, and not one-fourth of ours. And considering the great and perhaps decisive turn that the Election of this City and Liberty may give to the Elections all over the kingdom, it is hoped that no man who has a regard for the Liberties of his Country, and the Independency of Parliament, will lie by or remain neuter upon this occasion.
Therefore your Votes and Interest in favour of
Admiral Vernon, and Charles Edwin, Esq.,who have no other views than the good of their country and the prosperity of this ancient City and Liberty.”
The contest thus stood: the king, Duke of Cumberland, and the ministers,—with all their patronage, but overburdened with unpopularity, especially as regarded certain acts touching the navy, the standing army, and excise 97 and other new taxes disliked by most,—supporting candidates looked upon with disfavour, on the one side; opposed by the Prince of Wales and his active friends of the “patriotic party,” with a popular naval commander and “a friend of his country” as candidates, and the voice of the multitude, on the other; the arena being the hustings at Covent Garden, supposed to be regarded expectantly by all the constituencies in the country.
TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER. VERNON AND EDWIN. 1741.
A pictorial version of the scene of the Westminster Election, 1741, dedicated “to the brave Admiral Vernon and his worthy colleague, Charles Edwin, Esq.,” appeared with a copy of verses “To the Independent and Worthy Electors of this Ancient City of Westminster.” The candidates are exhibited before the front of Covent Garden Church; in the pediment is shown a dial, with the motto which at that time caught the eye of the moving crowd, “So Passes Ye Glory of Ye World.” Seated at a table in the portico beneath, are the poll clerks, with the returning officer casting up the votes: one clerk is directing a list to be set down in the “Poll Book” for “Vernon and Edwin;” while the representative of the other side says, “Few for my Lord.” Vernon’s ships, and the benefit of increased commerce in the shape of bales of merchandise, are shown in the distance; the favoured admiral himself, with laced cocked hat and a staff in his right hand, is declaring, “For the Glory of Britain, down with the Spaniards.” In front of the platform, and next the popular favourite, stands Charles Edwin, who is declaring his sentiments to be for “My King and my Country.” The candidates of the opposition are received with enthusiasm: “Vernon for ever, no dribbers here;” “Edwin at home, Vernon abroad,” is shouted by the persons to the left of the picture. The results of the election were undetermined when this engraving appeared, so the engraver has anticipated the ultimate results of the petition, and made the ministerial candidates unsuccessful. Sir Charles Wager, in a dejected state, is exclaiming, 98“I don’t know where to put up next.” Lord Sundon, represented as a mere “fribble,” is in conference with Justice De Veil, who had a large share in the control of the Westminster election, and being in the Government pay and a powerful partisan, was, together with the returning officer, on these accounts the object of popular indignation. Lord Sundon is declaring for “The Excise and another place:” the duties on “cyder” and fermented liquors gave extreme offence to the multitude. The magistrate is made to exclaim, “I, Justice De Veil, say so, and will justify it.” The good folks on the right are hissing, and crying, “No pensioners!” A female is pronouncing for the gallant admiral, “Vernon among the women to a man;” and a voter is denouncing “Spithead Lights,”—in reference to the reviews and home displays of the Admiralty, represented by Sir Charles Wager.
Below the design are the lines—
Towards the close, the state of the poll stood thus:—
| Sir Charles Wager, 3686. |
| Lord Sundon, 3533. |
| Admiral Vernon, 3290. |
| Charles Edwin, 3161. |
At this stage of the proceedings, when the independent candidates claimed to have many votes in reserve, while the ministers had exhausted every subterfuge and all their resources, Lord Sundon very injudiciously appealed to an armed intervention, forcibly closed the poll, and ordered a body of grenadiers to surround the hustings, and prevent 99 any further voting; while the high bailiff countenanced these high-handed illegalities, and made his return accordingly. This proceeding ruined the chances of the Government in this contest of 1741: a petition was presented against the return of Wager and Sundon, and, although Walpole fought with all his influence, the subject was made a party question; in the new session, a warm contest arose in the Commons, which reassembled June 25, 1741, and the return of the sitting members was decided against by a majority of four, the numbers told being 220 to 216. The circumstance of “the election being declared void,” is alluded to in a letter from Horace Walpole to Sir H. Mann, December 10, 1741: “Mr. Pulteney presented an immense piece of parchment, which he said he could but just lift; and was the Westminster Petition, and is to be heard next Tuesday, when we shall all have our brains knocked out by the mob.” A new election ensued; Charles Edwin and Lord Perceval were returned without opposition. Vernon had been chosen for several places, and had already taken his seat for Ipswich. The admiral was regarded by the populace as a hero of the first water, whose victories, though for the honour of his country, were thorns in the side of the Administration, the members of which were accused of taking bribes from the enemy. The bards compared Vernon to Cincinnatus:—
The admiral is further alluded to in another engraving produced upon this same election—“The Funeral of Independency,” where the mourning procession is passing a tavern with the loyal sign of the Crown and Anchor. Among other episodes is a man on a donkey, who is galloping “post to Ipswich 10s. 6d.”—in allusion to Vernon’s return 100 for that place; while another man is apostrophizing the rider, “Thou art as tedious as the law.”
The sequel of the memorable Westminster election of 1741 is pictured in “The Triumph of Justice” (Dec. 1741), an engraving of a satirical character, in which the late events, the triumph of opposition headed by the Prince of Wales, and the discomfiture of the Administration, are figured in allegorical guise. Walpole’s earthly career is assumed to be finished by the defeat in the Commons, who voted by a majority of four against the election of that minister’s placemen; and he is hurried to the tomb. A sarcophagus is displayed whereon a Satyr, with hour-glass and scythe, usurps the post of symbolical Time; on the base of the monument is inscribed “Hic Jacet;” in front is a medallion of the statesmen supposed to be departed, with the legend:—“Padera Robertas Ord: Perisci—tidis Eques;” the supporting “weepers” are the disqualified members,—they bear a band inscribed “Our Hopes are gone, the Election’s lost.” Sir Charles Wager, as representing the admiralty, is leaning on a broken anchor. Lord Sundon has beside him a coin, two keys, a loaf, some mice (one of which is caught in a trap), in allusion to the treasury “loaves and fishes,” parasites, etc. On the ground, across the reverse of Walpole’s medallion, which bears the legend “Regit dictus Animos,” are a sceptre and three bludgeons, “Boroughs” and “Bruisers,” both used for electioneering purposes, to which a plate marked “Covent Garden” further alludes.
Above the clouds, and surrounded by an angelic host, is seated the Prince of Wales, the deus ex machina of Walpole’s defeat; his sceptre is a bludgeon, and he is pointing to an orator, who is presumably denouncing “the king’s party,” whose power is broken. Beside the heir apparent is a female divinity, balancing the scales of justice above the figure of Edwin. At the prince’s feet is seen “the glorious 220,” the number of votes recorded by the opposition, disqualifying Wager and Sundon, and in 101 favour of a new election for Westminster. The British crown, decorated with palms and laurels, caps the design; which is inscribed, on a riband beneath, “To the Independent Electors of Westminster.” A further allegorical engraving, appropriately due to Jo. Mynde, exhibits and commemorates the final stage in this contest, where the Court was defeated and the opposition scored a complete triumph; this version, which consists of a design and a petition, engraved on the same plate, is entitled, “The Banner of Liberty, displayed in the Petition of the Inhabitants of Westminster, with the Coat of Arms of the Glorious two hundred and twenty-two who voted in favour of the Petitioners.” The emblematical design displays the tutelary guardian of Westminster, a female figure, seated on the ground in deep dejection; her hand is resting on the armorial shield of Charles Edwin, which is placed before that of Lord Perceval (Earl of Egmont); the arms of Westminster are engraved on a stone, and the shield of Admiral Vernon also appears. The goddess of Liberty has arrived on the scene, she has summarily put “Slavery” to flight, and while she is assisting the guardian of the liberties of Westminster to rise, the muskets of the soldiery are trampled under foot, in allusion to the bold and impolitic step of ordering grenadiers to close the poll, resorted to at the previous election by Lord Sundon, to the damage of his patron Walpole. In the Commons it was suggested to indict the soldiers who had the temerity to interfere with “the rights of election.”
Other verses appear in a version with a woodcut 104 heading of a party of jolly citizens toping and toasting healths:—
A second ballad bears a strong resemblance to the foregoing; one or two verses only are selected:—
Another spirited ballad, on the same theme, and also to the tune of “Come, let us prepare,” appeared as “A New Song,” with a woodcut heading of a maiden and matron drinking tea at the sign of the Crown and Orange-Tree. A second version of the same ballad was published as:—
The managers of what was called the “Country party” consisted of those who entitled themselves “patriots,” and were active in promoting the “good cause.” The victory which in 1741 unseated Wager and Sundon, and moreover inflicted so heavy a blow upon Walpole’s influence that he lost his corrupt majority, and subsequently retired from the struggle, was annually commemorated by an association of members of the constituency which had been the first to assert its independence. An invitation was issued to the voters to meet together to celebrate this anniversary; a copperplate, neatly engraved, surmounted by an allegorical design, and surrounded by an elegant frame or border, formed the ticket:—
“The Independent Electors of Westminster
Are desired to meet at Vintners’ Hall, Thames Street,
On Friday, the 15 Feb. 1744,
At 3 o’clock, to Dine together, in order to Commemorate their Success on the 22nd of December, 1741, and further to promote the same Public Spirit.
| George Dodington, Esq. | } | Stewards | { Lord George Graham. |
| Charles Edwin, Esq. | } | { George Grenville, Esq. | |
| Thomas Gore, Esq. | } | { Sir John Phillips, Bart. | |
| Pray Pay the Bearer 5 shils.” | |||
The design which heads this dinner-ticket represents Hercules and Britannia driving away the Harpies presumed to have been preying upon corruption; the Goddess 107 of Liberty, with the British lion by her side, is trampling on prostrate venality,—two figures, with bags of money and a heap of gold, cast down ignominiously.
“The Body of Independent Electors of Westminster” was evidently constituted into a society, at first exclusively for the furtherance of patriotic views, but, as the Court party alleged in 1745, to spread Jacobite sentiments. The excitement evoked by the rising of the Scottish clans and proclamation of the Young Pretender in 1745 was still at its height; the gaols were filled with Scotch rebels, and the famous trial of Lord Lovat, which only commenced on the 9th of March, was absorbing popular attention to the extinction of everything but Jacobite plots, both real and feigned. As the patriotic party had long been in antagonism with the Court, whose ministers had been defeated through this influence, and the dissolution of Parliament was impending, those in office neglected no opportunity of bringing the so-called “friends of the people” into evil repute. On the assumption that all weapons are lawful in electioneering warfare, much political capital was manufactured out of the Pretender’s fiasco; and the Scottish Rebellion was seized as an opportunity to stigmatize all persons of integrity, and those who were declared enemies of the corrupt Administration then in power, as Jacobites and sympathizers with the rebels.
“The Independent Electors of the City and Liberty of Westminster” held their anniversary festival at Vintners’ Hall, on the 19th of March, 1747. The Stewards were the Earl of Lichfield, Earl of Orrery, Viscount Andover, Sir R. Bamfylde, George Heathcote, and Thomas Carew. On this occasion the stewards for the ensuing year were chosen; they were Lord Ward, Lord Windsor, Sir James Dashwood, Sir Charles Tynte, Sir Thomas Clarges, and George Cooke (who was then canvassing Middlesex). On the conclusion of the business of the afternoon, and after the festivities, toasts, as was customary, began to be proposed. The London Evening Post gives a list of these 108 healths, beginning with “The King;” but, as an implication of Jacobite proclivities, it is added in another paper that the royal health was honoured in the recognized Jacobite fashion—to “Charley over the Water:”—“Each man having a glass of water on the left hand, and waving the glass of wine over the water,”—but this accusation was probably a bold electioneering ruse. The succeeding toasts were as follows:—“The Prince;” “The Duke;” “Prosperity to the independent electors of Westminster;” “Prosperity to the city of London and the trade thereof;” “Thanks to the Worshipful Company of Vintners’ for the use of their Hall;” “The Lord Mayor of London;” “Success to the arms of Great Britain by sea and land;” “To the annexing Cape Breton to the Crown of Great Britain;” “That the spirit of independency may diffuse itself through the nation;” “That the enemies of Great Britain may never eat the bread nor drink the drink thereof;” “That the Naturalization Bill may be kicked out of the House, and the foreigners out of the kingdom;” “That the darkening our windows may enlighten our understanding” (tax upon light); “To all those that dare—be honest;” “The stewards elect;” “The late stewards, with thanks for the trouble they have taken;” “Our old Friend ——.”
According to the Gentleman’s Magazine, “amidst this mirth, one Mr. Williams, Master of the ‘White Horse’ in Piccadilly, being observed to make memorandums with a pencil, gave such offence that he was severely cuffed and kicked out of the company.” It appears that a Jacobite complexion was given to the rather forcible expression of public contempt bestowed upon the Ministerial notetaker, who was branded as “the Spy.” A spirited version of this incident, executed closely in the manner of Hogarth, if not by that master, to whose portrait of Lord Lovat it in style approximates (the artist was himself one of the free electors of Westminster), exhibits the ignominious ejectment of “the Spy,” whose detection is further indicated by the paper he has 109 dropped on the ground, marked “List of the persons, etc.” The pictorial view of an episode to which undue importance was attached, owing to the excited relation of parties at the time, is accompanied by a quotation from “Hudibras” appropriate to the subject:—
MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER: THE SPY DETECTED. MARCH, 1747.
A few days later a second entry shows that it was seriously entertained at that emergency to carry the matter farther; in any case—although they do not seem to have eventually made anything of it—the complaint was taken up by the Commons, and referred to the managers of Lord Lovat’s trial, then just concluded. On the 24th of March—
“Complaint being made to the House that John Williams, keeper of the ‘White Horse Inn’ in Piccadilly, was on Thursday last, in a public assembly, assaulted and severely treated, upon a public assertion made by some persons in that assembly—‘that, Fraser, said by them, to be one of the principal witnesses against the Lord Lovat, was in his custody’ ORDER’D. That a committee be appointed to enquire into the matter of this complaint, and examine persons in the most solemn manner; that this committee be the managers against Lord Lovat.”
The whole matter is obscured by party misrepresentations. One James Fraser, who was pronounced a Jacobite, was active against the Ministerial candidates at the Westminster contest of 1749, where all opponents of the Court were denounced as Jacobites, while the “patriots,” “country party,” and “independent electors of Westminster,”—as they indiscriminately christened themselves—retorted upon Earl Gower, through his son, Lord Trentham, the Ministerial candidate for that city, the accusation of Jacobite leanings:—“Ask Lord Trentham who had his foot in the stirrup in the year 1715.”
The parliamentary dissolution followed in June, 1747, when the favourite manœuvre of those in power was to recklessly accuse their opponents of belonging to the Stuart 110 faction. The odium attaching to the suspicion of Jacobite tendencies was sufficiently strong to place the “Independent party” in a smaller minority than at the previous election, and thus the outbreak in favour of the Pretender served to recruit the strength of the Court party, which had been jeopardized at the 1741 election, and had shown signs of declension before the rising in 1745. The Government candidates for Westminster, Admiral Sir Peter Warren and Lord Trentham, were again chosen from the Admiralty. Lord Trentham was the son of that Earl Gower who was for some time the head of the Opposition, and at this juncture was one of the recent recruits of the Court party.
WESTMINSTER—THE TWO-SHILLING BUTCHER. 1747.
Lord Trentham’s selection as a lord of the admiralty occurred somewhat later (1749). The second candidate was Admiral Sir Peter Warren, who, as usual, was supported by a mob of Jack Tars, or of ruffians dressed in sailors’ clothes for the occasion, a common party subterfuge at the Westminster elections. The candidates put forward for the suffrages of the “Independent Electors,” and who came out of the contest ingloriously, were, as first announced, Sir Thomas Clarges (one of the stewards of the association) and Sir John Phillips (who was a steward in 1744); after a ten-days’ canvass the latter declined to proceed in his candidature, on the plea of ill health, and Sir Thomas Dyke was put up in his stead. Early in the contest a well-executed caricature, in the manner of Boitard or Gravelot, both artists being contemporary with Hogarth, was offered to the public under the title of “The Two-Shilling Butcher.” It was at this election that the highest personages canvassed. The Duke of Cumberland and the Prince of Wales appeared in support of the rival factions. In the pictorial view of 111 this situation, Lord Trentham, a dandified person dressed in the extreme of French taste, is in conference with his “backer” the “Two-Shilling Butcher,” who has been supposed by Thomas Wright and other authorities to represent the “Culloden Butcher,” i.e. the Duke of Cumberland. Mr. F. G. Stephens, who has described all the early caricatures in the Hawkins Collections with the utmost pains and minutiæ, sets down this personage as Mr. Butcher, the agent to the Duke of Bedford, whose residence is introduced in the rear. However, the figure in the present version corresponds with similar representations of the stout Cumberland Butcher; moreover, an allusion to cattle put into the mouth of this personage strongly indicates, by analogy with other caricatures on “horned cattle,” that none other than the duke is meant. The results of the election were at this time uncertain. The affected lordling, also satirized as Sir Silkington, is drawling, 112“Curs me! you’d buy me, ye Brutes, at 2s. p. Head Bona fide?” to which the figure travestied as a butcher, with apron, knife, and steel, is responding, “My Lord, there being a Fatality in ye Cattle, that there is 3000 above my Cut, tho’ I offered handsome.” The “3000” presumably refers to the Association of Independent Electors, who, at the previous poll (1741), registered for the “patriot” candidates (Vernon and Edwin), but were found wanting in 1747, as the figures at the close of the poll demonstrated. The Duke of Bedford’s residence is introduced to recall the circumstance that he and the candidate were close matrimonial connections, the duke having married the eldest daughter of John, Earl Gower. In front of this building, with the “bustos” of sphinxes above the posts of the gateway, is another important personage, who is bribing rival canvassers with gold openly filched from the pockets of Britannia, who is highly indignant at the proceeding; she is made to exclaim, with reason, “Ye Gods, what pickpockets!” The people seen in the dark transaction of being bribed were defectors from “Phillips and Clarges,” demoralized by the spell of gold; another voter is hastening away, denouncing the venality of these persons. One of the sphinxes is exclaiming—“We can’t decoy them in!” while labels, carried through the air by pigeons, record “The Independent has it,” and “For Yorkshire.” On the opposite side is shown the front of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, with its dial and the motto “So passes ye glory of ye world.” Before its portals stand the rival candidates, Sir Thomas Clarges and Sir Thomas Dyke; they are showing their contempt for mere “placemen representatives” by trampling upon government bribes: “Places in Exchequer we tread on,” and “No lucrative Employment.” Near them are the poll clerks, and the returning officer, with the poll-book under his charge. Beside the “independent” candidates are shown their supporters: one of these, bearing in his hand the cap of liberty, is pressing the latter on the acceptance of the electors, and assuring them, 113“Those candidates will serve you!” while a scroll, borne above the heads of the voters, carries the warning, “No Trentham!”
THE HUMOURS OF THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION; OR, THE SCALD MISERABLE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS IN THE SUDS. 1747.
Other caricatures appeared on the same subject, which excited, as usual, the largest share of public interest during the elections throughout the country. One of these first appeared, in compliment to the Scottish Rebellion, the latest novelty of the time, as “The Jaco-Independo-Rebello-Plaido.” In this version the business of the election is represented to take place before Westminster Hall, as a further allusion to the Jacobites and Lord Lovat’s trial there. The two parties and their respective head-quarters, established at taverns, are represented, and above all hovers the power of Destruction, always pictured as an important agent of “the other side,” according to the respective allegations of the contending parties. The Devil, in the present instance, is made “to take care of his own,” and has a stock of halters and axes for the rebels. “I have the Fee in my hands,” saith the Evil One. One side is appropriated to Ministerialists at the sign of Jolly Bacchus and the (Rabbit) Warren. Two persons are leaning from the first-floor window, and exhorting those with votes to “Give the Devil his due”—i.e. the Jacobites. The most prominent figure is a butcher; and no doubt, according to Mr. F. G. Stephens’s suggestion, the person thus implied is Mr. Butcher, the Duke of Bedford’s agent, and a less distinguished person than the “Cumberland Duke” pictured in the “Two-Shilling Butcher.” He is waving a scroll endorsed, “Trentham and Warren.” The butcher agent is surrounded by partisans; Admiral Sir Peter Warren’s sailors (a Lascar among them) are asserting “bludgeon law;” the people are pushing to the Governmental head-quarters, crying “No independency” and “No Pretender,” as if the terms were synonymous; a Frenchman may be identified in the crowd; and a person is offering the butcher a paper, “They squeak.” The head-quarters of the opposite party is shown as a Jacobite house. The flag displayed is adorned with the figure of 114 an owl dressed in a full wig and a counsellor’s bands, and indicates “Morgan’s Ghost,” the Morgan thus favoured having been a Jacobite barrister who had the misfortune to be implicated in the abortive rising of 1745 in the interests of the Pretender, which cost Morgan his life. The adherents rallying round this questionable house, intended as a reflection upon the Association of Independent Electors of Westminster, who were stigmatized as friends of the Jacobites, are dressed for the most part in plaids, and wear Scotch bonnets, to imply their Jacobite sympathies. This caricature was republished, with the hustings at Covent Garden substituted for Westminster Hall, and the Devil very civilly giving place to the figure of an angel, with the legend “Faithful to King and country.” The title was changed to “The Humours of the Westminster Election; or, the Scald Miserable Independent Electors in the Suds,” 1747, with the following lines:—
GREAT BRITAIN’S UNION; OR, THE LITCHFIELD RACES. 1747.
Strong Jacobite imputations are farther conveyed in the pictorial version of “Great Britain’s Union; or, the Litchfield Races, 1747.” Both Whig and Tory parties, not content with the legitimate and recognized contests of the hustings, and their ultimate goal, the senate, carried their partisan proclivities on to the racecourse, and ministerial and opposition stakes were alternately put into competition on the same turf. Thus, at Lichfield were held Tory race weeks, succeeded by similar gatherings on the part of their opponents. Some rather extraordinary doings occurred there, the general description of which is conveyed by the caricature; the two factions by some means came into collision, and his Grace of Bedford received a sound hiding with a horsewhip as an acknowledgment of his services 115 to the House of Hanover and his antagonism to the Patriotic party, denounced as Jacobites by their Hanoverian rivals; Earl Gower, and his modish son, Lord Trentham, were also roughly handled. Various freaks of an extravagant nature were performed, ladies and gentlemen of the Patriotic faction appearing dressed in Scottish plaids. In the design this circumstance is specially embodied: a party of enthusiasts, assembled in a booth on the course, are toasting the Pretender, whose sun is seen in the distance, falsely depicted as in the ascendant. A despondent grenadier outside the Jacobite head-quarters, is grumbling, “We are rode by Germans;” a cradle, a Gallic cock, and a fleur-de-lis allude to the Chevalier and the French assistance lent to his pretensions; overhead several hands are seen clasped, with the suggestive legend, “A-greed.” A Frenchified person, pointing to a gamecock fighting his own shadow, is denouncing the Duke (of Bedford) in no measured terms; under his right arm is the whip with which the duke was castigated, and in the left hand of this valorous bravo is a paper, “We have courage.” As usual, the Devil is present, and this time he is flying off with “Information,” possibly to be laid before his dear friends in office. A sort of zany, seated beneath a flag marked, “And curse upon denial” (alluding to equivocation on the part of several), is giving the starting signal. The Scotch plaid-clad jockey riding for the Chevalier is beating the Hanoverian jockey on the traditional “White Horse.” This highly fanciful conception, the reverse of actual experience, is hailed with extravagant delight by the excited assembly; the occupants of the Grand Stand are described as “Don Juan and his friends at the place of Desert.” Various ballads and satirical productions were evoked upon the transaction related.
Lord Trentham, his father, Earl Gower, and their great relative, the Duke of Bedford, are, with various references to the late election for Westminster, introduced into several caricatures which followed, and notably in 116“Great Britain’s Union; or, Litchfield Races transposed,” “A Sight of the Banging Bout at Litchfield,” and “An Exact Representation” of the same occurrence. The circumstances to which these pictorial satires refer are traceable to the national ferment succeeding the suppression of the Rebellion, when, as recapitulated, various eccentricities were committed by those who favoured the Pretender’s cause; among others, certain Staffordshire sportsmen made themselves conspicuous. Smollett, in his “History of England,” describes these vagaries: the Stuart partisans—
“appeared in the Highland taste of variegated drapery, and, their zeal descending to a very extraordinary exhibition of practical ridicule, they hunted with hounds clothed in plaid, a fox dressed in red uniform. Even the females at their assembly and the gentlemen at the races affected to wear the chequered stuff by which the prince-pretender and his followers had been distinguished. Divers noblemen on the course were insulted as apostates; and one personage of high rank is said to have undergone a very disagreeable flagellation.”
The sequel of this adventure is related in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1748):—
“Before Mr. Justice Burnett, took place the trial of the information against Toll (a dancing-master) and others, for insulting and striking the Duke of Bedford, and other gentlemen, upon Whittington Heath, at the late Litchfield horse-races; when it was likewise proposed by the counsel for the defendants, that the several rioters, to the number of thirteen, should submit to be found guilty: if the counsel for the crown would consent to withdraw the information against several other persons concerned in that riot.”
The circumstances of the fracas are also alluded to in the “Letters of Junius” (xxii.):—
“Mr. Heston Humphrey, a country attorney, horsewhipped the duke with equal justice, severity, and perseverance on the course at Litchfield. Rigby and Lord Trentham were also cudgelled in a most exemplary manner.”
These incidents gave rise to various ballads as well as caricatures; a parody on “Chevy Chase” offers the liveliest version of the affair:— 117
In 1749, Lord Trentham, having been appointed one of the lords of the admiralty, had to vacate his seat, and every exertion was made by the Opposition to hinder his re-election.
“With this view they held consultations, agreed to resolutions, and set up a private gentleman named Sir George Vandeput as the competitor of Lord Trentham, declaring that they would support his pretensions at their own expense; being the more encouraged to this enterprise by the countenance and assistance of the Prince of Wales and his adherents. They accordingly opened houses of entertainment for their partisans, solicited votes, circulated remonstrances, and propagated abuse; in a word, they canvassed with surprising spirit and perseverance against the whole interest of St. James’s. Mobs 119 were hired, and processions made on both sides, and the city of Westminster was filled with tumult and uproar.”
This election occurred in the midst of a violent popular anti-Gallican feeling, which had been shown particularly against a company of French players who were performing at the Haymarket, and who were spoken of by the mob as the “French vagrants.” An attempt had been made to hinder them from acting, and they had been protected only by a mob hired by Lord Trentham, who appears to have affected Gallic manners, and to have been vain of his proficiency in the French language. The night after his ministerial appointment there was a great riot at the French theatre, in which Lord Trentham was accused of being personally active, although he denied it to the electors. This was made the most of by his opponents, who stigmatized him in ballads and squibs as “the champion of the French strollers;” and common people said that learning to talk French was only a step towards the introduction of French tyranny.
An “Elector” writes, by way of warning to others:—
“Being the other evening at the French Theatre, who should I see at the head of a mob of foreign varlets, cooks, etc., signalizing himself in a laudable attack upon his fellow-citizens, but this very young man, whom they had so lately made choice of as the defender of their rights and privileges. I was indeed amazed to see, at so critical a juncture, that sword, which had hitherto kept peaceful possession of its scabbard, brandished over the heads and planted at the hearts of several of his own electors, and that in support of a parcel of foreign vagabonds, who, from being a nuisance in their own nation, are now come to be the disgrace of ours. Certain I am this fit of Gallic valour could never be communicated by the touch of that Royal British hand he had but that very morning kissed for his employment. Perhaps an impatient desire to prove himself qualified for the warlike Board to which he was appointed might induce him to seize the first opportunity of displaying his prowess; being willing to convince the public, that 120 how deficient soever the sea may have been, the land is, at least, able to produce a fighting Admiral. However, I cannot help concluding him a very unfit person to defend me against the French in one House, who is ready to cut my throat for them in another.”
A flight of satirical ballads appeared upon these events. The best of these compositions, which were remarkable for point and spirit, was entitled:—
BRITANNIA DISTURBED BY FRENCH VAGRANTS. LORD TRENTHAM FOR WESTMINSTER. 1749.
The caricaturists endorsed this view. In “Britannia Disturbed, or an Invasion by French Vagrants, addressed to the worthy Electors of the City of Westminster,” 1749, Lord Trentham is trying to force these importations on Britannia, who is nursing “Lunn” (Rich), and “Fribble;” these she declares “are my only Theatrical children, I will cherish no Foreign vagrants.” “Peg” Trentham, with drawn sword, is asserting that he will perforce cram these “entertaining dear creatures” down the throat of the nation; the strollers are like marionettes, and wear wooden shoes, as a hint of French neediness. Earl Gower is anxious for his rash scion’s future prospects: “My long-headed son will smart for this scheme.” “Push on, my Lord,” is the encouragement of “a subscriber.” “Bludgeon-men, at two shillings a day,” engaged for the election, are making a demonstration of force, and shouting for their employer’s glorification.
This Westminster election is said to have been one of the most expensive contests that the Government had as yet experienced. The following epigram describes a supposed conversation between Lord Trentham and his father:—
At the conclusion of the polling there appeared a 122 majority for Lord Trentham, but his opponents demanded a scrutiny; and this scrutiny proved so laborious and difficult, or the parties interested in opposing the Court threw so many obstacles in the way, that it led to a quarrel with the House of Commons, which lasted some months, and gave a double celebrity to the Westminster Election of 1749.
The most was made of Lord Trentham’s Gallic proclivities, which were held up to ridicule in ingenious satires. The following handbill is an example of the squibs circulated by his opponents during the election:—
“AUX ELECTEURS TRÈS DIGNES DE WESTMINSTER.
“Messieurs—
“Vos suffrages et Interêts sont desirés pour le Très Hon. mi Lord Trentham,
“Un Veritable Anglois.
“N.B.—L’on prie ses Amis de ses rendre à l’Hôtel François dans le Marché au Foin.
“To my Lord Trentham.
“The King of France (my most glorious Monarch) being touched with a lively sense of the obligations he owes your Lordship, for the powerful protection you have given to his subjects in England, honours you with his thanks, and commands me to assure you, that your Lordship shall be the Chief Manager of his Playhouse in England, as soon as your Lordship and your Friends have brought those insolent rascals, the English, under his dominion, being satisfied the measures your Lordship and Friends now pursue cannot fail of your desired success.
“I have the honour to be
“Your Lordship’s most obliged humble Servant,“N.B.—Translated from the Original French.”
Great favour was shown to docile voters, while the refractory were subject to crying injustices. The following handbill, circulated at the time, exposes the meannesses to which a Duke of Bedford could descend in the interests of his candidate:— 123
“A true Copy of a Letter sent to an inhabitant of Covent Garden, who thought himself at liberty (though a Tenant to the Duke of Bedford) to vote according to his own conscience; which having done, he received the following:—‘I hereby give you Notice, that you are to quit the house you rent of his Grace the Duke of Bedford, situate in Bedford Street, in the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, at Lady-Day next, or to pay his Grace Seventy-two pounds a year for the same from that time.
“‘Nov. 29, 1749.
“‘To Mr. Matthew Creyghton.’“NOTE.—I acknowledge to have received the above letter by the hands of Mr. Becuda, one of his Grace’s stewards, and accept the notice therein. The rent I at present pay is thirty-six pounds per annum. I voted for and to my utmost have served Sir George Vandeput. Who would not?
“⁂ No rent due to his Grace.
“N.B.—The House to Let.”
The general election of 1747 furnished Hogarth with a suggestion which employed his attention anterior to his more ambitious election series. The House of Commons dissolved on the 18th of June, and the artist, taking time by the forelock, had his engraving “A Country Inn-yard at the Time of Election” ready for publication while the contests were occupying the public. As the print in question informs us, the cry of a “Babe of grace,” heard at the City election of 1701, was repeated in 1747. The subject of the stage-coach and inn-yard is generally familiar. It contains the figures of the fat woman of abnormal proportions being assisted into the coach by the efforts of her meagre husband; while the equally obese landlady, seen at the bar window, which she fills, is vigorously pulling the bell to summons the coach passengers. It is the background of the picture which illustrates the present subject. The sleek landlord, wearing an apron, and with a pair of snuffers pendent at his girdle, 124 is presenting to an election agent a bill for the expenses incurred for the entertainment of his party; that the amount is excessive is conveyed by the expression of suspicion which pervades the features of the agent, who is preparing to settle the account; the landlord is evidently protesting as to his immaculate reputation, while a part of the Act against bribery on elections is projecting from his pocket. The galleries of the inn-yard are filled with spectators, who are favoured with a sight of the humours of an election procession—a posse of men carrying sticks and bearing an effigy of a more than life-size baby, with a child’s rattle and hornbook, or A.B.C. Behind the chair, in which this figure is seated, is carried a flag with the inscription, “No Old Baby.” Nichols and Stevens, in their “Notes to Hogarth” (1810) have explained that the “Old Baby” effigy and cry were resorted to by the antagonists of the Hon. John Child, whose family, by Act of Parliament, took the name of Tylney in 1735. This candidate stood member for the county of Essex in opposition to Sir Robert Abdy and Mr. Bramstone. At the election, a man was placed on a bulk, with a mock infant in his arms, who, as he whipped the babe in effigy, exclaimed, “What, you little Child, must you be a member?” The member in question was then Viscount Castlemaine, and afterwards Earl Tylney. At this disputed election, it appeared, from the register book of the parish where this candidate was born, that he was a “Child” in more than one respect, being but twenty years of age when returned for parliament. 125
A favourite figure with the satirists was to portray wily party manœuvrers as vermin-catchers, and those apostate representatives who were ready to sell themselves and their parliamentary trust were displayed as the spoils of their craft. A cartoon appeared at the time of these elections reflecting upon the tricks of administration. It will be seen that nearly all these early caricaturists seem disinterested, as their subjects oppose the dispensers of patronage. The engraving shows the Duke of Newcastle seated beside St. Stephen’s Chapel, and fishing for partisans among the late members, and, in anticipation, bidding for the adherence of the possible representatives in the coming parliament; this subject is entitled, “The Complete Vermin-Catcher of Great Britain; or, the Old Trap new baited.” The minister’s line is dropped through the chimney of St. Stephen’s, and is baited with Titles, Bribes, Places, Pensions, Secret Commissions, and patronage in Army, Navy, and Excise. The intriguing duke, who was a proficient in corrupting others, and spent a large fortune in electioneering wiles, is observing, “All Vermin may be caught, tho’ differently, suit but the Bait to their various appetites. But there’s a species will take no Bait; would I could scare them away; as they’re not Vermin, they will not answer my purpose.” The greedy place-hunters are swarming plentifully, and are offering to do any amount of dirty work, to “push for posts,” “Jews and no Jews,” 126 being indifferent to everything but profit. The Pelhams, unscrupulous themselves, were past-masters of the art of finding venal tools. It is disclosed in the diary of Bubb Dodington (Lord Melcombe-Regis), the manager of the Leicester House intrigues, and himself an accomplished adept in dissimulation, how disreputably the Duke of Newcastle contrived to secure Bubb’s parliamentary influence (six seats) “for nothing!”
The corrupt character of a large average of those sent to the Commons as representatives of the people was in perfect keeping with the no less greedy boroughmongers who found them seats and the mercenary voters, their constituents by presumption; what a man bought—and in those days almost everything political had its price and was purchasable—he held himself justified in selling when the chance occurred. A satirical rendering of the imperfections then supposed to affect the body of the senate appeared at the time of these elections of 1754, when, by wholesale bribery, the Administration was, at an enormous cost, doing its utmost to degrade the entire system of representation:—“Dissection of a Dead Member (of Parliament).” The subject is extended upon a table for autopsy, five surgeons have severally examined the different functions, and the results of their post-mortem inspection is thus stated:—
1st Doctor. The Brain is very foul and muddy, it has a Contusion, or, as it may be called, a soft place in it, locked in the stone kitchen by way of qualification.
2nd Doctor. Ay, ay, he knocked his head too hard against politics and bruisified his pericranium. He was bred a Foxhunter.
3rd Doctor. The Vena Cava of the Thorax makes a noise, and sounds as if one should say, “My country be damn’d,” and his intestines have got, I think, ’tis “Bribery,” wrote on them—not a drop of good blood in his heart.
4th Doctor. Bribery, the Auri Sacra fames of the ancients—ay ’twas a diet he was fond of, ’twas his Breakfast, Dinner, and Supper, and affected all the corpuscles of his corporeal system, it was his Insanible Membrum.
5th Doctor. There’s a most potent Fœtor exhales as if the whole body was corrupted—if the bones are touched it won’t make an Anatomy. 127
The elections of 1754 are rendered more interesting to later generations from the circumstance that the famous series of paintings by Hogarth, better known by the engravings as the “Four Plates of an Election,” owe their origin to the electoral contests which ensued on the parliamentary dissolution, April 8, 1754. Before that date the tendency of events was shadowed forth. For instance, Henry Pelham, a pupil of Walpole’s, who combined the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, passed the Jews’ Naturalization Bill in June, 1753, chiefly by his own exertions; but reaping thereby an enlarged measure of unpopularity—sufficient to jeopardize his party and his future career, if not to extinguish the political prospects of the Pelhams beyond rehabilitation—this detrimental concession was recalled, and, in the face of a general election and its possible eventualities, the Bill was repealed. The hostile feeling provoked by the measure in question still remained, and although the principal agent on its introduction had himself departed, it exercised, as will be seen in the political satires, much influence over the elections of 1754, in the way of helping the return of fresh opposition candidates, and defeating ministerial nominees. Henry Pelham, the prominent figure of the administration, expired in the full tide of his unpopularity. That enmity—consequent upon his acts—followed him to the tomb is illustrated by a spirited caricature, published on his death, and disclosing the probable reception which awaited the late premier on the other side of the Styx. “His Arrival at his Country Retirement and Reception,” March 6, 1754 (the anniversary of Pelham’s decease). In this etching Henry Pelham is entering on his future state, introduced to the infernal regions by a demon chamberlain. The “salle des pas perdus,” is not so easy as anticipated; Pelham is observing to his conductor:—“It was much easier walking in the Treasury. I hope my successor finds it so.” The ghosts of departed statesmen are variously greeting the arrival of the latest addition to 128 their class. His predecessor, Sir Robert Walpole, is welcoming a worthy pupil: “O, this is a child of my own bringing up. I found him a promising Genius for dirty work, I therefore did all I could to gain him the succession at my retirement hither, knowing that some of his black strokes would make me appear as fair as alabaster. He has done it in several respects, but chiefly in getting the Naturalization of the Jews passed,—have any of you great Genius’s done anything equal?” The spirit of Judge Jeffreys is declaring, “All my transactions in the West were but a joke to that great achievement.” The disembodied Cardinal Wolsey is observing, “Is that the choice spirit you have so often described? I made pretty large strides towards making the people swallow down what I thought proper—but this beats all my ‘Ego et Rex Meus’s’ out of doors!” A shade affirms, “We are all puny statesmen to him;” and the most astute politicians of history are voted beginners beside Pelham—“If you, old Machiavel, had known him in your days, he’d a’ lent you a lift.”
In the elections which were held in April, 1754, the Court seems to have experienced less opposition than might have been expected; for although the spirit of the antagonistic “Leicester House party” had been damped by the death of the Prince of Wales, which occurred unexpectedly in March, 1751, it now showed signs of reviving.
The contest for the City of London gave rise to several interesting caricatures. The humours of canvassing are displayed in “The Liveryman’s Levée” (April, 1754), which represents an elector, a self-sufficient tailor, with his vulgar wife. The pair are receiving the obsequious bows of five of the candidates, who, in 1754, put up for the City of London. The absence of Sir John Barnard, the celebrated city patriot, is professionally marked by a suit hanging on the wall,—“A Plain Suit of Broadcloth for Sir John Steady.” The liveryman is insolently resenting the independence of the favourite candidate: 129“Where’s Sir John? I think he is greatly wanting in his duty. Does he imagine that a man of my figure is to be trifled with? Don’t he know that we expect to be waited on?” There are other allusions to the recommendations for and objections against the respective candidates.
As the dissolution of parliament approached, satirical views of the situation became numerous, and there appeared various well-executed caricatures upon the subject of the city election. In “The City Up and Down; or, the Candidates Pois’d,” the candidates were represented perched upon suspended boxes, part of a huge revolving machine. Sir John Barnard, Slingsby Bethel, and William Beckford are occupying the upper seats; they had represented the city in the last parliament, and, as there were no objections against their names, their re-election was considered secure. In a side box is Sir Richard Glyn, who was defeated; in another, somewhat lower, is Sir Robert Ladbrooke, a new candidate, who was successful; below these is a fourth box, in which are Sir Crisp Gascoyne and Sir William Calvert; the latter, though one of the former representatives, secured the fewest votes in 1754. The reason for this falling-off in favour is explained by the caricature; Calvert is surrounded by Jews, who are assuring him:—“You have all our interest, for your zealous support of our Bill!”—“Confound your Bill; now I have no hope left,” replies Sir William, whose exertions on behalf of this measure lost him his seat. Barnard is declaring, “I am, strictly speaking, neither a friend to the Jews nor their enemy; excepting when they aim at having equal Rights and Privileges with my fellow-citizens and countrymen.” While the inflexible Beckford, who later was Lord Chatham’s “mouth-piece in the Commons,” asserts, “It becomes a Man of Character to keep good Company.” Ladbrooke, who was a distiller, is declaring he “should like to be in good company too,” but “fears it will be with the two kings”—“The King of the Jews” being Calvert the brewer, and Gascoyne, “King of the Gipsies.” There are allusions 130 to the occupations of the candidates; the voters are declaring, “If the gin-merchant [Ladbrooke] gets in, gin will be cheaper.” Other electors refer to Gascoyne and Calvert as “two very good beer-makers.” On the opposite side of the river is shown Sampson Gideon, a prominent financier of his day, and afterwards knighted,—he is conducted by Satan, and his hat is filled with gold for purposes of bribery; he is eager to tamper with the balance of the boxes in the “great Up and Down machine;”—“If I was over I would turn the poise, though it cost me the profits of the last Lottery.” Gideon was a strenuous supporter of those who voted for the Jews’ Naturalization Bill, and, before the repeal of that measure, held hopes of getting into parliament. He is frequently alluded to in the electioneering squibs of the time. That he had substantial reasons for interesting himself in behalf of those in power appears from the “Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the Lottery of 1753,” where it is stated that “Sampson Gideon became proprietor of more than six thousand tickets, which he sold at a premium.” Preference allotments, being highly profitable, were useful as administrative patronage.
The city election is further illustrated by an engraving called, “A Stir in the City; or, some Folks at Guildhall,” which represents various groups of citizens and persons prominent at the time, assembled before the Guildhall, while the six candidates are borne along on a long frame with six seats, and supported on men’s shoulders, the procession being headed by a bishop; the party is received in state by the sheriffs, who are assuring the prelate, “as my Lord Rabbi,” that “the Guildhall is not the Synagogue,” and “no sons of Levi have place here;”—in general, the bishops supported the Naturalization Bill. Dr. Ward, then before the public as an advertizing pill-vendor, is from his coach distributing quack nostrums; he is acknowledging that “not one will cure an Election Fever.” Gascoyne and Mary Squires, the gipsy, crooked and leaning on her 131 staff, are represented, with Hogarth beside them; this refers to the charges against Squires brought by Elizabeth Canning, and proved false on further investigation by Sir C. Gascoyne, who retired from the city canvass, and successfully contested Southwark. Candidates for Hertford, Winchester, and other places are also introduced. A group of Jews stand by the Guildhall; one cries, “What a shame it is we have no votes!” Sampson Gideon is present, and another is confidentially remarking to him, “Tho’ you can’t vote, Sampson, you may still do business there;” to which the contractor replies, in reference to his expectation of sitting in parliament had the Act to remove the disabilities of the Jews continued in force, “I thought to have voted in another Building;” while a lean Hebrew neighbour whispers, “You have an excellent hand at a Lottery, all the world knows.” Orator Henley, standing in his tub, is recommending his butcher friends from Newport Market to convert the voters into Jews; and a hawker is crying, “Sir Andrew Freeport’s Address [to the Livery of London] for nothing.” The state of the polls for London and Oxfordshire are also given.
Of the six candidates carried in chairs, two and two, Sir John Barnard (at the head of the poll, 3553), is saying, “These are my fellow-citizens; I must not forsake them in my old age, for I always loved them.” Slingsby Bethel (3547), as president of the Free British Fishery Society, promises “the Herring Fishery shall thrive.” Beckford (2941) is made to declare, “I’ll vote for a new Bridge [Blackfriars]; but not for a new Jew Bill.” Sir R. Ladbrooke (3390) is present, and so are the defeated candidates, Sir Richard Glyn, and, at the bottom of the poll, Sir W. Calvert, with the Jew Bill in his pocket—for which he asserts he “only voted!”
A further explanation of the allusions conveyed in this satire is afforded by the verses which accompanied the design:— 132
The struggle for election was also epitomized under the popular paraphrase of a race-course: “The Parliamentary Race; or, the City Jockies” (April, 1754). Sir John Barnard is first on “Steady,” Mr. Slingsby Bethel is second on “Buzzard;” Sir R. Ladbrooke on “Trimmer,” and William Beckford on “Will o’ the Wisp,” are making great exertions to cut out Sir Richard Glyn on “Little Driver,” who is flogging his horse to keep the third place, which he ultimately lost, his name standing fifth at the close of the poll; Sir Crisp Gascoyne is left behind with “Miss Canning;” Sir William Calvert has come to grief, his horse, “Loose Legs,” having stumbled over a Jew pedlar, and, with the rider, been thrown out of the race. The contest is witnessed by horsemen, gentlemen on foot occupying the stand which the horses must pass, and the usual crowd of spectators present on a race-course, including an itinerant gin-seller 133 dispensing spirits to workmen, in allusion to the distiller, Sir R. Ladbrooke. Various observations are made on the chances of the race: “Old Steady [Barnard] is in first!” “Buzzard [Bethel] will blunder in second!” “Will o’ the Wisp [Beckford] has blood in him!” and other comments, as indicated above. The state of the “Parliamentary Stakes” is expounded in a copy of verses, possibly a parody after one of Tom D’Urfey’s odd ditties:—
The summary of both the London and the Oxfordshire contests, which were regarded by ministers as of the utmost consequence, are given pictorially in a carefully engraved 134 print, entitled “All the World in a Hurry; or, the Road from London to Oxford,” April, 1754. At the extremities of the plate are views of the respective cities; to these the candidates and their supporters are proceeding on horse and foot, by two opposite lines of road. To the right, where the London cavalcade may be taken to commence, the largest mounted figure, and that nearest the spectator, is intended for Sir John Barnard, the head of the poll, who is trotting along at a steady pace, contented with his progress: “My steed is slow, but sure, Sir Robert.” Sir Robert Ladbrooke, who is urging on his own career, replies, “What! without a spur, Sir John?”—Barnard having resorted to no election manœuvres, and not even canvassed the voters. Alderman Slingsby Bethel, jogging along comfortably in his gig, is observing; “I’ll leave my Election to the Arbitration of the Livery.” Sir Richard Glyn’s pace, in a post-chaise and pair, is checked by a group of pedestrians in the pathway; “What the Devil can’t you get before the Jews, Tom?” he is inquiring of his postillion, who replies, “They are in possession of the Road, Sir Richard:” Glyn, although for some time third in the voting, finally failed in his election. Also behind the group of foot-passengers are two prosperous-looking personages on horseback, Sir William Calvert and William Beckford, both late members for the city; the former is bantering his companion, “You won’t be first at Guildhall, Brother Beckford;” the famous patriot was returned third on the poll at the election of 1754: his rival retorts, alluding to Calvert’s position at the previous contest, “Nor you second, Sir William;” the support Calvert had lent the Jews’ Naturalization Bill was the cause of his being rejected in 1754. In the centre of the group of Hebrew obstructives is a stout man, mopping his forehead and complaining, as he drags along wearily, “Verily, England is too hot at this time of the year!”—this figure represents Sir Sampson Gideon, the loan contractor, who is surrounded by his co-religionists. One long-bearded 135 Israelite is crying that “Sampson refuses to sweat a little for our friend Sir William!” (Calvert); another Jew declares, “Sir William has been sweated often on our account;” and a third is saying, “We must give him a little Grease for once” (i.e. spend money to further his election),—this refers to the encouragement the Jews offered Sir William Calvert, support rendered in return for his assistance in passing the Jews’ Naturalization Bill, which nearly cost the ministry their working majority, while one of the city members, Calvert, the great brewer of the day, lost both his popularity and his place in parliament. This measure had been passed by the Pelhams in the last session, and, until its repeal, Sampson Gideon looked forward to a seat as a representative of the City of London. On the eve of the dissolution the ministers had repealed their unpopular Bill, and this concession to public opinion was regarded as an electioneering stratagem on their part. At the other end of the London group is Sir Crisp Gascoyne, who gave up his candidature for the city, and put up for Southwark, where he was rejected. At this time Sir Crisp was labouring under undeserved disfavour owing to his exertions to procure the conviction of Elizabeth Canning, the perjuress, for a false accusation against the gipsy, Mary Squires, who was, through Canning’s devices, condemned to death, but was subsequently pardoned, after Gascoyne’s investigation had established her innocence, and the true facts were made public. The case in question, which was not cleared up at the time of the elections, was the cause of that unpopularity which cost Sir Crisp his seat; in the engraving, he is made to exclaim, “Why, where are you, Mother Squires, with your infernal troop?”—Squires was alleged to be a witch! A friend riding beside him is pointing upwards, “Infernal! Sir Crisp? why, they are up in the air yonder!”—indicating a witch and three weird sisters riding on broomsticks over the heads of the parliamentary cavalcade. The leader, intended for the gipsy, is exclaiming, “I am afraid we are too late, sisters.” The 136 spectators are standing aside to let the procession pass; one is shouting bravely for the “tried members, Barnard and England for ever, huzza!” and two others are abusing Gideon’s friends, who have hindered Calvert’s election. “Damn the Jews! they are always in the way,” “Turn ’em out of the Road.” A copy of verses further elucidates the subject:—
ALL THE WORLD IN A HURRY; OR, THE ROAD FROM LONDON TO OXFORD. 1754.
The half of the engraving of “All the World in a Hurry,” having reference to the Oxfordshire elections, may be taken as an introduction to Hogarth’s famous series of “The Election;” the actual candidates, besides the contest, being set forth in this earlier version.
The two horsemen galloping in advance of their competitors represent Lord Wenman and Sir James Dashwood, the “True Blue” candidates, who gained the head of the poll, and were returned as “sitting members,” but were afterwards, “on a controverted election petition,” displaced to make room for Lord Parker and Sir Edward Turner, the representatives of the ruling party, who had been supported from the first with the entire government interest, and by a decision of the House of Commons were ultimately seated.
In the engraved version of this spirited competition, Lord Wenman is made to remark, 137“They are not far behind us, Sir James;” to which Dashwood responds, “Too far, my lord, to get up with us.” That every exertion was made is illustrated by the driver of the post-chaise which contains the ministerial nominees; the Duke of Marlborough, as postillion, is declaring “his jades, i.e. the voters, begin to kick”—the elections for Oxfordshire having been in the control of the Marlborough family at former elections; and, in fact, the same influence was so preponderating, that no opposition after the election of 1754, now in question, was offered in the county until 1826,—another Sir G. Dashwood was unsuccessful in the Whig interest in 1830. Sir Edward Turner and Lord Parker are in the ministerial post-chaise; the duke is proposing to throw over one of his nominees—“Sir Edward, you had better get out;” his colleague, however, is resisting this desertion—“You won’t leave me single, Sir Edward?” The latter is trying to spur their postillion forwards: “Push hard, my Lord Duke, or we shan’t get in.” Two Whig notabilities are riding at a distance; one is observing, “Sir James [Dashwood] and my Lord [Wenman] have got ground on ’em;” his neighbour is confidently replying, “Ay, and they’ll keep it, my boys.”
Last comes the great man of the administration, driving his phaeton and six. He bids a mounted messenger to “ride forward, and tell my Lord Duke I would have been with him, but my horses took fright at a funeral, and won’t pull together;” the Duke of Newcastle is the person represented, and the circumstance to which he attributes the restiveness of his six-in-hand was the death, just before the dissolution of parliament, of his brother Henry Pelham, a man of superior abilities to the duke, who had filled the same offices with a better hold on his team.
The elections in Oxfordshire were marked by a more animated conflict than elsewhere; the Jacobite faction was still strong there, although the comparatively recent fate of those who had declared for the Pretender served to keep these sympathies within discreet limits. The contest was strongly marked by incidents which have survived in the four famous election pictures painted by William Hogarth, the unequalled originals of which, still in fine condition, are now somewhat lost to the public in Sir John Soane’s Museum,44 but of which the engravings are most familiar. Hogarth sold the series to his friend David Garrick for the modest price of 200 guineas; at the sale of Mrs. Garrick’s effects, in 1823, they were secured by Sir John Soane for the corresponding moderate sum of £1732 10s. The “Election Entertainment” was exhibited at Spring Gardens in 1761. These characteristic satires seem to apply to electioneering episodes in general, not only of the eighteenth century, but until within the present; a recapitulation of the principal allusions, however, will show that these pictures are composed of studies for the most part drawn from life, and founded on the actualities of the 1754 contest in Oxfordshire. The “Election Entertainment,” the first of these plates, is so well known that it was felt unnecessary to reproduce any of its incidents. This scene might he taken as a generalistic view of the electioneering hospitality and “open house,” one of the first steps towards conciliating support, but that the three “party-cries” 139 distinctive of this particular struggle are all pictorially perpetuated. The scene embodies gluttony, turbulence, and false patriotism, but bribery and violent intimidation prevail above all. The mayor, who occupies the seat of honour, has succumbed to a surfeit of oysters, and a phlebotomist of the barber tribe is endeavouring to blood his arm and cool his head at one time. A ministerial-looking personage is treated with coarse familiarity, while a youthful aspirant for popular favour is submitting to tipsified indignities at the hands of his temporary associates. Nichols, who mentions certain assurances he received from Hogarth as to the fact that, with one exception, none of the figures were intended for portraits, affects to recognize the handsome candidate.45 This modish gentleman has been treating the fair sex to gloves, buff or orange favours, and other gear, from the pack of a pedlar of the Hebrew persuasion, who is also dealing in notes of hand; he holds one for £20 from the candidate, signed “R. Pention” (Pension being the word). While the Court party is regaling the Buffs, or Old Interest, at the leading tavern, their opponents, the Blues, are making an out-of-door demonstration; so that a view of the humours of both sides is simultaneously afforded. The New Interest procession is composed of “bludgeon-men,” bearing an effigy of the Duke of Newcastle, with the colours of the Old Interest, and a placard round his neck, “No Jews,” in allusion to the unpopular Act introduced by the Pelhams (1752) to permit the naturalization of foreign Jews. Another cry, inscribed on a blue standard, is “Liberty and Prosperity,” while a huge blue flag bears the inscription, “Increase and multiply in spite of old ——,”46 in reference to the recent Act for the regulation of marriages, which had encountered much opposition 140 and given offence to the multitude. An animated exchange of missiles between the political antagonists is proceeding through the window; those within are standing a siege from showers of bricks, to which they are replying with a volley of fluids and furniture showered on the heads of the passing patriots; while a rival detachment of Old Interest hirelings, displaying their orange cockades, being armed with oak cudgels, and headed by a partisan with a drawn sword, is sallying forth to make a diversion on the besiegers. A champion Orange bludgeon-man, seated on the floor in the foreground, has evidently returned from a raid on the foe, in which he has had his head broken, but he has succeeded in carrying off one of the obnoxious blue standards. A butcher, with a “Pro Patria” favour twisted round his head, is pouring gin upon the bruiser’s cracked cranium, which he has first plastered with a “Your vote and interest” card; the doughty champion is reviving his spirits with the same stimulant; his foot is trampling upon the spoils of victory, the broken staff and the flag inscribed, “Give us our eleven days,”—another whimsical popular party cry, explained by the alteration in the style, introduced in the session 1751, to correct the calendar according to the Georgian computation, then adopted by most European nations. To equalize the number of days, so that the new year should in future begin on the 1st of January, eleven intermediate days were for that occasion passed over between the 2nd and 14th of September, 1752, so that the day succeeding the 2nd of that month would be reckoned as the 14th—an alteration which provoked discontent, and, in spite of its obvious convenience, was denounced as a Popish innovation.
The business of the meeting, regarding the gluttony and drunkenness among the diversions, is centred in bribery. The Buff parliamentary agent has a seat next the unconscious municipal in the chair; before him is a ledger ruled with columns for “sure votes” and “doubtful.” The occupations of this important factotum are deranged by a flying brick from the opposition, which has struck home on his temple, bringing him down headlong, with destruction to objects around. Amid much horse-play and practical joking—to the strains of an extraordinary orchestra—promises of payment, bank-notes, and broad-pieces are being put into circulation. A lean Methodist tailor, with Blue sympathies, and who is suffering from qualms of conscience, is placed between two fires, the personal violence of his wife, with a half-shod offspring appealing for new shoes, while a clerkly agent is pressing on his acceptance a handful of silver coins to remove his pious scruples. Although bribery was so generally admitted, and stalked barefaced throughout the country, it was even then contrary to statute. With his usual irony, the painter has shown the “Act against Bribery and Corruption” turned into pipe-lights, and thrown aside in the tray of “long clays,” together with a packet of tobacco, for the use of smokers. This latter bears the name of “Kirton’s best,” and has its peculiar significance: Nichols records that Kirton “was a tobacconist by St. Dunstan’s Church, Fleet Street, who ruined his health and constitution, as well as impaired his circumstances, by being busy in the Oxfordshire election of 1754.” The pictures on the walls, according to Hogarth’s practice, greatly assist the story: there is a view, presumably of Oxford from the river—the city is represented in flames; an undertaker’s escutcheon—the field sable bears three gold pieces, with 142 a chevron, the motto “Speak and Have,” surmounted by an open mouth by way of crest proper. A portrait of William, Prince of Orange, as the Protestant prince of the Revolution, has been slashed across by rabid and indignant Jacobites, in allusion to the faction then supposed to have had much influence in Oxford; branches of laurel are entwined round a buff flag, marked “Liberty and Loyalty,” the standard of the party.
Further allusions to the respective Houses of Stuart and Hanover may be detected in the plate, “Canvassing for Votes,” in the signs of the “Royal Oak,” versus “The Crown.” All the taverns are pressed into the service of the candidates as a matter of course, the enterprising competitors striving to secure the preponderance of publicans, their interest, friends, and followers. “Tim Partitool, Esq.,” possibly a hit at Bubb Dodington, whose person, as sketched by Hogarth, may be identified in at least one picture of this series, is located at the “Royal Oak.” This enterprising gentleman, as depicted on his canvass, is nicknamed “Punch,” also indicative of Bubb’s unmistakable figure. A porter has brought two packages, evidently polling cards, inscribed, “Sir, your vote and interest;” one of these parcels is directed “at Punch’s, at the ‘Royal Oak’ Yard,” and to the candidate in question the bearer is presenting a note with the superscription, “Tim Partitool, Esq.” Above this gentleman’s head, and partly concealing the painted signboard of Charles II. in the oak, with the three crowns of the United Kingdom among the branches, is a pictorial poster in two compartments. In the upper one are shown the Treasury and Horse Guards, both burlesqued; while from the tall story of the former flows a stream of gold, which is being packed into sacks for conveyance by waggon into the country—there to be distributed for the purposes of bribery—to strengthen the party already in power, known as the Old Interest (their own). The way this is to come about is shown in the lower compartment of the painted cloth: 143 “Punch, candidate for Guzzledown,” the farceur, with his protuberant rotundity of back and corporation, has a wheel-barrow before him, filled with bags of money, marked £7000 and £9000, and in all amounting to a considerable sum; he is casting about the broad-pieces in a shower from a ladle, and they are caught in the hats of expectant electors.
The candidate is treating all around, within the inn, as seen in the bar-parlour, his followers are feeding gluttonously; in the balcony above are two fair nymphs, whose favour he is conciliating by purchasing trinkets from a Jew pedlar. A farmer voter of some influence, probably a squire of the Tony Lumpkin order, who has ridden into Guzzledown, is making the most of his opportunities: the landlords of the rival inns are ostensibly pressing him to accept invitations to dinner at the respective head-quarters; the host of the Royal Oak is pouring a shower of silver into the receptive palm held out by the wary elector, while the other hand receives the broad golden retainer of “The Crown.” The landlady has a lapful of money, while one of George’s grenadiers (like those seen in “The March to Finchley”) is slyly watching the reckoning of the plunder, probably with an eye to spoliation on his own account. The Crown, which is also the Excise Office, is the scene of an animated contest, rival bludgeon-men are in fierce conflict at the 144 doorway, furniture and stones are being thrown about, and a man from the window is discharging a gun into the thick of the fray below—an allusion to a murderous episode which really occurred. The sign of the Crown, suspended to a huge beam, is in process of removal; a man above, on the wrong side of the support, is sawing it through, while confederates below are dragging it down by force: this is also figurative—the man above, who is assisting to demolish the Crown, will come down simultaneously, while those beneath it will be crushed by its fall. At a third house is the sign of the Porto Bello, at the side door of which is seen a barber demonstrating with pieces of tobacco-pipe the manner in which Porto Bello was itself taken with six ships only; his companion, a cobbler, has given up work, having received sufficient money from the elections to afford to forego toil for the present.
THE ELECTION AT OXFORD.—CANVASSING FOR VOTES. BY W. HOGARTH. 1754.
THE OXFORDSHIRE ELECTION—THE POLLING BOOTH. BY W. HOGARTH. 1754.
The view of the Polling Booth is full of intention. Within, seated at the back, on a raised platform, are the sheriffs or bailiffs with whom the election rests, and their 145 attendant, the beadle; in the front are the poll clerks, with their register-books, and the lawyers to see the testaments duly offered for attesting the oath; in the left corner, a veteran (the Militia Bill peeps out of his pocket), who has lost both arms and one leg, is touching the testament with the iron hook which does duty for his missing hand; the clerk is trying to stifle his laughter, while the opposition lawyer is energetically protesting against this proceeding as informal. Hogarth has literally brought “the blind and the halt” to the hustings; in fact, as was too frequently witnessed on these occasions, he has introduced the extremes to which recourse was had,—a pitiable idiot, in a hopeless stage of imbecility, is brought up to the poll in a chair; this poor creature’s mind is too far gone to distinguish between his right and left hands; the clerk is vainly endeavouring to get the proper attestation, while the keeper, or mad doctor, Dr. Shebbeare,47 whose legs are adorned with fetters as a felon, is prompting his charge; a political letter of the doctor’s is shown in his pocket. Another victim, evidently on the verge of dissolution, is smuggled up to the booth in an unconscious state, wrapped in a blanket and carried by two repulsive ruffians; one of them is puffing a blast of tobacco smoke full in the face of the dying man, to whose night-cap is pinned a “True Blue” favour.
Drinking is still proceeding, and “dying speeches” are hawked about, with the usual heading of a rude woodcut of the gallows, in allusion most probably to a local occurrence which produced considerable agitation amongst the public at large—the passions of the multitude having been set into a flame, in the absence of political excitement, by the trial and execution at Oxford, in 1753, of a young woman, Mary Blandy, for poisoning her father under rather romantic circumstances; she persisted in asserting her innocence, even on the scaffold; a number of pamphlets were published upon her case, which became the subject of warm dispute.
All these “Election” plates are rich in suggestive allusions, the meaning of many of which are now lost. Hogarth in his third plate has indulged in simple allegory. Britannia’s state coach is in difficulties, to which, by the aid of the check-string fastened to her coachman’s arm, she is vainly endeavouring to draw the attention of her driver, who has laid down his reins, being otherwise engaged; the two servants on the box are absorbed in a game of cards, while one is cheating,—an allusion to the extravagant gambling propensities which, to so large and notorious an extent, disfigured society in general, and particularly (at this time) those charged with the interests of the kingdom.
THE OXFORDSHIRE ELECTION.—CHAIRING THE MEMBERS. BY W. HOGARTH. 1754.
The fourth plate, “Chairing the Members,” exhibits the last and apparently most trying episode as regards the successful candidate; the hero of the hour—the newly returned member, elected in the True Blue, or New Interest—occupies a position which may have its honours, but obviously has its perils. In place of the actually returned members, Hogarth seems to have selected the 147 figure of the intriguing manager of the Leicester House party, Bubb Dodington (afterwards Lord Melcombe), for the hero of the chairing scene. He is elevated only to find himself surrounded with embarrassments: the dangers of his chairing are lost sight of momentarily, for his pale face is horror-stricken by being confronted with a fair lady of fashion; she is equally affected by the rencontre, for she is swooning away—it is presumed with apprehension—in the arms of her maids. Over Bubb’s head flies a goose—a happy conception, understood to be introduced as a parody of the “Triumph of Alexander,” by Le Brun, where that grandiose artist has suggestively made an eagle hover over the head of his hero. In the Blue procession following the chairmen are all the elements of an election triumph—rough music of marrow-bones and cleavers, True Blue flags,48 plenty of bludgeon-men, while a “block head,” wearing the buff favour of their opponents, is carried to ridicule the 148 opposition. Another humorous episode is shown in a vixenish dame sporting a buff cockade; she has boldly broken through the ranks of the Blues, and is driving from their midst her husband, a tailor, detected in his duplicity by the virago, who is soundly cuffing her crestfallen “inferior moiety,” lately deserted to the enemy. A barrel of beer has been placed in the street for public use; a pewter measure stands beside it; the mob seems to have used the opportunity, as a would-be drinker is discovering that the cask is already emptied. In the distance, a second chaired member is skilfully indicated, of whom the shadow only is seen, projected on a wall, while he is carried along to the evident risk of limb and life, as his gesticulations imply. Among other accessories may be noted a tar-barrel, in preparation for a bonfire later on. The sun-dial bears the date 1755 (when the picture was completed), and marks three o’clock, the quality dinner-hour. The bigwigs of the Court party are assembled at an adjacent mansion, at which a plentiful banquet is about to be served: a French chef, his long clubbed tail bound with an orange favour, a female cook, noblemen’s servants, and other retainers, all wearing the colours of the Old Interest, are carrying the silver-covered dishes in procession. The ministerial adherents are assembled on the first floor; a large handsome window—all the panes of which have been broken by the stones of the patriots, affords a good view of the guests; from the side window they are catching the prospect of the Blue demonstration, surveying with malicious delight the perilous situation of the alarmed chaired member, whose triumph seems, for the time being, the reverse of enviable.
It is said the figure of the chief personage is intended for that of the Duke of Newcastle; the Duke of Marlborough was also actively engaged on the Tory side: while the back of another, wearing a broad ribbon, is possibly meant for Lord Winchilsea. Among the artist’s fugitive sketches, as published at his widow’s, Leicester Fields, in 1781, are the two caricatures—engraved by Bartolozzi, from the 149 Earl of Exeter’s collection of Hogarth’s originals—representing Bubb Dodington (very like “Punch”), and the back view of Lord Winchilsea; both these studies might have been made for the plate of “Chairing the Members.” These figures are also included in a caricature entitled “The Recruiting Sergeant” 1757 (the design of which was ascribed to the Hon. George Townshend), while that of Lord Winchilsea, who was at the head of the admiralty, is reproduced with scarcely any alteration, excepting the position of the paddle shown over his shoulder, in the “Triumph of Neptune.”
GEORGE BUBB DODINGTON (LORD MELCOMBE-REGIS) AND THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA. BY HOGARTH. 1753.
Other multifarious incidents are given in the fourth plate of the “Election.” A soldier with the Buff colours is washing the wound received on behalf of his employers; his sword is snapped across the blade. A pig-driver, flourishing a formidable flail, is doing battle with a bear-leader, who is armed with a bludgeon. The backward swing of the flail is imperilling the security of the new 150 member’s seat, while wounding the chair-bearers. Bruin is helping himself from the offal pail of a passing ass—the patient animal stopping to munch a thistle by the wayside; the driver is belabouring the bear over the head, to the alarm of a monkey equipped à la militaire and riding on the brute’s shoulder. In the monkey’s fright, a musket at his side is discharged in the face of a little chimney-sweep, who, raised aloft on the wall, is stooping forward to ornament a sculptured skull or effigy of death, placed above the church gate, with a pair of huge round spectacles, in imitation of those worn by Lord Winchilsea. This burning of powder, like the other episodes, has its significance; for, according to the account of Nichols, who claims to have discussed the hidden meanings of these pictures with Hogarth himself, it was “during the contested Oxfordshire Election in 1754 an outrageous mob in the ‘Old Interest’ had surrounded a post-chaise, and were about to throw it into the river (occupant and all), when Captain T——, withinside, shot a chimney-sweeper who was most active in the assault. The captain was tried and acquitted.” Among the items in these election bills it will be observed that more or less mortality has generally to be reckoned, “death by misadventure” having been sufficiently prominent in most contests of the kind during the turbulent times of the past. Private property was held in small respect while rioting was rife; for instance, Hogarth has, in the scene of the chairing, shown a mansion partially demolished, intending to imply that the house had been wrecked by the riotous mob in the course of their eccentric diversions: it will be noted that the wilful destruction of houses and furniture was another recognized feature of election times.
The diary of George Bubb Dodington, Baron of Melcombe-Regis, does not, it is true, contain any enlightenment upon the subject of the Oxfordshire election as depicted by Hogarth, yet the writer is circumstantial in his account of the elections of April, 1754. The records, 151 however, deal with other contests in which the diarist was active, and notably one which brought Dodington much perplexity of mind and loss of cash. The accounts are nearly all set down as recitals of long interviews with the Duke of Newcastle, who was then trying to strengthen his hands by giving away places to those whose allegiance was doubtful; while Dodington, upon whose influence and assistance he could reckon, reaped nothing but mortification, being in fact an intriguer who was for once played upon for ends other than his own by a more astute and less scrupulous diplomatist than himself. The heads of the alliance are set down as under discussion. Bubb was to furnish his interest towards the electing the new parliament (the dissolution was then an affair of hours), claiming to return six members on his own account. “I did it,” he writes, “in the county of Dorset, as far as they pleased to push it. I engaged also specifically to choose two members for Weymouth, which he desired might be the son of the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Ellis of the admiralty.” The candidates nominated by the Duke of Newcastle, Lord J. Cavendish and Mr. Ellis, were successfully returned by Dodington’s influence in the sequel. Further, there was opposition in Bridgwater, where Bubb was expected to return two members. Lord Egmont was putting up for that place against the Court, and it was the royal pleasure that Dodington should sacrifice himself to keep the Tory candidate out, as signified through Pelham; to which Bubb replied, “that I desired him, when next these matters came to be discussed, to lay me at the King’s feet, and tell him that, as I found it would be agreeable to his Majesty, I would spare neither pains nor expense to exclude him; and thus it became my engagement to do it if I can.” “Lord Egmont’s successful return,” he writes, “need not affect my election, though it might destroy the Whig interest in Bridgwater for ever.” Poor Bubb, oblivious of the royal antipathies to the friends of the Prince of Wales, was hoping to secure 152 his old post of treasurer of the navy, but the leadership of the House of Commons had fallen upon the Pelhams, and, as the party must be strengthened there, it was hinted that the Duke of Newcastle would have to buy supporters by giving away to waverers the offices which rightly were due to his friends; to which Dodington replied without sophistication, “that he considered himself as useful there as his neighbours, and, considering his age, rank, the offices he had held,” and, “adding to that, choosing six members for them at my own expense, without the expense of one shilling from their side, I thought the world in general, and even the gentlemen themselves, could not expect that their pretensions should give me the exclusion.” The duke remarked that “the ease and cheapness of the election of Weymouth had surprised him, that they had nothing like it;” and Bubb considered again “that there were few who could give his Majesty six members for nothing.” Newcastle then took the stout future Baron Melcombe in his arms and kissed him twice (!) “with strong assurance of affection and service;” moreover, notes of all Bubb had said were written out for the king’s pleasure. A week later, Dodington sets down, “Dined at Lord Barrington’s, and found that, notwithstanding the fine conversation of last Thursday, all the employments are given away.”
Nevertheless, he valorously went to work to try and return two members for Bridgwater, though rather against his inclinations; unfortunately, although the doings of each day are set down, the details of the election have been abbreviated by the editor of the diary, Henry Wyndham.
“1754. April 8th. Arrived at Eastbury.
“11. Dr. Sharpe and I set out from Eastbury at four o’clock in the morning for Bridgwater, where, as I expected, I found things very disagreeably framed.
“12. Lord Egmont came, with trumpets, noise, etc.
“13. He and we walked the town: we found nothing unexpected as far as we went.
“14, 15, 16. Spent in the infamous and disagreeable compliance with the low habits of venal wretches. 153
“17. Came on the election, which I lost by the injustice of the Returning Officer. The numbers were—for Lord Egmont 119, for Mr. Balch 114, for me 105. Of my good votes 15 were rejected: 8 bad votes for Lord Egmont were received.
“18. Left Bridgwater for ever. Arrived at Eastbury in the evening.”
Altogether Dodington places his expenses at £2500, later on at £3400, and finally, when the king had thrown him over, at nearly £4000 spent in this affair. According to an accepted political axiom, what a man buys he may sell; Pelham admitted to Dodington that he possessed “a good deal of marketable ware (parliamentary interest), and that if I would empower him to offer it all to the king, without conditions, he would he answerable to bring the affair to a good account.” In this instance the vendor sold himself for “just nothing at all,” as is shown in the diary. The king disliked Bubb as the adviser of his son, whom he hated.
“April 26. I went to the Duke of Newcastle’s. Received with much seeming affection: thanks for Weymouth, where I had succeeded; sorrow for Bridgwater, where I had not.
“I began by telling him that I had done all that was in the power of money and labour, and showed him two bills for money remitted thither, before I went down, one of £1000, one of £500, besides all the money then in my steward’s hands, so that the election would cost me about £2500. In the next place, if this election stood, the borough was for ever in Tory hands; that all this was occasioned by want of proper support from the Court, and from the behaviour of the servants of the Crown.”
The truth was that the Court had really defeated Dodington. Lord Poulett, a lord of the bedchamber, “had acted openly against him with all his might;” and this action on the part of the higher powers had carried the Government employees, so that “five out of the Custom-house officers gave single votes for Lord Egmont.”
“The next head was—that, in spite of all, I had a fair majority of legal votes, for that the Mayor had admitted eight bad votes for Lord Egmont, and refused fifteen good ones for me; so that it was entirely in their own hands to retrieve the borough, and get rid of a 154 troublesome opponent, if they pleased; that if the king required this piece of service, it was to be done, and the borough put into Whig hands, and under his influence, without any stretch of power.”
The intricacies of electioneering are supplanted by those of statecraft from this point; Bubb’s diary rehearses—spread over four months—the reasons for and against petitioning for a just return; but it peeps out, and therein lies the rub—that Dodington has inflamed the Tories by his assistance in Dorset. Now, just at this time, the Duke of Newcastle sought to make friends with the opposition; and it occurred to this slippery tactician that, as Dodington had had the sole onus of trying to keep out the Tories and failed, if he allowed Lord Egmont to retain his seat for Bridgwater, it would purchase his allegiance without the cost and inconvenience of putting some post or piece of state preferment at his disposal. Thus did Dodington sacrifice both his money and pains without conciliating the favour of the king, with whom the ambitious courtier was the reverse of popular.
One important feature of electioneering, missing in the later days, was the edifying practice of “Burning a Prime Minister,” making effigies of unpopular candidates and obnoxious ministers for burnt-offerings.
A caricature appeared in 1756 representing a street, in the precincts of Westminster it is presumed, filled with a crowd of enthusiastic patriots on their way to make a bonfire of the offending minister in effigy. The figure wears a cocked hat, and has a wig and mask, evidently copied from those of the living prototype, mounted on a stick; the coat and gloves are stuffed; the legs are sticks, bound up into a rude resemblance to stockings and shoes. The effigy is strapped on horseback. At the rear is a gibbet, on which the dummy premier is to be finally suspended. One of the mob bears a supply of faggots. Beneath this pictorial satire, which is executed something in the style of Sayer, the caricaturist of a later date, appear the verses:— 155
BURNING A PRIME MINISTER IN EFFIGY. 1756. (FROM DR. NEWTON’S COLLECTION.)
The following manifesto explains the object of this publication, an appeal “Against Corruption,” and directed to securing the purity of elections against Ministerial bribery. The subject of the squib was evidently suggested by the Guy Fawkes processions of November. It appeared at the time when the Newcastle and Fox administration was near its fall and after those expensive elections in which the duke had spent enormous sums in bribery.
“Who can call to remembrance without abhorrence the behaviour of a Whiggish Ministry, who, neglecting everything else but the business of Bribery and Corruption, reduced the credit of the Nation and themselves to so low an ebb, that at length they were obliged to import Hessian and Hanoverian Troops to support an immense unconstitutional standing army, in defending them and their measures at home; whilst our perfidious enemies ravaged and distressed our wretched Colonies in every other part of the globe. Now it would be well for England if the several Tory or motley administrations 156 since that time could demonstrate that they have spent less time and treasure in the same destructive employment. As a tree is known by its fruit, so is a bad minister by his attempting to influence Electors, or even to gain a Majority of the Elected by any other means than the justice of his measures; otherwise the use of a national Council is superseded; and when a King is thus deprived of the disinterested deliberations of his people in Parliament, the authors of the undue influence are certainly guilty of Treason in the strictest sense of the word.” 157
In the whole history of electioneering no figure is more conspicuous than that of John Wilkes, the quondam patriot, who was by the attacks of others brought into a prominence which neither his abilities nor character justified.
Hogarth commenced hostilities against Wilkes, Churchill (The North Briton), and Beardmore (The Monitor) by attacking their publications incidentally in that unfortunate attempt at political satire of his, christened “The Times,” Plate I. (1762). It will be remembered that the figure of the artist’s patron, Lord Bute, is there glorified as a Scotch husbandman engaged in extinguishing a general conflagration; while a frenzied man, intended to personify the Duke of Newcastle, is driving a wheel-barrow filled with Monitors and North Britons against the legs of the zealous Scot, who, unmoved, continues his exertions to subdue the threatened ruin of the State. Pitt and Lord Temple are further assailed—not too cleverly—in this view of the “Times.” On this provocation, Wilkes and Churchill naturally took up the cudgels in their own defence, and certainly gave Hogarth cause for irritation. He prepared the second plate of “The Times,” with a further pictorial castigation of his now-declared adversaries, but was induced to reconsider the policy of publishing the plate, and thus giving greater offence; consequently it was not until thirty years later, when the quarrel was almost 158 forgotten, and the opponents had long been at rest,49 that the world was favoured with a view of this equally laboured satire, when it was published by the Boydells at their Shakespeare Gallery, with the collected works of W. Hogarth (May 29, 1790). George III., Bute, Temple, Lord Mansfield, and others, are introduced in this version, but the portion which is pointed at Wilkes, in continuation of this “rough bout of clever men clumsily throwing dirt at each other,” as it has been described, is the figurement of Miss Fanny, of “Cock-lane ghost” notoriety, pilloried and held up to infamy side by side with Wilkes, whose offence is indicated as “Defamation.” On his breast is pinned a copy of the North Briton, the No. 17 which was specially devoted to a base attack upon Hogarth. This incendiary publication is already threatened with flames from the penitential candle held by “Miss Fanny,” his shrouded companion in disgrace. Indignities are showered upon Wilkes in allusion to his involved circumstances; his empty pockets are turned inside out, a school-boy is watering his legs, a woman is trundling a mop over his head, and he is generally regarded with derisive contempt by the crowd.
The crowning effort of Hogarth’s revenge for the abuse showered upon him by both Wilkes and Churchill was the famous etching in which the popular favourite is pilloried to all time as the type and very personification of everything false and sinister, and yet most lifelike as to resemblance; for Wilkes was himself so cynically candid as to admit in after-life that he was “growing more like his portrait every day.” The famous likeness represents 159 Wilkes seated in a chair at a low table, on which is an inkstand and the North Briton, Nos. 17 and 45; he is holding the staff, topped with an inverted vessel to simulate the cap of liberty. Attitude and features are alike expressive, and, as Mr. Stephens has described it, “he leers and squints as if in mockery of his own pretences to patriotism.” When brought up from the Tower, to which Lord Bute’s party had ventured to commit him for the attack in the North Briton, No. 45, Wilkes was tried at Westminster, before Chief Justice Pratt—subsequently eulogized as “the champion of Freedom and Justice,” and better known to fame as Lord Camden,—who caused the prisoner to be discharged, to the frantic delight of the populace. It was on this occasion that Hogarth secured his opportunity of sketching the idol of the people and the thorn of the Court. In a note prefixed to “An Epistle to William Hogarth,” by Churchill, it is averred that when Mr. Wilkes was the second time brought from the Tower to Westminster Hall, Hogarth skulked behind a screen in the corner of the gallery of the Common Pleas; and while Lord Chief Justice Pratt was enforcing the great principles of the Constitution, the painter was employed in caricaturing the prisoner. So popular was this print, issued at one shilling, that Nichols mentions “nearly four thousand copies were worked off in a few weeks.” “The Epistle” referred to was provoked by the etching of John Wilkes, “Drawn from the Life.” Hogarth is said to have felt severely the retort which the vigorous and “bruising” Churchill thought proper to make.
JOHN WILKES, A PATRIOT. AFTER HOGARTH.
160
To this pasquinade, which revelled audaciously in the realms of libel, and was otherwise a false and indefensible attack on the artist’s private life, Hogarth characteristically replied with his graver; but not to lose time, while his mind was heated by the attack, he utilized a plate on which was already engraved his own portrait and his dog, after the painting now in the National Gallery, and burnishing out those parts which were in his way, he engraved—
“The Bruiser, C. Churchill (once the Revd.!), in the character of a Russian Hercules, regaling himself after having kill’d the monster Caricatura that so sorely gall’d his virtuous friend, the Heaven-born Wilkes.
“‘But he had a Club this Dragon to drub,
Or he had ne’er don’t I warrant ye.’”
A BEAR-LEADER. HOGARTH, CHURCHHILL, AND WILKES.
This plate was issued at 1s. 6d., and seems to have gone through various alterations and additions from first to last. On the palette which first displayed the mystifying “line of beauty,” was substituted two designs of a figurative nature—the one having reference to Pitt, his resignation and annual pension, and his city supporters, represented by the emblematic civic guardians, Gog and Magog; the other a group further applying to the castigation of the designer’s foes. Hogarth is armed with a triple whip, with which he is lustily chastising a big dancing bear, Churchill, held bound and muzzled, as not only the artist but the ministry and the Scotch faction would have rejoiced to have effected; the Bruiser to the clerical ruffles and bands has incongruously added the modish laced hat of a man about town; the other end of the rope, by which Hogarth has secured the bear through the muzzle, is fastened round an ape, intended to personify Wilkes. This animal is wearing a 161 wig exactly similar to that shown on Wilkes’s head in the too-famous etching; the North Briton is in his left hand; the spear, topped with the inevitable cap of liberty, is turned into a hobby-horse, to infer, according to Mr. F. G. Stephen’s account, “that Wilkes used Liberty to get his own ends, which not more than a child progresses on its ‘cock-horse’ did he really obtain.” The face of the fiddling personage, who is making the music for this pretty caper, is a featureless blank; he wears a ribbon of knighthood, and it is understood that Earl Temple is the person intended.
Other uncomplimentary allusions to Wilkes and his proceedings appear in the Public Advertiser, where is a woodcut of an execution, I.W., and M.P., with a “Toast”—“May loyalists walk easily in their Boots [a reference to Lord Bute], and malcontents die like Wilks in their shells.”
The notoriety of John Wilkes was much assisted by the ill-advised and clumsy conduct of the ministry, which elected to make a martyr of the man whose career proves him to have been but a sham patriot, and, who, if unnoticed, was totally without weight or consequence. On April 30, 1763, Wilkes found himself, in spite of the Habeas Corpus granted by the Common Pleas, conducted to the Tower on a warrant, signed by the Earls of Egremont and Halifax as Privy Councillors and Secretaries of State, authorizing the Constable of the Tower, the Right Hon. John Lord Berkeley of Stratton,—
“to receive into your custody the body of John Wilkes, Esq., herewith sent you, for being the author and publisher of a most infamous and seditious libel, entitled the North Briton, No. XLV., tending to inflame the minds and alienate the affections of the people from His Majesty, and to excite them to traitorous insurrections against the Government.”
The small engraving which exhibits Wilkes in the Tower, forms one portion of a series, entitled “The Places” (being a sequel to “The Posts”), a political pasquinade, dedicated 162 to Bamber Gasoign, Esq., a Trading Lord for the time being.
A SAFE PLACE. WILKES IN THE TOWER, 1763.
No. 3 is styled a Safe Place; the title is “Moderation, Moderation, this was Wonderful Moderation, an old song.” The prisoner is simultaneously attacked by curs, and by one of the historical lions of the Tower, which cannot do much harm, being chained to the secure post Magna Charta. Wilkes is threatening his assailants with a whip; he has on a spear the cap of liberty—this emblem is inscribed “Habeas Corpus.” A yeoman of the guard is in charge of the hero of the XLV. North Briton.
163
In the version of “Daniel cast into the Den of Lions; or, True Blue will never stain” (April 29, 1763), Wilkes is shown the centre of a highly elaborate allegorical combination, which deals with the incidents of his arrest, associated with the North Briton, and his obnoxious writings. One of the scenes exhibits the king’s messengers violently breaking into Wilkes’s house, Great George Street, Westminster, and ransacking his receptacles for papers. On the other side, the messengers are shown conducting Wilkes to the Tower, the title “Den of Lions” not being wide of the mark, since it, at that time, was the abiding place of the royal menagerie. Wilkes is made to declare: “Corruption I detest, and Persecution I despise,”—sentiments befitting the patriotic martyr, as he was then believed to be, a “goodly repute” with which he was only too desirous of parting in exchange for such bribes as were weighty enough for his acceptance. In the symbolic view of this new “Daniel,” the goddess Fame hovers over her whilom favourite, with a wreath to crown his brow; she is publishing, through her trumpet, “Magnus est Veritas;” the door of the den which confines the lions is a prominent feature. Below appears the Lieutenant of the Tower; he has a written “counsel’s opinion” in his hand, and is replying to a demand for admittance made by Wilkes’s brother, “Consider, sir, my Lord Temple was not suffered to see him.” When Wilkes was committed to the Tower, both his brother and Earl Temple applied to be admitted to see him, and were refused.
The “general warrant” on which Wilkes was arrested was proved illegal, and on a writ of Habeas Corpus, he was set at liberty on the ground of his privilege as a member of Parliament. After his release from the Tower, Wilkes was involved in a duel, and severely wounded; he then fled to Paris, January, 1764, and was, in his absence, expelled from parliament and outlawed for contempt of court. On the issue of writs for the general election, after the dissolution of parliament, March 12, 1768, Wilkes, who had 164 made several vain attempts to get the sentence reversed, suddenly presented himself as a candidate to represent the city of London, in the interval addressing to the king a submissive letter imploring pardon and the reversal of the sentence of outlawry which had been passed upon him. This petition the king rejected with decision. Although Alderman Sir William Baker was the only citizen of note or influence who supported him, Wilkes persisted in his candidature, the lower people embracing his cause with ardour; but he polled the minimum of votes, and was signally defeated, the successful members being the Hon. Thomas Harley, lord mayor, with 3,729 votes; Sir R. Ladbroke, 3,678; William Beckford, 3,402; Barlow Trecothwick, 2,957. The unsuccessful candidates were Sir Richard Glyn, 2,823; John Patterson, 1,769; and Wilkes, at the bottom of the poll, who contrived to secure 1,247 votes.
On Wilkes’s return from the Guildhall at the close of the poll, March 23, 1768, where, as seen, he obtained the lowest number of votes, the people displayed their fervour for spurious patriotism by removing the horses from his carriage, and drawing it themselves; other extravagancies of a like nature showed the spirit of the multitude, by whom Wilkes was regarded as the tribune of the people, a situation very much to his taste. Considering his mob-popularity assured, he now proposed to conciliate his opponents; the first step was to make a pretence of submission. On the 22nd of March, he wrote to the solicitor of the treasury: “I take the liberty of acquainting you, that in the beginning of the ensuing term I shall present myself to the court of King’s Bench. I pledge my honour as a gentleman, that on the very first day I will there make my personal appearance.” The letter sent by Wilkes to the king was certainly a plausible composition, but the fervid assurances there given being in direct antagonism with the conduct of the writer at that very time, it may be held that George III. was justified in treating the applicant with indignant contempt. 165
“Sire,
“I beg thus to throw myself at your Majesty’s feet, and supplicate the mercy and clemency which shine with such lustre among your princely virtues. Some former ministers, whom your Majesty, in condescension to the wishes of your people, thought proper to remove, employed every wicked and deceitful act to oppress your subject, and to avenge their own personal cause on him, whom they imagined to be the principal author of bringing to public view their ignorance, insufficiency, and treachery to your Majesty and the nation.
“I have been the innocent and unhappy victim of revenge. I was forced by their injustice and violence into exile, which I have never ceased to consider, for many years, as the most cruel oppression; because I could not longer be under the benign influence of your Majesty in this land of liberty.
“With a heart full of zeal for the service of your Majesty and my country, I implore, Sire, your clemency. My only hopes of pardon are founded in the great goodness and benevolence of your Majesty; and every day of freedom you may be graciously pleased to permit me the enjoyment of, in my dear native land, shall give proofs of my zeal and attachment to your service.”
This letter was judiciously ignored, but meanwhile fresh publicity was awaiting Wilkes—on the 27th, he was carried by a writ of capias ut legatum to the King’s Bench.
The return of Wilkes from Paris, his failure for the city, and election for Middlesex are figuratively shadowed forth in “The Flight of Liberty,” a broadside consisting of two engraved designs, “The Return of Liberty,” and “Liberty Revived,” with verses in praise of Wilkes and reflecting adversely upon his antagonists. In the upper compartment is shown the Court, or administrative faction, destroying the Temple of Liberty (an allusion to Earl Temple), raised above the statue of Wilkes, with the cap of liberty, as usual, elevated on the staff of maintenance. Lord Bute trampling on Magna Charta, is foremost of the destroyers who are wrecking the whole edifice, the very foundations of which are being razed; the “Laird of Boot” is exclaiming, “Well said, guid friends, down with the mighty Temple,” in allusion to the protection and patronage that nobleman had already extended to Wilkes; the Duke of Bedford, Lord North, and other ministers are aiding. The second design 166 shows “the Temple of Liberty built by John Wilkes, A.D. 1762,” reinstated, “never to fall again.”
Nothing daunted by his defeat for the city of London, Wilkes at once offered himself for the county of Middlesex. In his “Memoirs of the Reign of George III.,” Walpole gives certain glimpses of the election proceedings, which are as descriptive as a more detailed account:—
“On the 23rd of March the Election began at Brentford; and while the irresolution of the Court and the carelessness of the Prime Minister, Grafton, caused a neglect of all precautions, the zeal of the populace had heated itself to a pitch of fury.”
The other candidates were Sir W. Beauchamp Proctor and Mr. Cooke, the former members. Cooke, who had sat from 1750, was confined with the gout; a relation, who appeared for him, was roughly handled. Amidst the wrecking of carriages which ensued, that of Proctor did not escape the attention of the roughs; it “was demolished by the mob.”
The coach-glasses of such as did not huzza for “Wilkes” and “Liberty” were broken, the paint and varnish of chariots and coaches, met and stopped for miles round, were spoiled by the mob—scratching them with the favourite “45.” Lord Bute, generally the object of popular disfavour, was denounced by an attack made on his residence, where the mob broke his windows, as usual, but failed to effect an entrance; the same unwelcome attention was paid to Lord Egremont’s, in Pall Mall, as the chief signatory to the warrant for Wilkes’s committal. The Duke of Northumberland had the honour of appearing, whether he would or no, of being forced to supply the mob with liquor, and to drink with them to Wilkes’s success. The demonstration assumed formidable proportions; all the windows from West to East were illuminated to please the mob, otherwise they were broken by the riotous “true loyal Britons and friends of Liberty,” who performed some curious feats; some of the regimental drummers, not the Scotch regiments it may be premised, beating their drums for Wilkes. This astute diplomatist, finding his election secure, very prudently dismissed 167 his enthusiastic partisans, such as the weavers, back to town, the polling50 was ended, and by the next morning quietude was resumed in the vicinity of Brentford. Some of the incidents were particularly ludicrous, the mob going out of the way to perpetuate the number of the North Briton so objectionable to the Court. The Austrian Ambassador, the Count de Seilern, described by Horace Walpole in a letter to the Earl of Hertford as the most stately and ceremonious of men, was obliged to get out of his coach, and ignominiously held with his legs in the air while the figures “45” were chalked on the soles of his shoes. This insult formed the grounds of an official complaint. It was as difficult for the minister to help laughing at the gravity of his representations as to redress the slight offered to a friendly power in the person of its representative.
Wilkes was now master of the situation; all his expectations were verified. Elated with success, his audacity enabled him to make the most of his undeserved triumph, and assuming a tone which heaped fresh mortifications upon the Court, he printed an address of acknowledgment to his constituents, in which he invited them to give him their instructions from time to time, and promised that he would always defend their civic and religious rights. Although posing as the champion of liberty, Wilkes’s parliamentary career was a dismal failure; in the House he was of no account whatever.
It is interesting to note contemporaneous opinion on a point which is so strongly distorted by partisanship that independent impressions are rare. Dr. Franklin, whose genuine passion for liberty it must be admitted was as absorbing and unaffected as Wilkes’s assumed patriotism was shallow and self-serving, happened to be in London at the time of the violent ferment occasioned by the Middlesex election in 1768. Although lately returned 168 from Paris, and himself, a citizen of the land which complimented Paine, he thus unreservedly sums up the popular candidate, together with the political agitation associated with his pretensions.
“’Tis really an extraordinary event to see an outlaw and exile of bad personal character, not worth a farthing, come over from France, set himself up as a candidate for the capital of the kingdom, miss his election only by being too late in his application, and immediately carrying it for the principal county. The mob, spirited up by numbers of different ballads, sung or roared in the streets, requiring gentlemen and ladies of all ranks as they passed in their carriages, to shout for ‘Wilkes and Liberty;’ marking the same words on their coaches with chalk, and ‘No. 45’ on every door, which extend a vast way along the roads into the country. I went last week to Winchester, and observed that for fifteen miles out of town there was scarcely a door or window-shutter next the road unmarked, and this continued here and there quite to Winchester, which is sixty-four miles.”
The day of Wilkes’s election appeared the portrait of “John Wilkes, elected Knight of the Shire for Middlesex, March 28, 1768, by the free voice of the people,” with, according to the allegorical taste of the time, Hercules and Minerva as supporters, the latter crowning the elect M.P. with a wreath, while the former tramples upon the serpent of Envy; the genius of Liberty is holding the staff of maintenance, surmounted by the cap of liberty (as invariably associated with Wilkes), and is pointing to the portrait as her champion. Simultaneously appeared an engraving commemorative of other incidents of the return from Brentford, showing the valour of the chief magistrate of the city. The guards on duty at St. James’s Palace had orders to be in readiness to march at beat of drum to suppress any riots which might take place; it has been described how certain drummers took to drumming for Wilkes, while his sympathizers marched through Westminster to the city, upsetting all in their way, chalking doors, breaking window-glass, both in houses and carriages, inscribing vehicles and foot-passengers impartially with “45.” “Wilkes and Liberty” was the cry, and woe to those 169 who did not join in shouting, for they, without further inquiry, were promptly knocked down. In the city, the mob grew more outrageous, the lord mayor being the Hon. Thomas Harley, who had been elected for the city, at the top of the poll, when Wilkes, his name lowest on the list, had been defeated ignominiously; moreover, the lord mayor was a courtier, and was denounced subsequently in the North Briton as “a political gambler,” nor was the charge groundless. The mob accordingly attacked the Mansion House and the lord mayor’s private residence in Aldersgate Street; neither of these places being illuminated in honour of Wilkes was a sufficient offence in the sight of the mob, who proceeded to demolish the windows: every pane of glass was broken, even to those of the lady mayoress’s bed-chamber. Then they erected a gallows, on which was suspended a boot and petticoat to symbolize the Princess of Wales, only too well-known, according to popular clamour, in association with the Earl of Bute, the “Laird of the Boot” thus indicated in close proximity; these suggestive emblems of hated “secret influence” were also marked “45” for the nonce. The pictorial satire evoked on this topic, “The Rape of the Petticoat” (March 28, 1768), exhibits the lord mayor making a sally from the Mansion House, supported by constables armed with long staves; the chief magistrate has himself seized the obnoxious boot and petticoat, amid the ridicule and laughing resistance of the rabble, who are treating his lordship to indignities. Below the design is inscribed, “He valiantly seiz’d the Petticoat and Boot at the portal of his own Mansion.—Daily Advertiser.”
This loyal zeal was rewarded with signal favour. Harley was made a councillor of State, and subsequently, through Lord Suffolk, obtained a lucrative contract. To the impression of this print in the Oxford Magazine the following verses were added:—
On the 20th of April, Wilkes appeared before the Court of King’s Bench, Westminster, of which event an engraving was published. On his surrendering to his outlawry, the Attorney-General moved for Wilkes’s commitment, but the judges refused to grant an order to that effect, on the ground that he was not legally before the court; Wilkes then left, accompanied by the plaudits of the spectators. “The Scot’s Triumph; or, a Peep behind the Curtain” gives a further illustration of this subject; this print, and another following, are announced in the Public Advertiser:— 171
“To Connoisseurs.—This day is published a satirical scratch in the style of Rembrandt, entitled The Scotch Triumph; with the representation of their amazing exploits in St. George’s Fields; the murder of the innocent, and the sacrifice of Liberty, by Molock; with some curious anecdotes.”
In the first version, Wilkes and his friends are driving to surrender in state; their coach is about to crush a Scotch thistle by the way; the mob have taken the horses from the vehicle and are dragging it themselves on the road to the Bench; Wilkes is thus addressing his vociferous supporters—“Gentlemen and Friends, let me beg you to desist; I’m willing to submit to the laws of my country.”
All the leading political personages are introduced as spectators. Lord Holland, an alleged adviser of Lord Bute, is observing, “We have got him safe in a trap at last.” “Jemmy Twitcher” (Lord Sandwich) is responding, “Yes, but I much doubt whether we shall be able to keep him there.” On the 27th of April, Wilkes again came up for judgment, and was then committed to the King’s Bench Prison. On his way thither, in the custody of two tipstaffs of Lord Mansfield, the coach was stopped by the people, a further popular demonstration was made, the horses were removed, and the vehicle drawn through the city by an enthusiastic crowd, the marshal’s deputies being invited to get out. He finally was escorted to a public-house, the Three Tuns Tavern, in Spitalfields (or Cornhill, according to Walpole’s account); from thence, after the departure of his demonstrative admirers, Wilkes judged it prudent to make his escape, and surrender himself again, this time at the prison gates and to the marshal of the King’s Bench. When the news of his incarceration reached the mob there was a fresh uproar; the day following, the prison was surrounded, the palings enclosing the footpath were torn up and made into a bonfire, and the inhabitants of Southwark found themselves under the necessity, either of illuminating their houses, or of taking the consequences; the mob dispersed on the arrival of a small guard. 172
Meanwhile Sergeant Glynn was arguing before all the judges of the Court of King’s Bench respecting the errors of Wilkes’s outlawry; while, from his place of confinement, Wilkes next proceeded to address his sympathizing constituents:—
“Gentlemen,
“In support of the liberties of this country against the arbitrary rule of ministers, I was before committed to the Tower, and am now sentenced to this prison. Steadiness, with, I hope, strength of mind, do not however leave me; for the same consolation follows me here, the consciousness of innocence, of having done my duty, and exerted all my abilities, not unsuccessfully, for this nation. I can submit even to far greater sufferings with cheerfulness, because I see that my countrymen reap the happy fruits of my labours and persecutions, by the repeated decisions of our Sovereign courts of justice in favour of liberty. I therefore bear up with fortitude, and even glory, that I am called to suffer in this cause, because I continue to find the noblest reward, the applause of my native country, of this great, free, and spirited people.
“I chiefly regret, gentlemen, that this confinement deprives me of the honour of thanking you in person, according to my promise; and at present takes from me, in a great degree, the power of being useful to you. The will, however, to do every service to my constituents remains in its full force; and when my sufferings have a period, the first day I regain my liberty shall restore a life of zeal in the cause and interests of the county of Middlesex.
“In this prison, in any other, in every place, my ruling passion will be the love of England and our free constitution. For those objects I will make every sacrifice. Under all the oppressions which ministerial rage and revenge can invent, my steady purpose is to concert with you, and other true friends of the country, the most probable means of rooting out the remains of arbitrary power and Star-chamber inquisition, and of improving as well as securing the generous plans of freedom, which were the boast of our ancestors, and I trust will remain the noblest inheritance of our posterity, the only genuine characteristic of Englishmen.
“King’s Bench Prison, May 5th, 1768.”
By this letter it will be seen that Wilkes chiefly appealed to what is best described as clap-trap sensationalism; he 173 continued, however, to be the cause of constant apprehension, the military and other authorities taking every precaution to preserve the peace of the metropolis.
While Wilkes was kept a prisoner in the King’s Bench, the authorities made demonstrations of resorting to armed force for the ostensible purpose of preserving the peace of the metropolis, and, taught precaution by the famous “45” demonstration which followed Wilkes’s election for Middlesex, to check further rioting with firmness, which unfortunately degenerated into ferocity.
Parliament met on the 10th of May, Lord Camden being now lord chancellor. It seems the misconception had arisen that Wilkes’s outlawry would be reversed, and that in any case he would be suffered to attend the assembling of parliament. With the design of conveying him thither in triumph, a great body of people were gathered at the King’s Bench. Finding their expectations disappointed of seeing the idol of the hour set at large and reinstated as “the tribune of the people,” they demanded him at the prison, and grew very tumultuous; whereupon the Riot Act was read by two justices of Surrey, but the mob threw stones and brickbats while it was reading, when one of the spectators, seeing other persons run, ran too, but was unhappily singled out by a picket of the Scotch Guards, who broke their ranks—a breach of military discipline—and followed him about five hundred yards into a cowhouse, and there shot him dead. 174“Soon after this, the crowd increasing, an additional number of the Guards was sent for, who marched thither, and also a party of horse grenadiers (two regiments had, it appears, been under arms in St. George’s Fields throughout the disturbances), when, the riot continuing, the mob were fired on by the soldiers, and five or six were killed on the spot, and about fifteen wounded, among them being two women, one of whom subsequently died of her wounds. She was, it appears, trying to move her oranges out of danger. Another account says (Gentleman’s Magazine) several of the people killed were passing along the road at a distance; and, later on, it is said not one of the persons actually concerned in the rioting were hurt by the firing. Several versions of the fatal affair appeared immediately. The case of the inoffensive youth who was thus barbarously slaughtered excited general sympathy; his name was William Allen, and his father was master of the Horseshoe Inn and Livery Stables, Blackman Street, Southwark. On the Scotch faction was heaped all the opprobrium of this regretable transaction.”
Among others, appeared the illustration of “The Scotch Victory,” 1768; on the wall of the outhouse, to which the lad had fled for shelter when pursued, is “’45,” an allusion to the cruelties of the Highland raid in 1745, as well as to the “XLV. North Briton.” Alexander Murray, the officer, Donald Maclury, a corporal, and MacLaughlin, a grenadier, are shown in the act of assassinating Allen. A halter which lies near the feet of the soldiers and a sketch of a gallows and a man hanging indicate the public sentiments on the matter. The letterpress is to this effect:—
“The monumental inscription on a tombstone erected over the grave of Mr. William Allen, junior, in the churchyard of St. Mary Newington, Surrey. ‘Sacred to the memory of William Allen, an Englishman of unspotted life and amiable disposition, who was inhumanly murdered near St. George’s Fields, the 10th day of May, 1768, by Scottish detachments from the army.’
The Duke of Grafton was first lord of the treasury. Viscount Weymouth, afterwards Marquis of Bath, was one of the secretaries of state; he had urged the advisability of calling out military aid to strengthen the civil authority. Viscount Barrington was secretary at war. He had thought proper to convey to the field-officer in command of the Foot Guards the royal approval of the men’s behaviour.
“WILKES AND LIBERTY” RIOTS. THE SCOTCH VICTORY. MURDER OF ALLEN BY A GRENADIER. MASSACRE OF ST. GEORGE’S FIELDS. 1768.
175
He begged “that they may be assured that every possible regard shall be shown to them in return for their zeal and good conduct on this occasion,” “and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law authorities, and this Office (the War) can give.”
Justice Gillam, who was the first to give the order to the third regiment of Guards to fire on the people, was tried for the murder of Redburn, a weaver; the judges acquitted him of all responsibility, and complimented him on the humane manner in which he had exercised his authority. Sergeant Glynn, Wilkes’s friend and adviser, was for the prosecution. In the course of the evidence it appeared that there had been assembled in St. George’s Fields a disorderly concourse, where, after shouting “Wilkes and Liberty,” they made an attack on the King’s Bench Prison, threw stones into the marshal’s house, and at length burst open the outward gate of the prison, to the terror of the keepers, who not only feared for the security of their prisoners, but imagined their own lives were endangered; notwithstanding their apprehensions, the keepers guarded the inner gates from the mob, so that the rioters dispersed without effecting their purpose.
The marshal, anticipating another attack the day following, applied to the magistrates for assistance, as shown in the foregoing. On the 10th of May, a larger mob assembled, repeating the cry of “Wilkes and Liberty;” whereupon the magistrates began to expostulate with them. The Riot Act was then read, and its intentions endeavoured to be explained. The rabble hissed and hooted the soldiers, who endeavoured to scatter them. At last, a stone struck Justice Gillam, and he ordered the firing, though, as far as could be proved, there existed no absolute necessity for this extreme measure. Gillam, who was exhibited to ridicule as “Midas, the Surrey justice,” appears to have been most unpopular, if not altogether unfit for the responsible position in which he was placed; “the note sent to a bookseller by a magistrate” is attributed to this hero: 176 “Sir, Send me the ax Re Latin to a Gustus of Pease.” On his trial, James Derbyshire, a bookseller, deposed that Mr. Gillam said publicly in the hearing of the soldiers, “that his orders from the ministry were, that some men must be killed, and that it were better to kill five and twenty to-day than one hundred to-morrow.” According to the Rev. John Horne (afterwards Tooke, and known to fame as the “Brentford Parson”), who was present at the riot, it was he who procured the warrant for the arrest of the soldiers. The trial did not take place until the 9th of August. Witnesses appeared against Donald Maclury, who was charged with firing the fatal shot; it was Maclury (or M’Laury) who said “Damn him, that’s him, shoot him.” Mr. Allen’s ostler declared that when Allen fell, after the prisoner had fired, Maclury said, “Damn it, it is a good shot.” On his way to gaol, the day after the murder, it was proved Maclury acknowledged “that what they had done was in consequence of orders, and he hoped they should obtain mercy.” The defence was that MacLaughlin, a grenadier, acknowledged to Mr. Gillam and six soldiers that it was he who shot Allen, and that his piece went off by accident. He had since deserted, and, it was openly stated in the papers, received one shilling a day to keep out of the way. The verdict was “not guilty;” and it was admitted that, in order to save the life of the soldier, who was liable for murder, it had “been found necessary to suffer the prosecutors to persist in their mistake in apprehending and impeaching an innocent man, and in the mean time giving the grenadier who actually fired the gun an opportunity to escape.” Both soldiers were charged at the King’s Bench, when, by arrangement, the guilty man was admitted to bail, to be smuggled out of harm’s way; “the other was remanded back to prison as the person who actually shot the lad,” according to the proceedings, May 16, 1768.
Another version of the “Scotch Victory,” with the rebus of the jack-boot standing under a petticoat, and enclosed by Scotch thistles, forms part of a mock dedication: 177 “To the Earl of (Bute), Protector of our Liberties, this plate is humbly inscribed by F. Junius Brutus.”
“The Operation,” a frontispiece to the Political Register for June, 1768, shows Lord Bute stabbing Britannia with a dagger, while the ministers already mentioned in association with the death of Allen are catching the blood which flows from her wounds:—
The Oxford Magazine for 1769 gives an engraving of the monument finally erected over the grave of Mr. Allen, junior. It represents an altar tomb enclosed by iron rails: on one side is introduced the reprobated Scotch thistle, with the legend, “Murder screen’d and rewarded;” on the other side is shown a Scotch soldier of the third regiment of Foot Guards, evidently intended for the murderous MacLaughlin, approaching and pointing to the inscription on the tomb, exclaiming, “I have obtain’d a pension of a shilling a day, only for putting an end to thy days!” 178
Within a month of his return died George Cooke, the Tory colleague of Wilkes in the representation of Middlesex, who had sat from 1750; he was prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, one of the joint paymasters of the forces, and colonel of the Middlesex Militia. Consequent on his decease a seat for the county was to be contested in December, 1768, and the public were indulged with another exciting struggle at the Brentford hustings. The candidates were John Glynn, the friend and advocate of Wilkes, and Sir William Beauchamp Proctor, the candidate defeated in the previous election. The superheated state of popular feeling had not had time to cool down; moreover, Wilkes, the chosen of the electors, was a prisoner. Both parties on this occasion seem to have resorted to terrorism; mutual recriminations as to the hiring of ruffians and bludgeon-men were made during the inquiries into the disturbances which ensued. A view of the situation, “Scene at the Brentford Hustings,” 1768, exhibits the violent and brutal behaviour of mercenaries in the pay of Proctor’s faction—chiefly reckless bullies, according to the engraving of the Brentford election. Females are beaten causelessly; a fruit-stall is wrecked, and a respectably attired person is taking advantage of the confusion to help himself from the stock, whilst the proprietress is wantonly beaten with a heavy cudgel; the legion of bludgeons is 179 enlisted in the cause of “Liberty and Proctor;” a hero whose head is shaven, and who is evidently a professional pugilist of the Figg and Broughton type, is made to exclaim, “For a guinea a day; damn Glynn and all his friends.” Other beaters—chairmen, linkmen, and the like—are driving all before them, and carrying the hustings by assault, demanding, “Bring down the poll-book—Proctor shall be the man.” The scattered remnants of a rival mob are retiring; one of these is exclaiming, “D—— ye, you dogs—we’ll match you all presently.”
THE HUSTINGS AT BRENTFORD, MIDDLESEX ELECTION, 1768. SERJEANT GLYNN AND SIR W. BEAUCHAMP PROCTOR.
The Oxford Magazine (vol. i.) has printed the correspondence which ensued upon the disgraceful violence and the attack on the hustings, in which several persons were injured and at least one fatally. The candidate ultimately returned, John Glynn, began by addressing a “Letter to the Freeholders of Middlesex,” pledging himself that the blood of his constituents so wantonly shed should be vindicated, and the charge brought home both to the hired and the hirers—“the more exalted their stations and the more privileged their persons, the louder is the call for justice.” The serjeant continues, “The freedom of a county election is the last sacred privilege we have left; and it does not become any honest Englishman to wish to survive it. There is virtue still left in the country; we are come to a crisis, and the consequence of this struggle shall determine whether we shall be Slaves or Free.”
Following suit, Sir W. Beauchamp Proctor also addressed a letter to the freeholders of Middlesex, rebutting the charges made against him. After referring to twenty years, during which, by fair and honourable means, he had endeavoured to obtain their esteem,—
“Calumniated as I have been during a long-depending canvass, I was in hopes that every topic of defamation had been exhausted; and I never expected that the daring and tumultuous interruption of last Tuesday’s poll would have been ascribed to me in so illiberal and inflammatory a style as my antagonist has thought proper to use. For his conduct in the course of this business the serjeant appeals to me, and I appeal to the sense of mankind, whether a band of writers 180 has not been let loose to be the assassins of my reputation? whether the serjeant has not, in a manner unworthy of a gentleman and a lawyer, exerted every effort to set up usage in opposition to the law of the land, and endeavoured in a dictatorial manner to compel the sheriffs to close the poll in one day, to the prejudice of the electors, and in violation of the authority vested in the returning officers, by the wisdom of the legislature.”
Proctor declared that he was not only struck by “the banditti,” but in the utmost peril of his life.
“If a signal was given,—if Proctor and Liberty appeared in the hats of the ruffians, how that might be contrived by the election arts of my adversaries need not now be mentioned. It was the opinion of my counsel, when a riot was artfully talked of by my opponents, above an hour before it happened, that the sheriffs in that case should resort immediately to the protection of parliament.” Finally, he expressed hopes “to bring this dark transaction into open daylight, and to show the world who has been the man of blood;” moreover, the writer “has full confidence that on the last day of the poll lawless men will not again dare to invade the rights of the freeholders.”
The disavowal, which “doth protest too much” as published by Proctor, goaded the virtuous indignation of the friends of freedom up to fever heat, and acted like a red rag on an infuriated bull in the instance of John Horne (Tooke), “the Brentford parson;” he addressed a scathing philippic to Proctor, declaring that Sir William’s refutations “subscribed his own guilt, and that the Court candidate had signed his name to a lie:”—
“I here declare in form, that you, Sir William Beauchamp Proctor, did both hire and cause to be hired, that mob which committed the outrages at Brentford; that mob, which immediately after the total interruption of the poll, demanded which was the house that belonged to the parson of Brentford; and to whose fury a neighbouring clergyman, who heard them ask after my house, was apprehensive of falling a sacrifice, by the mistake of a person who called himself by my name. Boast of your humanity, Sir William, to Captain Read; that gentleman, to save his own life, declared himself your friend. Persuade Mr. Allen they were not your mob; that gentleman brought you to the side of the hustings where they were, and heard them answer to his question, and to your face, that you, Sir W. Beauchamp Proctor, were the person that gave them orders for what they were about.” 181
As to the “band of writers,” Parson Horne frankly avowed himself the author of most of the letters that appeared against Proctor in the papers, and concluded with a stinging reference to those “new-fashioned constables,” as Sir John Fielding termed the hireling bullies.
“Where you endeavour to justify your proceedings by the usage of all contested popular elections, and where you affect to consider your hired ruffians, the Irish chairmen, as ‘assistants to the civil magistrates.’ The business of the approaching poll prevents my saying half what I have to tell you; but I promise you, you shall hear from me again and again, if you will please to issue out your orders to your ruffians to grant me a Reprieve till after the election.”
The main features of this ill-advised attack, which, it was believed, was intended to put an end to the election should the polling prove adverse to the party in whose pay the hired mob acted, are given in the Oxford Magazine:—
“Thursday, Dec. 8, 1768. This day being appointed for the Middlesex election, the candidates appeared on the hustings at ten minutes before nine. Notwithstanding this, the opening of the poll was delayed till near eleven. One of the narrow avenues leading to Brentford butts was occupied very early by a hired mob, with bludgeons, bearing favours in their hats, inscribed, ‘Proctor and Liberty.’ A much larger, but very compact body, armed as the former, and with the same distinctions, were placed near the hustings, on an eminence, and in a disposition which was evidently the arrangement of an experienced sergeant. The rest of these banditti were stationed in different quarters of the town, to strike a general terror into the honest part of the freeholders; there was besides a ‘corps de reserve’ which was to sally forth on a signal given.
“When these dispositions were secured, a chosen party of butchers, in the same interest, traversed the town, and insulted the hustings with marrow-bones and cleavers. When Sir William Beauchamp Proctor’s numbers were nearly exhausted, and the course of the Poll declared decisively for Mr. Serjeant Glynn, who had still great multitudes unpolled, the signal was given. An instantaneous and furious, but regular attack, was made on the hustings. The sheriffs, the candidates (Glynn declares himself as having been the last to depart), the clerks, and the poll-books, all vanished in a moment.
“The whole town was presently a scene of blood. It was not enough to knock down an unhappy man; the blow was followed till he was utterly disabled. Those who have been exposed to riots declare they never saw such cruelty. All doors and windows were barricaded. 182 There was no shelter, nothing was safe; nor can anything equal the consternation of the frightened people but the abhorrence and execration with which every tongue repeats the name of Proctor.
“It appears from every account of the above proceedings, that the people who began the riot there were the friends of the court candidate; and, in particular, it is affirmed that when the Irish chairmen, and the professed bruisers at their head, had proceeded so far in their cruel and villainous intention of murdering and wounding the people, that the gentlemen upon the hustings began to be in danger of their lives,—one gentleman went up to the court candidate, and expostulated with him on the base conduct of his mob. ‘My mob!’ replied the courtier. ‘Yes, sir, your mob!’ and the gentleman added, ‘Sir, I insist upon your speaking to those fellows who are knocking down the people there.’ But the courtier refused to say anything to appease their fury; upon which the gentleman who had spoken to him, finding himself in danger of his life, seized him by the greatcoat, and showed his star to the armed ruffians, who instantly took off their hats and huzza’d him; while the ruffians were thus huzzaing, the gentleman escaped.”
When the mob had cleared the hustings, they went into the town of Brentford, and attacked the Castle Inn, which was one of the candidate’s houses of entertainment, and did considerable damage to it. The inhabitants of the town, observing this mischief, and beginning to fear their own houses would next be destroyed,—
“a general indignation took place: they sallied forth, attacked the rioters with great spirit, and drove them out of the town; and some of the voters vented their rage upon one or two of the houses opened for the other candidate. A number of persons with Proctor’s cockades in their hats assembled about ‘The Angel Inn’ at Islington in a riotous manner, armed with bludgeons.”
These well-paid hirelings were the worse for their potations, and, with the ringleader, were taken into custody.
It seems to have been a generally recognized stratagem imported into election tactics, where, as in war, nothing was considered “unfair,” to get freeholders locked up on some fictitious pretence, such as false writs, actions, summonses, or impounded as witnesses at trials, etc.; where the principal never appeared, and the hearing never came on, while the victims “to error” were detained in durance until after the poll was finished. On the occasion 183 under consideration, it appeared that a number of freeholders were particularly summoned as jurymen, to prevent their voting for the popular candidate; this manœuvre was defeated, as concerned the Old Bailey, where the lord mayor, Turner, behaved in a truly patriotic manner.
“When the jury was called, his Lordship asked them, upon their honour, if any of them were freeholders of Middlesex; it appeared that about eighteen of them were so (specially called in order that their votes might be lost), on which his Lordship immediately dismissed them, that they might not be hindered from discharging their duty at Brentford.”
“Richard Dingham maketh oath that ‘the morning after the meeting of Sir William Beauchamp Proctor, at St. Giles’s, he saw four link-lighters named Welch, Hinton, Brady, and Quinn, disputing about some money they had received from Sir William, and they said that they had signed an agreement to go down, with several others, to Brentford on the day of Election to head a mob, and to put an end to the said Election, when they should receive orders, etc.’”
In the interval, and during the progress of the election, several men were committed to prison, including a chairman recognized as having acted as a leader, who was known as the “Infant,” being, in fact, a Hercules over six feet high; the true facts of the case came out upon examination, and, before the close of the poll, four affidavits were published in the papers, the tenour of which went to prove criminal complicity.
“Atkinson Bush maketh oath that he was at Brentford on the day of the election, and seeing a large body of men with labels in their hats, whereon was written, ‘Proctor and Liberty,’ this deponent asked them whether they were all voters for Proctor? upon which they declared they had no votes, but had in their hands what was as good, and showed him their bludgeons; and being asked who they supposed would get the election, they replied Proctor, swearing, if Glynn got the advantage, ‘By G——, we will have his blood!”
Broughton, the notorious pugilist, happened to find congenial occupation, having been selected as a temporary generalissimo of the forces, with special recruiting powers as to the enlistment of his desperadoes.
“William Wheeler, Joyce, Davis, and other chairmen made oath that they, with about forty of their order, were engaged by Broughton, 184 on the promise of a guinea a day each, for the like purpose of putting an end to the election when the signal should be given, and, according to the account of the deponents, all the parties mentioned appeared at Brentford.”
On the next day (December 14), the poll for the election of a knight of the shire for the county of Middlesex was peacefully concluded in the presence of the sheriffs and the justices of the peace of the county, attended by the constables to suppress any further demonstrations. At the close, the numbers stood, for Serjeant Glynn, 1542; Sir W. B. Proctor, 1278. It was said, “that the number polled on this occasion exceeded by forty-two the greatest number ever known to poll at any previous election.”
The contest had been an expensive one; it was declared that Proctor and his party had been canvassing for six months; and, as an instance of the cost attending the election of a knight of the shire, it is set down as worthy of remark that the ribbons for hats alone, i.e. “favours,” to distinguish Glynn’s friends, cost four hundred pounds; the outlay of the Court candidate must have been excessively heavy.
“The populace in general, and the people of Brentford in particular, were very desirous to chair Mr. Serjeant Glynn after the sheriffs had declared his election; but he very politely entreated them to decline it, which, after much solicitation, they complied with.”
In the letter of acknowledgment addressed to his supporters in the county of Middlesex, the serjeant declares—
“As my private advantage and honour were by no means the motives of your exertions in my behalf, so neither shall they be the objects of my actions. I consider the choice you have made of me for your representative as the most authentic declaration of your abhorrence of those arbitrary and oppressive measures which have too long disgraced the administration of these kingdoms, and which, if pursued, cannot fail to destroy our most excellent constitution.
“I hope that your example will lead other counties also to assert their independence, and that the sacred flame of liberty, which always ascends, will reach at length the higher orders of this nation, and warm them likewise to a disdain of offering or accepting the wages of corruption.” 185
John Horne Tooke was only second to the successful candidate in the eulogiums showered on his name and conduct at this emergency. A portrait of “the parson of Brentford” was published, representing him in his clerical guise, at full length, seated in his study at a table, with his right arm resting on his “Treatise on Enclosing Commons, addressed to Sir Jno. Gibbins,” an essay which brought him an unusually handsome acknowledgment; in his other hand is a reference to his late correspondence with the defeated ministerial candidate—a paper inscribed, “Mobs made after the Court Fashion, by B. Proctor, Milliner of Brentford.”
Parson Horne wears a singular wig, with the sides in what has been described as a “cornuted”52 roll,—as peculiar as that affected by his friend Wilkes, to whom he bears a further resemblance from the obliquity of his eyes, his right eye having been blind, and fixed in its orbit.
The “Parson of Brentford” appears in the Oxford Magazine; it is evident that Horne’s parliamentary aspirations were talked of at this time, for opposite to the portrait is printed an “Extempore,—on the report that a certain Clergyman has a view on a seat in the House of Commons.”
A copy of verses, with a quotation, “Templum Libertatis,” due to the pen of Phileleutheros Oxoniensis, confronts the copperplate portrait of Parson Horne:— 186
As in the previous election, there was a charge of murder, which arose out of the irregularities then committed, and two Irish chairmen, Balfe and McQuirk, were tried for the death of Mr. George Clarke, “a young gentleman of the law, whom curiosity had brought to Brentford at the late election.” References to this incident are given in the satirical prints and magazines, together with the usual report of the trial of the malefactors. 187 “The Present State of Surgery; or, Modern Practice” (Dec. 14, 1768), appeared in the Universal Magazine, vol. v. (April, 1769). This engraving shows Mr. Clarke, whose skull was fatally injured by a blow from a bludgeon, placed between two doctors, who are examining his head: one, a surgeon, is declaring, “If the fever does not kill him, contusions and fractures are nothing;” the other is of opinion, “A court plaister will remove the disorder.” One of a group of surgeons is inquiring of the senior, “Shall we apply the trepan, sir?” “A Glyster” is proposed as likely to “evacuate the broken pieces of bone.” The authors of the mischief, or some of the Irish bludgeon men, are standing by, and discussing the case: “The doctor says a broken skull’s nothing if they can but cure the fever.” His companion replies, “Thank God, we need not fear being knock’d on the head then!” A bystander is remarking, “I catch’d a fever from a bludgeon at Brentford myself”—many persons besides Clarke having complained of maltreatment during these riots. “Ay, they were deadly wise at the Election time,” is the opinion of another. A spectator ejaculates, “I wish those Irish dogs had kept the distemper to themselves—it’s worse than the Itch!” a double-barrelled allusion to the two trials for wilful murder which had arisen out of the successive Middlesex elections—the Irish chairmen who were the cause of Clarke’s death, and the Scotch soldiers who killed Allen. The contusion proved fatal; after languishing a few days the unfortunate young gentleman succumbed.
The trial of the two chairmen, Balfe and McQuirk, came on at the Old Bailey, January 14, 1769, and though the prisoners were provided with an array of learned counsellors, to the number of five, for their defence, they were pronounced “guilty,” and sentenced to transportation. An appeal was made to arrest judgment, but it was overruled, and the sentences ordered to be executed. Court influence, in the interval, procured a respite, and the men ultimately received a royal pardon, signed by Lord 188 Rochford, secretary of state, which produced severe animadversions; see “Junius to the Duke of Grafton,” and the notes to this letter by John Wade (Edin. 1850). In the Political Register (IV.) is a copy of the document setting Balfe and McQuirk free. Meanwhile the College of Surgeons was consulted, to exonerate the guilty, to the dissatisfaction of the public.
“It is said that on a late chirurgical examination, there was the greatest privacy imaginable supported; not only several young surgeons (who, being advertised of the meeting, went there for the sake of instruction) were denied admittance, but there were two sentinels on the outside of the door to prevent any person from listening. Strange inquisitorial proceedings!”
On Monday, the master, wardens, and examiners of the Surgeons’ Company, ten in number, of whom five had appointments under administration, the president being one, and consequently holding the casting-vote (three of the committee actually held at that time appointments of “sergeant-surgeon” to the king, and another was surgeon to the Dowager Princess of Wales, his mother), met at their hall in the Old Bailey, in pursuance of a letter from the Earl of Rochford, one of His Majesty’s principal secretaries of state, desiring their opinion in relation to a doubt that had arisen whether the blow which Mr. Clarke received at the election at Brentford was the cause of his death; and the above gentlemen, after examining the surgeons, apothecary, and several others (in camera, as alleged), returned an answer the same evening to his lordship, giving it as their unanimous opinion, that the blow was not the cause of Mr. Clarke’s death. A satirical print, given in the Oxford Magazine as “A Consultation of Surgeons” (Feb. 27, 1769), exhibits the supposititious explanation of the inquiry and verdict. The surgeons are grouped round a table, on which are pens and ink. The president is pointing to the decision of the conclave, set down to order for Lord Rochford—“It does not appear that he died——” At the same time a large and well-filled bag of money, held up 189 temptingly in the president’s right hand, appears the most conclusive evidence before the corporation. The chairman observes, “This [the money] convinces me that Clarke did not die of the wound he received at Brentford.” A Scotch surgeon is asserting, “By my Soul, his head was too thick to be broken, or he would ne’er ha’ gang’d to Brentford.” The next speaker, regarding the weighty motive in the president’s charge, avers, “Another such bag would convince me Clarke never received any blow.” A surgeon, with his gold-headed cane to his nose, is convinced, “Gold is good evidence, and carries great weight.” In reference to the surgeon Foot, who, called in at the time, deposed at the trial that Clarke died of the blow on head, but was of opinion that his life might have been saved by judicious treatment, one of the consulting body, rising from his seat, is declaring, “Devil burn me, but that same surgeon was a blockhead; how should a Foot be able to judge of the Head?” The verdict of the College of Surgeons excited popular disgust, and various reflections were cast upon the method by which it was arrived at. The following appeared in the Public Ledger (April 13, 1769):—
“It is confidently repeated, that while a certain party of gentlemen were assembled together, in order to consult about vindicating themselves against Mr. Foot’s appeal, the ghost of Mr. Clarke appeared, and behaved in a most gross and insulting manner to the whole committee, which so terrified them all, that they have been very ill ever since, and it is thought some will not recover.”
Considerable interest attaches to the struggle in question, which made Wilkes a hero for a while. It was a time of trial as regarded the inviolability of the constitution. The ministers, safe in their bought majority in the Commons, ready to vote mechanically, seemed utterly callous as to the consequences of those infractions they were making on national liberties, presumably secured on an unassailable basis. The more impartial-minded of the people began to dread the attempted revival of despotic and irresponsible government and of those evils which had been guarded 190 against by great exertions, firmness, and no slight sacrifices in the past. The spirit of resistance was abroad, and ministers for their own purposes disguised by every means the true condition of affairs from the head of the State. As the violation of popular liberties recalled the struggles which marked the later Stuart era, so were the means taken to resist these encroachments compared to the conduct of the people and their tribunes under the same trying circumstances. Petitions and remonstrances began to make ministers tremble lest the sympathies of the throne might be turned to their proper channel, the people.
Another election for Middlesex occurred in 1769, vice Wilkes; the results were that Wilkes was returned at the head of the poll, while his opponent (with a quarter of his votes) was declared duly elected. On the subject of Colonel Luttrell’s admission to the House much was said which must have been unpalatable to the Court. The Oxford Magazine printed a list of those members who were so patriotically inclined as to resist this brazen violation of the constitution, as “the Minority who voted 1148 in preference to 296;” while those members who servilely voted for the right of the ministers to impose a defeated candidate on the Commons were described as “the Majority who preferred 296 to 1143.” A list is given of these placemen, pensioners, and courtiers, with particulars against their respective names which account for their lack of principle, all being in receipt of State patronage, or emolument of one kind or another, sufficient to prove that self-interest was their guiding principle, and that their consciences were closed by the greed of preferment. The despotic action enforced by the administration, in defiance of the principles of the constitution,—a common practice in the reign of George III.,—provoked a very pertinent disquisition upon the potentiality of the bulwark of popular rights. The great Lord Bacon, somewhere talking of the power of parliaments, says, there is nothing which a parliament cannot do; and he had reason. A parliament can revive 191 or abrogate old laws, and make new ones; settle the succession to the Crown; impose taxes; establish forms of religion; naturalize foreigners; dissolve marriages; legitimate bastards; attaint a man of treason, etc. Lord Bolingbroke, indeed, is of a different opinion, and affirms there is something which a parliament cannot do: it cannot annul the constitution; and that if it should attempt to annul the constitution, the whole body of the people would have a right to resist it. It is natural, too, to think that Lord Bacon limited the power of parliament, great as he believed it, to those things which do not imply a physical impossibility. Modern ministers, however, have shown that a parliament is able, at least in appearance, to effect even such impossibilities. Sir Robert Walpole was wont to boast that he had “trained his fellows,” as he called his venal majority in the House of Commons, “in such a manner, and brought them to such exact discipline, that were he to desire them to vote Jesus Christ a Gildon” (i.e. the head of an infidel sect, Gildon being a deistical writer in Walpole’s day) “he was sure of their compliance.” The ministry then in office (the Grafton administration), as will appear by the list referred to above, had assumed a power no less arbitrary and equally unreasonable, by persuading their servile majority to vote in defiance of the constitution on the question of Colonel Luttrell’s qualifications to sit in the Commons—that the 296 suffrages (recorded for Luttrell) were preferable to the 1143 polled for Wilkes.
The ministerial conduct on the case of Wilkes and upon the events arising therefrom, joined with their ill-advised manœuvres on behalf of their own chosen candidates, produced a marked effect on the constituencies elsewhere, and, as Horace Walpole writes to his friend, Sir H. Mann (March 23, 1769), towns began to break off from their allegiance to the administration in power, and sent instructions to their members to oppose the measures of the Court party. 192“As the session approached, Lord Chatham engaged with a new warmth in promoting petitions.” In opposition alike to the “Remonstrances,” and to those who questioned the policy of turning a deaf ear to the petitions of the nation—loyal to the throne, but earnestly set upon the reform of abuses and the extinction of “grievances,”—the ministers encouraged their adherents to secure addresses approving their acts, and praying the throne to disregard petitions for rights. The public prints satirized these servile expressions, manufactured to order, while the wits and caricaturists mercilessly exposed the modus operandi of fabricating these illegitimate addresses. According to Horace Walpole, Calcraft and Sir John Mawbey “by zeal and activity obtained a petition from the county of Essex, though neither the High Sheriff, the members, nor any one gentleman of the county would attend the meeting.” It was the old story of the Essex petitions over again, as already set down in the group of “Election Ballads” under Charles II., when the same county made itself conspicuous in a similar fashion: “It was thought wise,” wrote Walpole, “to procure loyal addresses, and one was obtained from Essex, which being the great county for calves, obtained nothing but ridicule.” A pictorial version sets forth the situation (March 6, 1769) as “The Essex Procession from Chelmsford to St. James’s Market, for the good of the Common-Veal.” The engraving represents a street ending in the archway of St. James’s, towards which are progressing two carts, drawn by donkeys tandem-wise, and filled with bleating calves. The cart is driven by Rigby, the Duke of Bedford’s factotum, a supporter of the Court, much interested in the petitions presented to the king at this period: this political agent is travestied as an ass; he is crying, “Calves’ Heads à la daube! Who’ll buy my veal?” One of the victimized calves in the cart is bleating, “This is a Rig-by-Jove;” another exclaims, “How we expose ourselves!” The other charioteer is intended for C. Dingley, author of the “Saw-mill” experiment at Limehouse, and who was an influential 193 projector of the new “City-road;” he was a creature of the Duke of Grafton, a prominent ally of the Court faction against Wilkes and the patriots, and was generally obnoxious to the more constitutionally minded of the citizens. Dingley is transformed into an ox, and he is made to declare to his special consignment of calves, “Friends and Countrymen, you shall not be misrepresented.” One of the calf contingent, mindful of slaughter, is bleating, “I hope they won’t drive us to St. George’s Fields,” the place of slaughter—otherwise, the scene of the recent wanton attacks of the Scottish soldiery on the people; while another of Dingley’s followers is expressing a wish that the famous saw-mills, which were the cause of a riot in which they were demolished, might prove the destruction of the speculator himself. In opposition to the “foolish Essex address,” it was, as described in the Gentleman’s Magazine, “resolved at a meeting of gentlemen held at Chelmsford, December 15, 1769, to support the right of election to Parliament, and to petition the king for a dissolution of Parliament.”
The Essex address was followed up, on the part of what were entitled London merchants, by a similar production, which was chiefly promoted by Charles Dingley; a version of this transaction is entitled “The Addressers.” It appears that “officious tools,” and interested, if not bribed, citizens, designated as “the Merchants of London,” attended, March 8, 1769, at the King’s Arms Tavern, Cornhill, at the invitation of Dingley and his followers. One shilling was charged at the door to keep away the crowd, ostensibly to defray the expense of the room; and one Lovell, having complied with this, found Dingley with a few others assembled. Mr. Muilmann, a German or Dutch stockbroker, professionally nicknamed “Van Scrip,” gave Lovell a copy of the address to read, and told him he could sign the original then on the table; but on Lovell’s expressing that “he did not approve of the address,” Dingley ordered him out; but, having paid his shilling, he 194 stood on his right to remain. Then followed Reynolds (who was Wilkes’s attorney), and having paid his shilling, and refusing to sign the address, was also asked to leave, but elected to enjoy the privilege of remaining. Vaughan and others did the same. The room being then filled, when Mr. Charles Pole was invited to take the chair at the suggestion of the anti-addressers, their opponents “opposed all order,” repeating the cry of “No chair!” with the utmost fury, and threatening to “turn down stairs all who called for any chairman.” The chair itself became an object of contention between the hostile parties; one secured the seat, another the frame, and the “abhorrers of disorder” triumphed until another chair was obtained. The ticklish office of president was at last accepted by Mr. Vaughan. Attorney Reynolds was standing near the chairman, when Dingley, enraged at the success of this counter-demonstration, addressing him as a “d——d scoundrel,” struck him a violent blow in the face; on which provocation, Reynolds, being of commanding size, knocked Dingley down. “Many were the efforts made to dispossess Mr. Vaughan of the chair, strokes were aimed at him with canes and sticks, but the blows were warded off by his friends.”
Such is the disturbance set forth in the satirical engraving of “The Addressers” (March 8, 1769), in which is represented the fracas at the King’s Arms Tavern consequent on this insidious attempt to manufacture a bogus address. Attorney Reynolds’s wig is awry, from the blow inflicted by Dingley; he is knocking the latter out of the chair, and exclaiming, “I’ll make you pay for this.” Dingley is saying, “For this £2000 more;” while, in falling, from his pocket drops a paper, “Saw-mill, £2000.” “Van Scrip,” Muilmann, alluding to the cash considerations held out by the ministers to their allies, is extending his hand, and crying in dismay, “We shall lose this scrip!” A spectator, armed with a riding-whip, is asserting, “You’ll be Jockey’d, Mynheer.” The persons in the crowd are 195 demanding, “A chair! a chair!” while others shout to the contrary; the chair itself is mounted on a table placed in the middle of the room. Mr. Apvan (Vaughan) is occupying this perilous distinction. “Why address, Gentlemen?” is his question to the meeting. A slight fencing-match is going on; the chairman holding his own, while those who attack him cry “Order.” A clergyman—no other than the “Brentford Parson” in person—is suggesting the propriety of “an Address to keep the streets clean,” the condition of the thoroughfares in London being the subject of complaint at this time. From the report of these proceedings published in the Gentleman’s Magazine, it appears that a speaker asserted that the “proper functions of such an assembly were to order the scavengers to clean the streets, and beadles to remove vagrants from them.” The fragments of the chair first dismantled, as described, are in the hands of some of the company by the door. A man has gone down in his exertions “to stand up for the Address.” The incendiary document in question is carried off by one Mr. Phelim O’Error, who is declaring, “I’ll take it to the Merchant Seamen’s Office,” to which it was removed on the next stage of its career.
Another version of these proceedings appeared, March 8, 1769, as “The Battle of Cornhill;” an engraving given in the Town and Country Magazine, with a short parody in the style of a drama on the subject, as detailed in the foregoing “Addressers.” The counter-assault upon Dingley is similarly illustrated. Reynolds, the Attorney Freeman of the drama, is depicted as a tall, burly man. Dingley is made to cry, “Murder, murder. Oh, the rascal. I’ll have him imprisoned seven years for this illegal attack. He has done me twelve hundred, if not two thousand pounds damage.” Van Scrip is much alarmed: “Heaven! what will become of me! I shall lose all my interest in the Treasury, if we fail in carrying it. I shan’t have a single government contract, not so much as a thousand pounds scrip.” An anecdote is related in the London 196 Museum (ii. 1770, p. 32) concerning the use of lottery tickets as bribes by the Government, where Bradshaw, secretary to the Treasury, stigmatized by “Junius” as “the cream-coloured parasite,” is alleged to have “met the member for Buckinghamshire (Lowndes), and offered two hundred lottery tickets at ten pounds each, which were accepted.” Scrip and lottery tickets were freely employed for political bribery at this period, as Walpole mentions in his “Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third,” and Sir H. N. Wraxall describes in his “Historical Memoirs.”
“The Inchanted Castle; or, King’s Arms in an Uproar” (March 8, 1769) is a further pictorial version of the same occurrence, with little variation as to the persons or incidents represented, but containing a reference, like the last, to the “London Tavern,” the recognized head-quarters and meeting-place for the Society of Supporters of the Bill of Rights, and consequently opposed to sycophantic admiration of ministerial illegalities. Beneath the print in question is a copy of verses, beginning—
Horace Walpole thus describes the transactions represented in the foregoing:—
“The merchants of London, to the number of six or eight hundred, amongst whom were Dutch, Jews, and any officious tools that they could assemble, having signed one of those servile panegyrics [addresses], set out in a long procession of coaches, to carry it to St. James’s.”
The modus operandi by which the address was promoted is fancifully summed up in the plate of the Oxford Magazine, vol. ii., p. 134, “The Principal Merchants and Traders assembled at the Merchant Seamen’s Office, to sign ye Address.” This print represents a further stage in the progress of the transaction. The Public Advertiser, March 11, 1769, announces, 197“For these two Days past, numbers of the Merchants and principal Traders of London have attended at the Merchant Seamen’s Office, over the Royal Exchange, in order to sign an Address to his Majesty, etc.”
It is stated in the Oxford Magazine, “So eager were the ministers to procure a long list of subscribers that, it is credibly reported, some of the addresses of the then ‘City Merchants,’ were signed by cobblers, porters, chairmen, livery-servants, and the very meanest of the rabble; for as the number of hands was the chief point of view, they cared but little of what rank or condition they were.” The caricaturist has carried out this view of the signatories. The chairman or president is a butcher, whose tray, containing a shoulder of mutton, is laid down at his feet; he is filled with loyal frenzy, and, with his butcher’s knife grasped ready for action, is exclaiming, “I shall stick my knife in Magna Charta, and cut up the carcase of the Bill of Rights.” A porter, with his knot, is anathematizing Wilkes’s “swivel eyes,” and wishing he “may sink under his load.” The petition is being signed by a barber, with his bowl under his arm, together with an aldermanic wig just ordered: “Ah, I’ve got an order for a new wig, only for signing my name.” A Scotch pedlar, with pack and staff, one of Lord Bute’s followers, declares, “Sawney mun sign too, gin it be to the De’il, for my guid laird’s sake.” A journeyman baker, with a basketful of loaves on his back, is coming in succession, well paid for his assistance: “Brother Merchants, follow my example, and you’ll never want bread;” and even a sooty chimney-sweep has expectations of ministerial patronage, “Who knows but I may be appointed to a Chimney at Court?” Prominent among those at the table whereon is the much-denounced “Address,” is a Jew money-jobber, who is elated at his prospects of a Treasury “job,” “Oh! for a large portion of scrip!” and the Dutch stockbroker, Van Scrip, is exclaiming, “Ah! de gross Scrip for Mynheer too,”—the subscription scrip to government loans, profitable to those who secured 198 preference allotments, and, as described, alleged to be manipulated by the ministry in the nature of bribery.
The strictures provoked upon the underhand methods by which these addresses were forced upon the public are exemplified in an “Epistle to the North Briton,” which appeared in the Oxford Magazine, to accompany the engraving of the “Addressing Merchants.” The epistle is lengthy, and we have only room for the opening passages. It is possibly written by the “Brentford Parson;” indeed, the manner as well as matter indicates the authorship suggested. The motto is given, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles. i. 9)—
“And so, sir, what you have often foretold is at last come to pass. We are fairly fallen back into the very dregs of the Stuart reigns. The party of Abhorrers is once more revived; of those Abhorrers, who, in the reign of King Charles the Second, expressed their detestation of all the patriotic and public spirited, as I would say—but, as they were pleased to call them, the factious and insolent petitions that were presented to the king for assembling a parliament, and for securing the other rights and liberties of the People.
“That such wretches should have existed at a time when the Sovereign claimed, and many of his subjects were willing to allow him, a divine, indefeasible, hereditary right to play the tyrant, and to destroy the constitution is nothing strange; but that any such should be found in the reign of a prince, whose family was advanced to the throne in direct contradiction to this absurd principle, would be really surprising, did we not know that human nature is always the same, and that though the seeds of slavery may be smothered for a time, yet whenever they meet with the vivifying influence of court sunshine, they immediately begin to quicken, and to spring up with vigour. And never, sure, did these seeds meet with a more fertile soil, or a more benign sky, than under the present arbitrary and despotic administration, when every man is sure to be rewarded in exact proportion to the servility of his character.
“In this respect, indeed, the present ministers have greatly the advantage of all that have gone before them; for I do not remember a single compliment paid to the Abhorrers, in the reign of King Charles the Second, except the honour of knighthood conferred upon Francis Withers, Esq., who procured and presented the Address from the City of Westminster. But how much more grateful and generous have been our present ministers! They have made the late chief City Magistrate a Privy Councillor, and have given him a contract with government for clothing soldiers, worth £1000 per annum. They 199 have pardoned the murderers MacLaughlin, Balfe, and McQuirk, and have even granted them pensions. This, say the ministry, is only supporting their friends; but, if murderers be their friends, I believe few people will envy them the credit of such a connection.
“Some of the addresses in the reign of the Stuarts breathed a very free and independent spirit. That of the Quakers, upon the accession of King James the Second, may serve as an instance. It was conceived in the following terms:—
“‘We come,’ said they, ‘to testify our sorrow for the death of our good friend Charles, and our joy for thy being made our governor. We are told thou art not of the persuasion of the Church of England, no more than we; wherefore we hope thou wilt grant us the same liberty which thou allowest thyself. Which doing, we wish thee all manner of happiness.’
“There we see the Quakers, with their usual plainness and simplicity, very roundly tell his majesty, that he was not a member of the church of England; a circumstance, which was then thought by many, and hath since been declared by law, to be sufficient to disqualify him for wearing the crown of these Kingdoms.
“But how much more courtly and polite is the language of our present Addressers. They not only pay the highest compliments to the King, which he certainly deserves, they even offer the most nauseous and fulsome flattery to his ministers and servants, and express their entire approbation of every part of their conduct. They must therefore approve of the robbery committed upon the Duke of Portland, of the massacre in St. George’s Fields, of the riot and murders at Brentford, of withdrawing MacLaughlin from the cognizance of the laws, and of pardoning Balfe and McQuirk after they had been fairly tried and condemned by their country.
“But, not satisfied with declaring their approbation of the conduct of the ministry, they express their utter abhorrence and detestation of the conduct of those who have had the presumption to oppose them. They must, therefore, abhor the conduct of the Freeholders of Middlesex, who chose Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Serjeant Glynn, their representatives in parliament, in spite of all the violent, outrageous, and illegal attempts which the ministry made to prevent them. They must abhor the conduct of the 139 independent members who voted against the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from an august assembly, of which they form the respectable, and perhaps even the most wealthy, tho’ not the most numerous part. They must abhor the conduct of the Citizens of London, of the Citizens of Westminster, of the Freeholders of Middlesex, and of all the other counties and corporations, who, in their instructions to their representatives, have disapproved of those very measures which the Addressers approve. In a word, they must abhor the conduct, at least the sentiments, of ninety-nine parts in a hundred of the people of England, who, if taken separately, and fairly interrogated, 200 would be found to entertain opinions very different from those of the Addressers.”
The “Battle of Cornhill,” otherwise the fight for the signatures to the servile loyal address as already described, was followed by another stage in the contest, an attempt to carry the address in state through the city, the procession being stopped by a conflict in Fleet Street, of which turbulent episode a caricature appeared, March 22, 1769, under the title of the “Battle of Temple Bar.” The engraving offers a vista of Fleet Street; the Devil Tavern, the arched entrance to the Temple, and Nando’s Coffee-house are shown to the right; the gates of the bar are closed, and around is a scene of confused conflict. The decapitated heads of Fletcher and Townley, stuck on poles over Temple Bar, are represented in conversation. The Jacobites executed for their share in the Scottish raid of 1745 are inquiring whether the Addressers are not “friends to the cause which we all love so dear,” and which had planted their heads on the bar over twenty years before. A carriage, drawn by two horses, is the centre of the struggle; the coachman is observing “They all seem in a fair way;” the rabble are pelting the vehicle, from which the person charged with the care of the loyal address is making his escape. Another member of the party bound for St. James’s is seeking shelter from the shower of missiles at the entrance to Nando’s. Other coaches have been subjected to similar indignities; the servants are declaring, “Our masters are finely bedaubed!” The city marshal and his charger are under fire from the mob; grasping his baton and holding his hat to protect his face, the marshal declares, “I find I must go to ye Devil!” The Devil, perched on the sign of the famous tavern christened after his name, is crying, with a Scotch twang, “in compliment to my Lord Bute,” “Fly to me, my Bairns!” This plate is given in the London Magazine, with an account of the pelting and flight of those who were engaged in carrying the address to the king.
SEQUEL TO THE BATTLE OF TEMPLE BAR—PRESENTATION OF THE LOYAL ADDRESS AT ST. JAMES’S PALACE. 1769.
201
The concluding stage in the progress of the address and the cavalcade of carriages which attended it, was marked by the appearance of the satirical engraving entitled the “Sequel to the Battle of Temple Bar,” 1769, of which a reduced fac-simile is given. The spot represented is the front of St. James’s Palace, facing St. James’s Street. The remnants of the procession of merchants charged with the address in support of the ministry in power are escaping down Pall Mall, the carriages, with broken windows, being followed by galling volleys of stones and dirt on the part of the mob, while a hearse exhibiting inflammatory placards is accorded an enthusiastic reception. The spectators gathered at the St. James’s Coffee House and around the palace are encouraging the hostile demonstration; the courtiers are surveying the tumult from the gateway and windows of St. James’s Palace. A person mounted on the tower, and assumed to be intended for Lord Bute, is pointing to the weathercock, exclaiming, “High north wind,” i.e. a Scotch wind. The Guards are making attacks upon individuals; a gentleman is being surrounded; the violence of the soldiers is watched by a clergyman, evidently intended for Parson Horne, whose eye was upon those who infringed the rights of the subjects or unlawfully maltreated any of the people. A burlesque funeral procession diversified the proceedings, headed by a mounted mute, wearing a crape weeper, with mourning staff, the hearse drawn by two wretched screws, one black and one white; the coachman is equally odd—the person who drove was declared to have been a frolicsome lordling, it is said young Earl Mountmorres. The body of this vehicle displays a flaring placard—the presentment of an Irish chairman striking with a bludgeon a person who is knocked down and defenceless; this moving picture, inscribed “Brentford,” represents the fate of Mr. Clarke, whose fractured skull, caused by the brutal attack of Proctor’s hired ruffians, ended in his death. Similar placards, “St. George’s Fields” and “Scot Victory,” are 202 posted on the hearse to remind the ministers that the odium of the massacre of the people at St. George’s Fields, and the deliberate assassination of William Allen (May 10, 1768), by a grenadier of the Scottish Regiment, were not forgotten; a coloured picture of this episode was displayed on the other side of the hearse. A diversion is attempted at the entrance to the palace gates, where the figure of a short nobleman is distinguishable by the star on his coat; he is using his broken official staff like a sword. This personage, who actually seized one of the rioters, and who is intended for Earl Talbot, lord steward of the household, is bareheaded, his wig having been displaced in the scuffle with the people, and, finally, a knock on the head cooled his courage; the Guards are coming to his support. Further details of the ending of this vexed question of the address are given in the political intelligence of the time. From all accounts, Mr. Boehm, in whose charge was the fateful roll, was too occupied in securing his own safety to trouble about the fate of the address. It appears that the scattered procession went on to St. James’s without the presenter of the document which had entailed so many embarrassments. According to the Political Register, a messenger was despatched back to the coffee-house for the address; where “Mr. Boehm, having missed it, remained in great suspense.” After many inquiries and great alarm, the roll was found under the seat of the coach, where, by a miracle, it had escaped the search of the mob; the address was immediately forwarded to St. James’s, where it was expectantly awaited.
The history of this incident is taken up by the Political Register for 1769:—
“The merchants and traders who retired with the address mentioned in the account of the proceedings at the ‘King’s Arms,’ having by means of repeated advertisements and private letters obtained a considerable number of persons to sign the said address at the Merchant Seamen’s Office over the Royal Exchange; ... Wednesday, the 22nd March, at two in the afternoon, being appointed, on that day at noon, a great number of the merchants, etc., of this city, set out from 203 the Royal Exchange in their carriages, in order to present an address to His Majesty, attended by the City Marshal and constables; before they got to Cheapside, the mob showed them many marks of their resentment, by hissing, groaning, throwing dirt, etc., but when they arrived at Fleet Street, the multitude grew quite outrageous, broke the windows of the coaches, threw stones and glass bottles, and dispatched a party to shut up the gates at Temple Bar, on which the cavalcade was obliged to stop. Mr. Cook, the City Marshal, going to open the gates with his attendants, was very severely treated; his clothes were torn off his back and his head cut in two places. The populace then attacked the gentlemen in their carriages; Mr. Boehm (who carried the roll) and several of his friends being covered with dirt, were obliged to take refuge in Nando’s Coffee-house. Some of the coaches then drove up Chancery Lane, Fetter Lane, and Shoe Lane; but the greater part of the gentlemen, finding it impossible to proceed, returned home. The Addressers, however, did at length reach St. James’s, but the mob threw dirt at the gentlemen as they got out of their carriages at St. James’s Gate.”
The few that reached the palace were so covered with dirt as to be unpresentable, and those of the courtiers who came within reach of the mob were also bespattered. The document which was the main cause of this disturbance was within an ace of never reaching its destination.
“When Mr. Boehm was obliged to get out of his coach at Nando’s Coffee-house to avoid the mob, in his hurry he left the address under the cushion on one of the seats, and immediately ordered the coachman to go home; some of the mob opened the coach door, and began to search for the address, but the coachman declaring ‘it was sent before’ (though he knew not where it was), they were the less diligent in their search, and missed laying hold of it, by not feeling six inches farther on the seat.”
On the road thither, by the Strand, the additions already mentioned were made to the cavalcade, to the consternation of those who formed part of it:—
“When some of the coaches got to Exeter Exchange, a hearse came out of Exeter Street, and preceded them, drawn by a black and white horse, the driver of which had on a rough coat, resembling a skin, with a large cap, one side black, the other white, whose whole figure was very grotesque. On one side of the hearse was painted on canvas a representation of the rioters killing Mr. Clarke at the Brentford election; and on the other side was a representation of the soldiers firing on young Allen in the cow-house.” 204
The Town and Country Magazine (1769) divulges that the driver of the decorated hearse was “a man of fortune;” moreover, another account avers—
“I have always understood that the late Lord Mountmorres, then a very young man, was the person, who on that occasion, personated the executioner [of Charles I. ?], holding an axe in his hands, and his face covered with crape.” (See Wraxall’s “Historical Memoirs;” also the “Letters of the First Earl of Malmesbury,” etc.)
The hearse attended the cavalcade, making a short stop at Carlton House, where the Princess of Wales lived, also at the residence of the “Cumberland Butcher,” and at Lord Weymouth’s, in Pall Mall (as the author of the St. George’s Fields massacre); thence the hearse, with its “humiliating insignia, was driven into the court-yard of St. James’s, followed by the mob, after which it went off to Albemarle Street.” A copy of the address is given in the Political Register (iv. 1769).
The address and its supporters were in a sad plight when the levee-room was reached, after the foregoing vicissitudes. The Duke of Chandos wrote Mr. Grenville—
“Out of one hundred and thirty merchants who went up with the address, only twelve could get to the King, and they were covered in dirt, as indeed was almost the whole Court.”
The riotous crowd continued to create a disturbance at the palace gates, “accompanied with threats of a most dangerous kind” (as declared in the royal proclamation); while the Earl of Malmesbury wrote, “Many of the mob cried, ‘Wilkes and no King,’ which is shocking to think of.” At last, the proclamation against tumultuous assemblies was read, and—
“Several persons taken into custody by the soldiers; and two were taken by Lord Talbot, who was the only minister who had sufficient resolution to come down among the mob; his lordship had secured another, who was rescued, and his lordship received a violent blow on the head, by being thrown against a coach, and then thought it prudent to take shelter among the soldiers.”
A grand council at St. James’s was held on the afternoon of these events, and in the evening a Gazette Extraordinary 205 was published, with a proclamation by the king—who had in person witnessed the disturbances attending the sham address,—“for suppressing riots,” etc., beginning—
“Whereas it has been represented to us that divers dissolute and disorderly persons have most riotously and unlawfully assembled themselves together, to the disturbance of the public peace, and have, in a most daring and audacious manner, assaulted several merchants and others, coming to our palace at St. James’s, and have committed many acts of violence and outrage before the gates of our palace,” etc.
The proclamation further charges the lord mayor, and justices of the peace for the cities of London and Westminster, borough of Southwark, and counties of Middlesex and Surrey, to prevent and suppress all riots, tumults, and unlawful assemblies, etc.
Another engraving on the same topic—as described by Mr. Edward Hawkins, from whose collection, bequeathed to the British Museum, many of these early illustrations are selected—was entitled:—
The procession and hearse (the driver is exclaiming “Wilkes and Liberty”) are again shown at St. James’s Palace. The chief promoter, Charles Dingley, is made the principal butt of this satire, and, as the address began with him, it is appropriately so terminated. The hearse with the placards is succeeded by a coach bearing on the roof a windmill, an allusion to Dingley’s too famous saw-mills at Limehouse, which were dismantled by the sawyers out of work and other rioters. The coachman of this equipage is endeavouring to pacify the mob: “Wilkes and Liberty, Gentlemen; I had no hand in the d——d Address.” The chief offender, seen inside the coach, is also appealing to the incensed crowd: 206“For God’s sake, Gentlemen, spare me; I wish the Address had been in Hell before I meddled with it.” His bemired footman is declaring, “My livery’s like my master, d——d Dirty.” The next coach has on it a zany with cap and bells, seated “on the Massacre of Aboyna;” this figure of folly is exclaiming, “I give Mr. Dingle the lead;” the rider, one of the loan-contractors and bidders for ministerial favour, cries, “Ayez pitié de moi!” “Dingle’s Downfall, a new Song,” is chanted by a female ballad-singer. Dead cats and mud are thrown at the procession, which is followed by the groans and hisses of the spectators.
The foregoing events are further elucidated in “A Dialogue between the Two Heads on Temple Bar.” The narrator professes to have overheard the following conversation upon politics between the decapitated heads of the 1745 rebels stuck over Temple Bar:—
207
Petitions and remonstrances began to make ministers tremble lest finally the sympathies of the throne might be turned into the proper channel, and the king be led to espouse the cause of the people, who, to do them justice, remained loyal under both the critical emergencies described as occurring under Charles II. and George III., and which had more than a casual resemblance.
The remonstrances of the citizens were persistently laid before the king, although every obstacle was interposed in the way of their presentation by petty indignities imposed upon those bold enough to approach the presence with objects thus distasteful to the royal ideas of sovereign right—
On July 5, 1769, the Livery of London presented a petition to the king; the lord mayor, Samuel Turner, Sir Robert Ladbrooke,56 Alderman Beckford, and other friends of popular liberty being charged with this statement of grievances, of which the following extracts must suffice:—
“We should be wanting in our duty to your Majesty, as well as to ourselves and our posterity, should we forbear to represent to the 208 throne the desperate attempts that have been, and are too successfully, made to destroy that constitution to the spirit of which we owe the relation which subsists between your Majesty and the subjects of these realms, and to subvert those sacred laws which our ancestors have sealed with their blood.
“Your ministers, from corrupt principles and in violation of every duty, have, by various enumerated means, invaded our invaluable and inalienable right of trial by jury.
“They have, with impunity, issued general warrants, and violently seized persons and private papers.
“They have rendered the laws non-effective to our security, by invading the Habeas Corpus.
“They have caused punishments and even perpetual imprisonment to be inflicted, without trial, conviction, or sentence.
“They have brought into disrepute the civil magistracy, by the appointment of persons who are, in many respects, unqualified for that important trust, and have thereby purposely furnished a pretence for calling in the aid of the military power.
“They avow, and endeavour to establish, a maxim absolutely inconsistent with our constitution, that ‘an occasion for effectually employing a military force always presents itself, when the civil power is trifled with or insulted;’ and by a fatal and false application of this maxim, they have wantonly and wickedly sacrificed the lives of many of your Majesty’s innocent subjects, and have prostituted your Majesty’s sacred name and authority, to justify, applaud, and recommend their own illegal and bloody actions.
“They have screened more than one murderer from punishment, and in its place have unnaturally substituted reward.
“And after having insulted and defeated the law on different occasions, and by different contrivances, both at home and abroad, they have at length completed their design, by violently wresting from the people the last sacred right we had left, the right of election, by the unprecedented seating of a candidate notoriously set up and chosen only by themselves. They have thereby taken from your subjects all hopes of parliamentary redress, and have left us no resource, under God, but in your Majesty.
“All this they have been able to effect by corruption; by a scandalous misapplication and embezzlement of the public treasure, and a shameful prostitution of public honours and employments; procuring deficiencies of the civil lists to be made good without examinations; and, instead of punishing, conferring honours on a paymaster, the public defaulter of unaccounted millions.
“From an unfeigned sense of the duty we owe to your Majesty, and to our country, we have ventured thus humbly to lay before the throne these great and important truths, which it has been the business 209 of your Ministers to conceal. We most earnestly beseech your Majesty to grant us redress. It is for the purpose of redress alone, and for such occasions as the present, that those great and extensive powers are entrusted to the Crown by the wisdom of that Constitution which your Majesty’s illustrious family was chosen to defend, and which we trust in God it will for ever continue to support.”
Of each paragraph given in the foregoing the meaning was conclusive, the instance known to all. There is in this petition no statement exaggerated, no sentiment overcoloured, considering that one paragraph alone describes no less than the suicidal measures which dismembered the empire, and cost the mother country the allegiance of “the colonies,” i.e. the continent of America, in these plain words:—
“They [the Grafton administration] have established numberless unconstitutional regulations and taxations in our colonies. They have caused a revenue to be raised in some of them by prerogative.”
However meritorious the cause, it was an offence to a king whose mind, never remarkable for lucidity, was then under “the influence of the worst of counsellors,” as stated in the first prayer of the petition. The document—when the petitioners were, after much discouragement, delay, and many subterfuges, and, “although no time could be fixed for its acceptance,” permitted to approach the presence at a levee—was at last presented; but the king made no reply, but, handing the petition to the lord-in-waiting, turned his back on the presenters, who represented the integrity and commercial greatness of the city of London and were its elected guardians, and addressed Baron Dieden, the Danish ambassador, who was standing in his vicinity, on an indifferent topic.
After the late fulsome reception of “bogus addressers” nothing could be more contemptible than the studied impertinence with which the Corporation of London was treated, and the affront of leaving the civil magistrate to
“skulk about the passages of the Court that he may have a glimpse of His Majesty as he passes along in state, in order to deliver into his 210 hands a remonstrance affecting the most essential interests of above twelve millions of people, who by the sweat of their brow support the pomp and parade of royalty and swell the fastidious pride and coxcombical vanity of empty courtiers.”
It was boldly hazarded at this emergency, from the premeditated affront to the representatives alike of the city and the people, that the rulers, blinded to their own destruction, then concluded—
“themselves sufficiently prepared for the final extirpation of liberty in this island, and that by deliberate insults they were urging the people to commit some outrage, which might give them a pretence for putting their scheme of tyranny into immediate execution.”
If the city, by its dignified and law-abiding demeanour, disappointed these expectations, it was argued that the Court party would not wait for an excuse to wreak their vengeance under some thin disguise of retributive justice, but would proceed to order out the “Scotch Regiment, as in the affair of St. George’s Fields, without waiting for the least appearance of necessity.”
A correspondent of the Oxford Magazine, writing under the signature “Philopolis,” referring to the threatened massacres in St. George’s Fields, and, on the grounds that the late firing did comparatively little damage to the rioters concerned, declared:—
“I have heard it indeed alleged by courtiers in excuse, that all the military execution of that day was solely aimed at Mr. Wilkes, who they hoped would be despatched by some lucky shot, as Herod expected our Saviour would be murdered among the innocents he murdered at Bethlehem. As a proof of this extenuation of the crime, they show flatted balls, which were discharged by heroes planted in proper places for the purpose, and which have left marks in the walls about the windows of Mr. Wilkes’s apartments in the King’s Bench.” “If this has any foundation in truth,” writes “Philopolis,” “I would advise the city to be cautious, and never allow above a dozen of its inhabitants to be seen together at one time, for fear the Riot Act should arrive unexpectedly, with two or three brigades of musqueteers, headed by a trading justice, who may think nothing of the citizens’ lives, provided he has any hopes of murdering Beckford and the two sheriffs through their sides.” 211
The petition presented by the lord mayor with such difficulty, and after many insolent subterfuges and repulses, failed to bring the king to a reasonable sense of his situation or of the dangers to which the throne was exposed by the reckless and unconstitutional conduct of the administration. Subsequently, on the presentation of a “remonstrance,” the king returned a written reply to the original petition, visiting with severe censure the persevering claim of invaded birthrights, urged by “the afflicted citizens,” and treating their just grievances with reprimand instead of redress; the pleas set forth in the petitions being considered by His Majesty “as disrespectful to himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcileable to the principles of the constitution”—a piece of bold duplicity more worthy of the Stuart dynasty.
The vexed question of Middlesex election, the imprisonment of Wilkes, the unconstitutional admission of Luttrell into the House, and particularly the supineness of the King to the petitions and just remonstrances of his people, are embodied in a metrical form, as—
In the March of the year following, after awaiting a response for nearly twelve months, the Livery of the city resolved to draw up a further and more stringent remonstrance; and a meeting was held under the Right Hon. William Beckford, elected lord mayor for the second time, in the interval. In his address “to the Supreme Court of the whole City,” the real dangers which menaced the State were by Beckford traced to their true source, “the comprehensive violation of the right of election”—
“to preserve which right, the Crown had been justly taken from James the Second, and been placed by the people of England on the head of William the Third, and conferred on His Majesty’s family. That the corruption of the people’s representatives was the cause and foundation of all our grievances. That we have now only the name of a parliament, without the substance.”
He observed how improper it was for placemen and pensioners to sit in the House of Commons; “for if a man was not fit to be a Juryman, or a Judge in a cause where he was interested, how much less to be a Senator 213 and justify his peculation.” “He complained of the unequal and inadequate representation of the people, by means of the little, rotten, paltry boroughs.” In the remonstrance drawn up on this occasion, the wrongs of the people were again eloquently urged, and it was especially pointed out that the House of Commons, by the venal majority—
“had deprived the people of their dearest rights. They have done a deed more ruinous in its consequence than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First, or the dispensing power assumed by James the Second. A deed which must vitiate all the future proceedings of this parliament; for the acts of the legislature itself can no more be valid without a legal House of Commons than without a legal prince upon the throne.
“Representatives of the people are essential to the making of laws, and there is a time when it is morally demonstrable that men cease to be representatives. That time is now arrived. The present House of Commons do not represent the people. We owe to your Majesty an obedience under the restriction of the laws, for the calling and duration of Parliaments; and your Majesty owes to us, that our representation, free from the force of arms or corruption, should be preserved to us in them.
“The forms of the Constitution, like those of Religion, were not established for form’s sake, but for the substance. And we call God and man to witness that we do not owe our Liberty to those nice and subtle distinctions, which places, and pensions, and lucrative employments have invented; so neither will we be cheated of it by them, but as it was gained by the stern virtue of our ancestors, by the virtue of their descendants it shall be preserved.
“Since, therefore, the misdeeds of your Majesty’s ministers in violating the freedom of Election, and depraving the noble constitution of Parliaments are notorious, as well as subversive of the fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Realm; and since your Majesty, both in honour and justice, is obliged inviolably to preserve them according to the Oath made to God and your subjects at your Coronation; we, your remonstrants, assure ourselves that your Majesty will restore the constitutional Government and quiet of your people, by DISSOLVING this Parliament, and removing those evil ministers FOR EVER from your councils.”
This manly and righteous remonstrance was presented after many pettifogging slights and indignities, vexations, and subterfuges on the part of the Court and Crown; and 214 there were made various attempts to bring into discredit the authenticity of this document as the expression of the Court of Aldermen. The Corporation of the city, in sixty carriages, proceeded with the various officers to the palace of St. James’s, and were received by the king on his throne. The remonstrance was read; and, in reply, His Majesty read an answer, drawn up in advance, condemning both the former petition and the present remonstrance in unmistakable terms, and ending with an assurance that “he had ever made the law of the land the rule of his conduct, esteeming it his chief glory to rule over a free people;” and then, descending into more palpable falsehoods, asserting, in the face of facts, with a power of dissimulation worthy of Charles II:—
“with this view I have always been careful, as well to execute faithfully the trust reposed in me, as to avoid even the appearance of invading any of those powers which the Constitution has placed in other hands.”
The king was evidently the puppet of more vicious minds, being blessed with but a feeble reasoning faculty of his own. After reading his equivocative answer, and as the lord mayor and the city representatives were withdrawing, the vacuity of his intellect made itself manifest—for it is asserted in contemporaneous accounts, “His Majesty instantly turned round to his courtiers, and burst out laughing. Nero fiddled while Rome was burning.”
The reception accorded to these petitions being far from such as their gravity demanded, fresh agitations commenced in the metropolis and in the provinces, and, on March 30th, Horne Tooke delivered a remarkable address to the freeholders of the county of Middlesex, in which he graphically described both the murders he had seen committed and the conduct of the justices of the peace, who said the ministerial instructions were for the soldiers to fire, and referred to the partiality shown on the trials and the defences made at the expense of Government when it was endeavoured to bring the guilty to justice. At this 215 meeting, “An Address, Remonstrance, and Petition of the Freeholders of Middlesex” was drawn up for presentation, in which it was urged on the king—
“that a secret and malignant influence had thwarted and defeated almost every measure which had been attempted for the benefit of his subjects, and had given rise to measures totally subversive of the Liberties and Constitution of these once flourishing and happy kingdoms.”
“It is not for any light or common grievances that we presume thus repeatedly to interrupt your Majesty’s quiet with our complaints. It is not the illegal oppression of an individual; it is not the partial invasion of our property; it is not the violation of any single law of which we complain, but it is a violation which at one stroke deprives us of the only constitutional security of our Fortunes, Liberties, and Lives.
“Your Majesty’s servants have attacked our Liberties in the most vital part; they have torn away the heart-strings of the Constitution, and have made those men our destruction, whom the laws have appointed as the immediate guardians of our Rights and Liberties.
“The House of Commons, by their determination at the last election for this county, have assumed a power to overrule at pleasure the fundamental Right of Election, which the Constitution has placed in other hands, those of their Constituents, and from whence alone their whole authority is derived; a power by which the law of the land is at once overturned and resolved into the will and pleasure of a majority of one House of Parliament. And if this pretended power is exercised to the full extent of the principles, that House can no longer be a Representative of the people, but a separate body, altogether independent of them, self-existing, and self-elected.
“These proceedings have totally destroyed the confidence of your Majesty’s subjects in one essential branch of the legislative power, and if that branch is chosen in a manner not agreeable to the laws and constitution of the kingdom, the authority of Parliament itself must suffer extremely, if not totally perish.”
The remonstrance from which the above paragraphs are extracted was, together with a petition from the county of Kent, presented to His Majesty at St. James’s; both being received and handed to the lord of the bedchamber in waiting; but no answer was returned.
The electors of the city of Westminster also drew up a similar “Address, Remonstrance, and Petition”—
“their former application to the throne having been ineffectual, and new and exorbitant grievances being beyond patient endurance. 216 By the same secret and unhappy influence to which all our grievances have been originally owing, the redress of those grievances has been now prevented; and the grievances themselves have been repeatedly confirmed; with this additional circumstance of aggravation, that while the invaders of our rights remain the directors of your Majesty’s councils, the defenders of those rights have been dismissed from your Majesty’s service—your Majesty having been advised by your ministers to remove from his employment, for his vote in Parliament, the highest officer of the Law (Lord Camden), because his principles suited ill with theirs, and his pure distribution of justice with their corrupt administration of the House of Commons.
“We beg leave, therefore, again to represent to your Majesty that the House of Commons have struck at the most valuable liberties and franchises of all the electors of Great Britain; and by assuming to themselves a right of choosing, instead of receiving a member when chosen, and by transferring to the representative what belonged to the constituent, they have taken off from the dignity, and, we fear, impaired the authority of Parliament itself.
“We presume again, therefore, humbly to implore from your Majesty the only remedies which are in any way proportioned to the nature of the evil; that you would be graciously pleased to dismiss for ever from your councils those ministers who are ill-suited by their dispositions to preserve the principles of a free, or by their capacities to direct the councils of a great and mighty kingdom; And that by speedily dissolving the present Parliament, your Majesty will show by your own example, and by their dissolution, the rights of your people are to be inviolable, and that you will never necessitate so many injured, and, by such treatment, exasperated subjects, to continue the care of their interests to those from whom they must withdraw their confidence; to repose their invaluable privileges in the hand of those who have sacrificed them; and their trust in those who have betrayed it.
“We find ourselves compelled to urge, with the greatest importunity, this our humble but earnest application, as every day seems to produce the confirmation of some old, or to threaten the introduction of some new injury. We have the strongest reason to apprehend that the usurpation begun by the House of Commons upon the right of electing, may be extended to the right of petitioning, and that under the pretence of restraining the abuse of this right, it is meant to bring into disrepute, and to intimidate us from the exercise of the right itself.”
The representatives elected by the people had done their utmost, as respected the venal majority, to betray their trust and those who had sent them to the Commons. 217 Resistance was countenanced, and, by counter-addresses to the throne, the king was prejudiced against listening to the wishes of the people. This remonstrance elicited his Majesty’s reply “that he would lay it before his Parliament;” a curious conclusion, inasmuch as his afflicted subjects specially prayed therein that the king would be their safeguard against the majority in that body, who had betrayed the nation, and to the deliberation of that corrupted assembly the complaint—which affected the duration of the House—was to be submitted for redress! The remonstrance, which resembled an impeachment of the administration, was, in fact, handed to the ministers under accusation, to be by them resisted, prosecuted, or rendered ineffective at their discretion. The indignant judgments enunciated by “Junius” against these unprincipled politicians, foes to the kingdom, have been abundantly confirmed by the verdict of posterity.
The reception otherwise accorded to the Westminster remonstrance was altogether undignified. When the deputation, headed by Sir Robert Bernard, who had been returned member for that city by the unanimous suffrage of the constituency, arrived at the palace gate, an extra guard of soldiers was immediately turned out, not, however, as a compliment, for—
“although there was not the least appearance of anything disorderly, yet the soldiers behaved in a most insolent manner, and struck many persons with their bayonets, and that without provocation. The Gentlemen having alighted from their carriages, amidst the acclamations of the people, walked through the lane of soldiers, and went upstairs to the Levee Room door, where they were met by one of the Grooms of the Bedchamber, who asked Sir Robert Bernard if he had anything to present to his Majesty? To which Sir Robert replied, ‘Yes, the Address, Remonstrance, and Petition of the City of Westminster.’ Upon which the Groom of the Bedchamber said, ‘He would go and acquaint the Lord-in-Waiting.’ He went immediately, but not returning soon, Sir Robert Bernard proposed to go into the Levee Room, which he did. On opening the door, the same Groom of the Bedchamber said he could not find the Lord-in-Waiting; but should soon. However, the Gentlemen went on, and 218 after some time the Lord-in-Waiting came to them, and said, if they had anything to deliver to his Majesty, he would receive it in the next room, whither they accordingly went; and after some time, his Majesty coming into the room, Sir Robert presented the Remonstrance open. His Majesty delivered it to the Lord-in-Waiting, who delivered it to another, who handed it to the Groom of the Bedchamber, and he carried it off.”
The recreant majority of the Commons, still at the bidding of degraded ministers, continued to address the king with counter-petitions intended to bring into disrepute the remonstrances of the people—those very constituents who had chosen them as the defenders of their liberties.
Finally, another effort was made by the city, and a general assembly was held for that purpose, when the chief magistrate, the Court of Aldermen, and Common Council resolved to renew their petition, and further to consider the king’s “answer.”
“A motion was then made, that the thanks of this Court be given to Lord Chatham for his late conduct in Parliament, and for his zeal shown for the most sacred Rights of Election and of petitioning, and for the promise of his endeavours to support an independent and more equal representation.”
On a motion denouncing the most unbecoming treatment which the city of London had of late experienced from his Majesty’s ministers, it was suggested to draw up the strongest remonstrance possible on the violated right of election. Upon which, Alderman Wilkes, remarking upon the peculiar delicacy of his situation, said—
“that he would not mention a syllable about the person excluded; but if the House of Commons could seat any gentlemen among them who was not chosen by the people, the constitution was torn up by the roots, and the people had lost their share in the legislative power; that the disabling any person from sitting in Parliament, who was not disqualified by law, was an injury to every County, City, and Borough, and a dissolution of the form of government established by law in this Kingdom.”
The recorder cavilled at certain spirited expressions in the drawing-up of the remonstrance, particularly respecting 219 the king’s answer, which he declared could not be considered an act of the ministers, but must be held to be the king’s personally. The committee was shocked at the recorder’s bringing home to the king one of the most unconstitutional acts of his ministry, and without one dissentient voice determined to overrule the objection of the recorder, whereon this functionary protested against the remonstrance in strong terms as a Libel. Alderman Wilkes then rose and mentioned his unwillingness to speak again, but he was forced to it by the recorder’s declaration that the remonstrance was a libel; that he too claimed to know something of the nature of a libel; that he did not speak from theory only, but had bought much experience on that subject; that the remonstrance was founded throughout on known and glaring facts, every word bearing the stamp of truth; that the particular act complained of in the violated right of election was a malicious and wilful act of the majority in the House of Commons, for the minister had declared, that “if any person had only four votes for Middlesex, he should be the sitting member for the county!” The lord mayor, Beckford, confirmed Wilkes’s assertion, concluding, “I was then present in the House of Commons.”
The remonstrance was accordingly presented; in it astonishment was expressed at the censure lately passed by the throne upon the faithful and afflicted citizens, laying their complaints and injuries at the feet of their Sovereign, as the father of his people, able and willing to redress their grievances.
The concluding paragraph was very much to the purpose, and displayed no diminution of firmness:—
“Your Majesty cannot disapprove that we here assert the clearest principles of the constitution against the insidious attempts of evil counsellors to perplex, confound, and shake them. We are determined to abide by those rights and liberties, which our forefathers bravely vindicated, at the ever-memorable Revolution, and which their sons will ever resolutely defend. We therefore now renew, at the foot of the throne, our claim to the indispensable right of the subject—a full, 220 free, and unmutilated Parliament, legally chosen in all its members; a right which this House of Parliament have manifestly violated, depriving, at their will and pleasure, the county of Middlesex of one of its legal representatives, and arbitrarily nominating, as a Knight of the Shire, a person not elected by a majority of the freeholders. As the only constitutional means of reparation now left for the injured electors of Great Britain, we implore, with most urgent supplications, the dissolution of the present parliament, the removal of evil ministers, and the total extinction of that fatal influence which has caused such national discontent.
“In the meantime, Sire, we offer our constant prayers to Heaven, that your Majesty may reign, as Kings only can reign, in and by the hearts of a loyal, dutiful, and free people.”
To this remonstrance the king’s answer was:—
“I should have been wanting to the public as well as to myself, if I had not expressed my dissatisfaction at the late Address. My sentiments on that subject continue the same; and I should ill deserve to be considered as the father of my people, if I could suffer myself to be prevailed upon to make such an use of my prerogative as I cannot but think inconsistent with the interest and dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.”
After His Majesty had been pleased to make the foregoing answer, the lord mayor requested leave to reply, which, being granted, Beckford made the dignified and noble response which is a matter of history:—
“Most Gracious Sovereign—Will your Majesty be pleased so far to condescend as to permit the Mayor of your loyal City of London to declare in your Royal presence, on behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your Majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety, and with the deepest affliction.
“Permit me, Sire, to assure your Majesty that your Majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate to your Majesty’s person and family, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your Crown.
“We do, therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your Majesty, that you will not dismiss us from your presence without expressing a more favourable opinion of 221 your faithful citizens, and without some comfort, without some prospect at least of redress.
“Permit me, Sire, further to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions, to alienate your Majesty’s affections from your loyal subjects in general and from the city of London in particular, and to withdraw your confidence in and regard for your people, is an enemy to your Majesty’s person and family, a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy Constitution, as it was established at the glorious revolution of 1688.”
At the conclusion of these expressions of enlightenment for the royal mind, the lord mayor waited more than a minute for a reply of “some more favourable opinion,” but none was given.
“On this occasion,” says the satirist, “Nero did not fiddle while Rome was burning.” The humility and serious firmness with which the dignified Beckford—who enjoyed the friendship of the great Earl of Chatham, and with whom he had many points in common—uttered these words, “filled the whole Court with admiration and confusion;” for they found very different countenances amongst the citizens than they expected from Lord Pomfret’s description, who declared in the House of Lords—
“that, however swaggering and impudent the behaviour of the low citizens might be on their own dunghill, when they came into the royal presence, their heads hung down like bulrushes, and they blinked with their eyes like owls in the sunshine of the sun.”
On the 19th of May, the king prorogued that parliament which, by approving addresses from both Houses, had fortified the royal censure returned to the popular remonstrances. “The prevalence of animosities and of dissensions among their fellow-subjects” was specially alluded to in his Majesty’s speech, while the conduct of both branches of his legislature received in return such flattering encomiums as their servile pliability had earned by despicable means:—
“The temper with which you have conducted all your proceedings has given me great satisfaction, and I promise myself the happiest 222 effects from the firmness, as well as the moderation, which you have manifested in the very critical circumstances which have attended your late deliberations.”
However undignified the reception accorded at the time to these petitions addressed to the throne from its truest supporters, the good cause eventually triumphed, in defiance of the chicanery of counter-expressions of servility, fabricated at the instance of those whose prospects depended on the continuance in power of false politicians, despising alike the voice and interests of the people, and resting their reliance on the venality of their adherents, and the base instinct of self-aggrandisement at the expense of the state existent in minds equally mercenary with their own.
“Eventually the citizens succeeded, in spite of the united efforts of the Court, the Ministers, and the Parliament; and their cause has since been solemnly and universally recognized as that of the Constitution and of liberty. It is impossible to appreciate too highly the national importance of the conduct they pursued.”
It was well said by “Junius,” the integrity of whose sentiments bears more than a casual resemblance to the utterances of that patriotic statesman, Lord Chatham, with whose fame the authorship of Junius’s “Letters” may one day be identified:—
“The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates with health and vigour through every artery of the Constitution.”
The great Chatham and his friend, William Beckford, stand out conspicuous from their fellow-men in association with that corrupt time when statescraft was for the most part a question of ability for debasing the largest number on the easiest terms contrivable; they lived at a time when liberty ran especial risks, and, as champions of popular rights, proved worthy of those emergencies with which they were confronted. In days when the chief magistrate of the city may degenerate to a subservient courtier, the history of Beckford’s firm attitude may be regarded as no 223 longer the worthiest part of the civic traditions. That his fellow-citizens appreciated his exertions is shown by the thanks he received for his able and dignified speech to the king; his reply was ordered to be inserted in the city records, and afterwards, at his death, was inscribed on the monument erected in the Guildhall to his memory.
The blow struck at a corrupt administration by the Westminster and other remonstrances seems to have damped the ardour of the ministers; in any case, no Court candidate was put forward for Westminster in 1770, and consequently the election of a liberal candidate was unopposed.
On the 30th of April, at noon, came on at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, the election of a representative in parliament for the City and Liberty of Westminster, in the room of the Hon. Edwin Sandys, created Lord Sandys. A considerable number of the electors assembled early in the morning at the “Standard Tavern” in Leicester Fields; and proceeded from thence with a band of music, etc., in procession through Piccadilly to the residence of Sir Robert Bernard, in Hamilton Street. When they came to Covent Garden, the whole square was full. Proclamation of silence being made, Sir John Hussey Delaval, Bart., addressing himself to the people, said—
“he rejoiced to see such a prodigious number of the Electors present, to support the nomination in Westminster Hall the previous Thursday; that Sir Robert Bernard had stood forward in support of the rights of the people in their just complaints against the late flagrant violation of their liberties; and concluded with observing, that they were come to confirm with their votes this their free and glorious choice.”
Lord Viscount Mountmorres seconded the motion in a spirited speech, in which he stated—
“the services and principles of Sir Robert Bernard; the grievances under which the people laboured; the great violation of their rights in the case of Middlesex; the impossibility that any king, that any parliament, that the courts of justice, or that all together, could annihilate the people’s constitutional rights.” 224
These speeches were received with acclamation by the twenty thousand people present, amongst whom strict good order was preserved.
The proper proclamations being made, and no other candidate appearing, the return was signed by the gentlemen present on the hustings. The election being entirely over, the gentlemen retired into the vestry-room, where the indenture was signed by them, and finally returned to the Crown Office. On the day following, Sir Robert Bernard was introduced into the House of Commons by the Hon. Henry Grenville and William Pulteney, and took his seat as member for Westminster. The Westminster returns being generally looked upon with interest by other constituencies, this election was held out as a proper example to every city in the kingdom, and to all the counties and towns, to choose their members with a spirit of freedom and without expense. It was resolved by the freeholders of Westminster, in advance—
“that if this election had been contested, it would not have cost Sir Robert Bernard a shilling, the electors being determined to support their free choice.”
This particular return is a case in point, which goes to prove that the authors of corruption in electioneering matters were more guilty than those they corrupted. At the Covent Garden hustings—where, on previous occasions, the ministers had spent enormous sums, besides moving every power and art of intrigue to get their own nominees returned—the entire proceedings were one long scene of bribery, trickery, and illegality, brute-force, and disorder. On the occasion in question, 1770, the administration seems to have been slightly cowed by the results of their ill-advised manœuvres to impose placemen upon the county: the recent Middlesex proceedings were still a source of concern; the constitution had been violated—not with impunity,—and serious effects in the way of impeachment were by no means impossible: consequently, the people 225 being left to the legitimate exercise of their liberties, the election passed off in the pacific, well-ordered, and regular manner described, freedom did not degenerate into licence, “no one was a penny the worse,” and the representative system in its purity of action was for once maintained in Westminster. 226
The feats of the Whartons, Walpoles, Marlboroughs, Pelhams, and Graftons, in the direction of lavishing large sums for the corruption of the electorate, were dwarfed into insignificance by the fortunes staked upon a single contest later on: thus the disbursements over a contested election at Lincoln would be twelve thousand per candidate; and, we are told, “occasionally, after a hard fight at such places as Colchester, all the defeated men appeared in the Gazette.” It is stated that the two great county contests for Hampshire, in 1790 and 1806, cost the ministerial candidates twenty-five thousand apiece on each occasion, while their opponent’s expenses were proportionately large. The contest, still remembered by Northampton worthies as the “Spendthrift Election,” in which three earls fought for the borough election in favour of their respective nominees in 1768, is a startling instance of the lengths to which electioneering Peers were tempted to proceed in “scot and lot times.” The opponents were the Earls of Halifax, Northampton, and Spencer, and the respective nominees they pitted against each other in this all but ruinous “tourney” were Sir George Osborne, Sir George Bridges Rodney, and the Hon. Thomas Howe. The candidates were of small account in the conflict; their patrons bore the brunt of the battle. The canvassing commenced long before the polling; this was extended over fourteen days—a phenomenal circumstance in the days when elections were often settled and returns made before ten o’clock on the morning 227 of the polling day. According to the poll-book, the legitimate number of electors, some 930, was exceeded by 288, but confusion of persons is accounted for by the promiscuous hospitalities of three noble mansions being at the mercies of the crowd for weeks: at the famous historical seats of Horton, Castle Ashby, and Althorp, the orgies pictured in Hogarth’s “Election Dinner”—“filled with the tipsified humours” of what Bubb Dodington fitly called, “venal wretches”—were indefinitely prolonged. “The Scot and Lot,”—woolcombers, weavers, shoemakers, labourers, pedlars, militia-men, and victuallers held “high revel,” prolonged without intercession from night till morning, and vice versâ, in the ancestral halls, of which, including the well-stocked wine-cellars, they were in a body “made free.” Therein lodged the perdition of Horton; for, after they had drained dry the goodly stock of matured port, Lord Halifax had to place before them his choicest claret, whereon, with one accord, filled with vinous fastidiousness, the “rabble rout” deserted to a man, declaring, “they would never vote for a man who gave them sour port,” and went over in a body to Castle Ashby. Each of the candidates claimed more votes than could be legally registered in his favour. Howe, the unsuccessful candidate, whose “potwallers” and “occasional voters” were likewise challenged, petitioned; and the “controverted election” came before the House of Commons. During the six weeks the scrutiny lasted, sixty covers were daily spread at Spencer House, St. James’s, for those concerned in the case. The results were no less eccentric: the number of votes being finally found equal, the election was referred to chance, and decided by a toss, which Lord Spencer won, and nominated a man out in India. The cost of this escapade then had to be counted. It is said Lord Spencer expended one hundred thousand pounds; his antagonists are credited with having wasted one hundred and fifty thousand pounds each—an incredible sum, considering this represents at least double the equivalent amounts at the 228 present day. Earl Spencer came off lightest, and appears to have been in no way involved; Lord Halifax was ruined; Lord Northampton cut down his trees, sold his furniture at Compton Winyates, went abroad for the rest of his days, and died in Switzerland. Canon James, who has related the story of the famous “Spendthrift Election” in his “History of Northamptonshire,” mentions that at Castle Ashby is still preserved a sealed box, labelled “Election Papers,” the evidence of this insane contest—one of no political moment; but none of the present generation has had the courage to open the dread receptacle of bygone folly.
A whimsical anecdote is related by Edgeworth, in his “Memoirs,” respecting the contest for Andover at the general election in 1768, when Sir J. B. Griffin was returned at the head of the poll with seventeen votes; the second member was B. Lethieulier, with fifteen votes; and the defeated candidate was Sir F. B. Delaval, who only polled seven. The latter was a celebrity, both in fashion and in the politics of his day, and the story which is connected with his electioneering experience properly belongs to the traditions of the subject. Sir Francis found himself at loggerheads with his attorney, an acute practitioner, whose bill had been running for years, and, though considerable sums of money had been paid “on account,” a prodigious balance was still claimed as unsettled; this Sir Francis disputed at law. When the case came before the Court of King’s Bench, amongst an exorbitant list of charges the following item excited general attention:—
It was found that this charge required explanation. It appeared that the attorney, by way of promoting the interests of his principal in the borough, had sought to propitiate the favour of those important potentates at electioneering times, the mayor and corporation, in whose 229 hands, as seen in the foregoing, was vested so much of the local influence. A pretext was necessary to decoy these worthies to a banquet, where they might be conciliated, so the attorney sent cards of invitation to the mayor and corporation in the name of the colonel and officers of a regiment in the town; he at the same time invited the colonel and staff, in the name of the mayor and corporation, to dine and drink the king’s health on his birthday;—an ingenious ruse, but the arch-diplomatist had literally “reckoned without his host.” The two parties met, were cordially courteous, ate a good dinner, toasted his majesty’s health, and proceeded to other oratorical compliments before breaking up. Then came the acknowledgments: the commanding officer of the regiment made a handsome speech to Mr. Mayor, thanking him for his hospitable invitation and entertainment; “No, Colonel,” replied the mayor, “it is to you that thanks are due, by me and my brother-aldermen for your generous treat to us.” The colonel replied with as much warmth as good breeding would allow; the mayor retorted in downright anger, vowing that he would not be choused by the bravest colonel in His Majesty’s service. “Mr. Mayor,” said the colonel, “there is no necessity for displaying any vulgar passion on this occasion; permit me to show you that I have here your obliging card of invitation.” “Nay, Mr. Colonel, here is no opportunity for bantering, there is your card.” The cards were produced simultaneously. Upon examining the invitations, it was observed that, notwithstanding an attempt to disguise the hand, both cards were written by some person who had designed to hoax them all. Every eye of the discomfited guests, corporation and officers alike, turned spontaneously upon the attorney, who had, of course, found it necessary to be present to flatter the aldermen; his impudence suddenly gave way, he faltered and betrayed himself so fully by his confusion, that, in a fit of summary justice, the colonel threw him out of window; for this, Sir F. B. Delaval was charged £500. 230
Among the parodies of election addresses issued at the time of the rival Shelburne and Rockingham parties, is a broadside “embellished” with a copperplate engraving of a whimsical assembly of citizens, met in solemn conclave to examine the political views of a deformed sweeper-lad, “a public character,” who, it appears, was nicknamed by his contemporaries “Sir Jeffery Dunstan.” The pointed satire is thus headed:—
The candidate’s address is one of those confused harangues in which a number of subjects are incongruously involved together, known in later days as “a stump oration.” Among other subjects, Dr. Graham’s “celestial beds,” recruiting for the army, polygamy, and divorce, “the delicate brave men of the association” (volunteer force), and an “effete nobility,” are all mixed up according to the following sample:—
“As my honourable friend Mr. Burke cannot lessen the influence of the Crown, myself and his grace of Richmond are determined to accomplish it, by abolishing the use of money entirely; it being irrevocable poison to men’s souls, and the only remedy existing to prevent Bribery and Corruption; an evil which all the learned gentry of Westminster Hall could never annihilate; and I do faithfully declare, being no placeman, that I will not waste my fleeting moments like the four city members, whose elements of oratory what Roman senator could ever equal.”
The address rambles through a variety of absurdities, and concludes with a quotation from Rusted’s “Poems.” Whoever that worthy may have been, his lines have a fine air of burlesque grandiloquence, sense being subordinated to sound:— 231
The foregoing is found in the collection of ballads and broadsides which it delighted Miss Banks to accumulate. It will be remembered that eccentric lady was sister to Sir Joseph Banks, the president of the Royal Society, and one most instrumental in founding the British Museum, to which his collections and those of his sister were left. Among Miss Banks’s “Political and Miscellaneous Broadsides” is another electoral appeal to the same fanciful constituency; the document otherwise seems almost a literal copy of an actual address of the day:—
“My Lords and Gentlemen,
“Your Vote, Interest, and Poll (if needful) is earnestly desired for Thomas, Lord Shiner, to be your representative in Parliament, being a person zealously attached to the King and Queen, and their numerous offspring of Princes and princesses, and an enemy to all arbitrary Laws.
“His Lordship’s Committee for conducting the Election is held at the ‘Three Jolly Butchers,’ and ‘Black Moor’s Head,’ Brook’s Market, at which places his Lordship begs the audience of his Friends.
“N.B.—His Lordship’s colours are Blue and Orange.
“⁂ Carriages will be ready on the Day of Election.”
Those corrupted electors of Shoreham who resolved themselves into a purchasable community on their own account, were roughly handled by the parliamentary inquisitors, but the avowed and professional traffickers in venal boroughs seemed to conduct their trade openly, and, with the great parliamentary lights, unadmonished and unexposed. They were generally the agents of those who had secured the influence in the seats by various methods—some by inheritance, others by patronage, sometimes by purchase en bloc, but 232 generally en détail. Men invested in boroughs and cultivated them for sale, secure of a profitable mart when the proper season arrived; the burgage-houses were bought and accumulated; “shambles on old foundations” carrying voting qualifications were secured; burgage tenures were bought up; voters were pensioned from year to year, the process varying according to the nature of the suffrage. As in the case of Sheridan’s expenses at Stafford, the independent electors were retained at a settled price per head. Sheridan’s cost him five guineas per burgess; Wilberforce found four guineas the price at Hull for a plumper. Southey says it rose to £30 a vote at Ilchester, Somerset, where the burgesses had a direct control over their borough; although the tariff ran high, the four candidates who recklessly bribed the constituents in 1774 lost their pains and money, petitions and counter-petitions establishing that the members returned and those who alleged they were unjustly rejected were alike so palpably culpable of corruption that the election was declared void. In 1826, Ilchester is given in the “Manual” as under the patronage of Sir W. Manners. Irrespective of the local and lesser bargains made with the mayors and burgesses, there was the “big business” conducted on behalf of the actual individual landholders of the place—those magnates set down in the election lists of constituencies as “patrons” of boroughs, the dispensers of seats.
For an instance of the facility which characterized the modus operandi, though “the prices ruled high” owing to extraneous demands, see the “Letters” of that skilled courtier, Lord Chesterfield, deeply versed in political chicanery and combination. In a passage of a letter dated Bath, December 19, 1767, he writes to that hopeful youth who by “Chesterfield’s Letters” was to be polished into a fine gentleman, and for whom a place in Parliament was a desirable opening—
“In one of our conversations here this time twelvemonth I desired my Lord Chatham to secure you a seat in the new parliament. He 233 assured me he would, and, I am convinced, very sincerely.... Since that I have heard no more of it, which made me look out for some venal borough; and I spoke to a borough-jobber, and offered five and twenty hundred pounds for a secure seat in parliament; but he laughed at my offer, and said that there was no such thing as a borough to be had now, for the rich East and West Indians had secured them all, at the rate of three thousand pounds at least, but many at four thousand, and two or three that he knew at five thousand. This, I confess, has vexed me a good deal.”
Much has been said about “Old Sarum” (Wilts) as being typical of the unabashed and confirmed borough-mongering and corruption which existed not only in the last century, but, in fact, until the larger measure of Reform carried in 1832. Representative government, conducted on the principles which prevailed in “hole-and-corner boroughs” until the passing of that bill against which even Sir Robert Peel protested as a dangerous innovation, certainly, for the most part, had but a theoretic existence, as a review of the facts sufficiently demonstrates. Amongst the statistics given in Stockdale’s “Parliamentary Guide” (1784), Dr. Willis writes that the borough of Old Sarum was then reduced to one house. It returned members in 23 Edw. 1, and then intermitted until 34 Edw. 3, since which time representatives were returned until its disfranchisement. These were at first elected in the county-court, as was then customary; from 1688, the right of election was in “the freeholders being burgage-holders” and the number was seven. In 1826, when the last parliament of George IV.’s reign assembled, this state of things was unaltered, the patron was the Earl of Caledon, and the mysterious seven remained. New Sarum, otherwise Salisbury, which had taken the place of “Old Sarum,” received its privileges by letters patent, 2 Hen. 3, which conferred on the bishops and canons tanquam proprium dominicum; afterwards confirmed by charter 34 Edw. 1. In 1784, there were about fifty-six voters; the right of election being “in the select number, that is, the mayor and corporation.” The Earl of Radnor and G. P. Jervoise 234 were the patrons in 1826, when Viscount Folkestone and Wadham Wyndham were returned by the fifty-four electors then set down as the suffrage-holders.
Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, was another scandalous and typical “pocket-borough” which obtained notoriety, especially at the time of the passing of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill, Sir Charles Wetherell being turned into satiric capital by Doyle (HB), in his versions of the “Last of the Boroughbridges.” The right of election was in the burgage-holders—a “pocket-borough” tenure, thus denounced by Charles James Fox: “If a man comes into parliament as the proprietor of a burgage tenure, he does not come there as the representative of the people,” as explained in the eloquent speech of the great Whig chief, on Grey’s motion for Reform, 1797. The Duke of Newcastle was the patron, and sixty burgage-holders returned two members. The constituency of Helston, where the franchise was originally invested in a corporation, under the Old Charter, had in 1790 dwindled down to one elector, to whose lot it fell to nominate two representatives.
The case of a “controverted election” at Hindon, Wilts, where the right of election was of an easy order, viz. “inhabitants of houses within the borough, being housekeepers and parishioners, not securing alms,” raised an altogether pretty scandal in the way of revelations on corrupt treating. The sitting members, returned in 1774, being Richard Smith and T. Brand Hollis, the unsuccessful candidates, James Calthorpe and Richard Beckford, were the petitioners on the ground that the former, by the bribery of themselves and their agents, had procured an illegal return. On the hearing of the petition it was discovered that all or the major part of the voters for all four candidates had been bribed, and the committee pronounced the election void. The candidates themselves had not only bribed, but thirteen electors, acting as agents, had also been employed to corrupt their fellow-voters. The committee resolved to disfranchise these electors:— 235
“A bill was then ordered to incapacitate from voting at elections of members of parliament 190 persons, besides the thirteen above-mentioned, out of 210 who had polled at the election.”
These persons appealed against the bill, and there being technical objections to the petitioners “being parties to and alike defendants in an indictment,” it was argued they “could not, without overturning the known rules of law and justice, be received as witnesses in this case.” By a tacit agreement the unfortunate cross-petitions were dropped the ensuing session, and two new writs were issued; meanwhile the attorney-general, on separate informations, proceeded against the four candidates (June, 1775) for bribery at elections, held to be a crime at common law independent of any statute against it. All the four informations were tried at the Lent assizes in the county of Wilts, March, 1775, before Baron Hotham. The two petitioners who were in the first instance responsible for this scrutiny were acquitted; Smith and Hollis, who had been returned, were found guilty, and were brought up to the Court of King’s Bench to receive judgment: this was on the 20th of May, the last day of the term, and the judges desiring time to consider the proper punishment, they were committed till the next term to the King’s Bench prison. Meanwhile, previous to this commitment, the new election for Hindon had taken place (May 16th), and Mr. Richard Smith was again returned. On the 7th of June, Smith and Hollis were again brought up for judgment, when they were each fined 1000 marks57 and sentenced to prison for six months, and until they paid their respective fines; and it was ordered that Richard Smith should give security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in the sum of £1000, and two sureties each of £500.
A flagrant instance of boroughmongering was exposed during a parliamentary investigation into a case of controverted election at Milborne Port, Somerset, where the right of voting was, amongst others, in the capital bailiffs 236 and their two deputies. The petition proposed to disqualify eleven votes upon the score of “occasionality,” and to object to eleven who voted for the sitting members and were disabled by a corrupt bargain made between Mr. Medlycott, the senior member, and Loyd, an agent of Lord North’s. There were nine bailiwicks in the borough, with a bailiff appointed for each. Mr. Medlycott had long been in possession of four of these, and the remaining five belonged to the family of Walters. A remarkable example of downright trading appeared as the case developed. In February, 1770, Loyd arrived at Milborne Port as the friend of Lord North. A meeting was held at Yeovil between the agent and the patron, two or three others being present, at the house of one Daniel; where a contract was duly drawn up, signed, and witnessed, by which Medlycott agreed to sell the borough, and to throw out his old friend, the Hon. Temple Luttrell, who was one of the persons presenting the petition, which revealed the underground workings of administrative jobbery. The writing drawn up at Yeovil purported to be the “memorandum of an agreement to defray the expenses of procuring a seat in parliament for any friend of Lord North, whom his lordship or Loyd should recommend.” To this end Loyd agreed to deposit fifteen hundred pounds in Daniel’s hands, to be employed in purchasing the family interest of the Walters in the remaining five bailiwicks for the use and at the risk of Medlycott, who stipulated to pay Loyd five per cent. for the money so advanced, until such time as Lord North’s friend should be seated peaceably fourteen days in parliament—the time allowed for petitioning. The paper was put into Lord North’s hands, who returned it to Daniel, without committing himself to any observation. On the faith of this instrument—
“The Walters’ property in the voters was transferred; the five bailiffs were nominated, and consigned to Medlycott’s interest, thus purchased by Loyd. But the patron of the borough, on assuming the undivided influence therein, in the spirit of friendship wrote to his colleague Luttrell on the subject, acknowledged this foul transaction, 237 and urged the wretched excuse that his poverty, and not his will, consented.”
The counsel for the petitioners further said they would give evidence of the bribery, and several offers made, also of the treats given to influence the voters. The ministerial influence seems to have been paramount on this occasion; as the committee determined, in the face of the absolute documentary evidence, and other proofs of bribery, treating, illegal voting, and refusal to register legitimate votes on behalf of the petitioners, that the gentleman who had sold the seat in the borough to Lord North was—with the second ministerial nominee, brought in by his venality—duly elected. This borough of Milborne Port seems to have been a snug haven for nominees: in 1826 the patronage was at the joint disposal of the Marquis of Anglesea and Sir W. Coles Medlycott, and returned the Hon. Berkeley Paget and Lord Graves—proving the utility of “a stake in the country.” The warming-pan constituency was swept away, with similar anomalies, by the Reform Bill carried by Lord Grey.
In the general election of 1774 the contest for Westminster was marked by the unblushing exertion of much undue influence. Not only did two ducal houses bring all the weight of their purses and ministerial influence, adding to almost limitless resources such strong inducements as the Duke of Northumberland, with his metropolitan patronage, and the Duke of Newcastle, with his placemen, pensions, and ministerial patronage, could bring to bear for the return of younger scions of the two houses concerned; the royal authority was freely used, and the king’s servants, without, it was shown, any qualifications as voters, were allowed to record their voices for the return of the Court candidates. The famous election of 1784, although stronger in incident, must have been tame by comparison. Not only members of the royal household, but divers peers of the realm and lords of parliament publicly canvassed, and otherwise unduly interfered in the election, contrary to 238 several express resolutions of the House. The candidates stood thus at the close of the poll:—Earl Percy, 4995; Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, 4744; Lord Mountmorres, 2531; Charles Stanhope, Lord Mahon, 2342; and Humphrey Cotes, 130. A petition was presented by Lord Mountmorres and several electors of the city and liberty of Westminster against the return of Earl Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, seeing that—
“the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster, gave voices in the said election, contrary to an express resolution of the House; that peers and lords unduly interfered and tampered with the voters; that during the election, after the teste and issuing out of the writ, Lord Percy and Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, by themselves or agents, were guilty of bribing, corrupting, and entertaining the voters, (who must have made a fairly good thing of the contest); and that they allowed to the electors, and several persons who had or claimed a right to vote, money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision; and that by those, and other undue means, a majority of votes was procured for Lord Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, so that they were returned, and the petitioners prayed such relief as upon examination should appear just.”
As bribery commissions were then constituted, the party in power generally managed to make disputed returns a means of strengthening their own majority, so that although the House took the pains to examine the several allegations, it was decided that the sitting members were duly elected.
On the respective counts it was found that there was no general determination as to the right of election in Westminster, but it seemed agreed that the suffrages were vested “in the inhabitants, householders, paying scot and lot;” that the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster, were not entitled to vote—as they had done, on the pretence of being residents in the royal palaces of St. James and elsewhere. It was admitted that the following resolution, providing against the interposition of peers in elections for the Commons, had been renewed on the opening of the House, from session to session, since the Act was made, January 3, 1701:— 239
“Resolved that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great Britain for any lord of parliament or any lord-lieutenant of any county to concern themselves in the elections of members to serve for the Commons in parliament.”
The petitioners set forth that it would appear, by different allegations, that the rights of the election had been invaded in a manner highly alarming, so as to call for the interposition and censure of the House; but the report of the committee disposed of these objections by finding the petitioners were not able to prove any direct solicitation of the peers.
A similar objection was raised on the same general election as to the legal return of the sitting members for Worcester,—that a peer and lord of parliament had, by himself and his agents, interfered in the election by publicly canvassing and soliciting votes, and by using threats to intimidate freemen from voting for the petitioner, in violation of the privileges of the House and the freedom of election, and to the infringement of the rights of the Commons of Great Britain. Moreover, there was an allegation of bribery, and that conducted on a wholesale scale. The mayor, aldermen, and justices of the city, the town-clerk and many of the common council had sworn in, for several days before and during the election, many freemen (some hundreds) to be constables, under a promise that they would vote for the candidates chosen by the persons so influencing them, “for which they were to have certain rewards in money;” and that this money was afterwards paid to them out of the funds of the city, or by the two sitting members.
In transparent cases of bribery, when the committee of the “whole House” serving on these “controverted elections” decided to retain and confirm the sitting members, there seems to have been a convenient formula much resorted to in silencing those petitions brought on the grounds of corruption; for instance, after the general elections of 1774,— 240
“An objection was taken to the petitioners examining any witness as to the payment, till they should first bring proof of the agency. It was argued that the circumstances which would establish both points were so complicated that they could not be separated;”
ergo, all evidence on the points to be proved was technically excluded, and the petition was stultified.
It seems, also, to have been not unusual for high sheriffs to return themselves; for instance, in the controverted election case for Abingdon, Berks, March, 1774-5. The petitioner set forth that the member returned was then high sheriff for the county of Berks; his counsel arguing, “that by an express clause in the writ of election the choice of sheriffs is prohibited; and that this clause has made part of the writ for three centuries.” It was admitted that Sir Edward Coke, sheriff of Buckinghamshire, had been returned for Norfolk in the second year of Charles I., and that he sat till the dissolution of that parliament; but his right was questioned, and in the “Journals and Debates” he is invariably described as a member de facto. It was contended in reply, on the other side, that the sheriff was justified in his return, the wording of the writ not being taken literally, in any case such as “knights girt with a sword;” that Mr. Child, being sheriff of Warwickshire, was chosen and returned for Wells, in the county of Somerset; he was petitioned against, but was declared duly elected. It was also stated, on behalf of the controverted sitting member, that—
“since the statute of the 23rd Henry VI., the sheriff is in no respect the returning officer for boroughs; he is obliged to accept the return sent him, with his precept, and is merely the conduit-pipe to convey it to the clerk of the crown.”
The counsel for the member whose return was impeached further observed that if sheriffs could not be chosen members of parliament, the Crown would be able to prevent any one from being elected, by taking care to make him a sheriff before the election; by which means, in bad times, every friend to the rights of the people might be 241 excluded from sitting in the House of Commons. On this occasion, as the high sheriff had returned himself, that is to say, for his own county, it was thought proper to decide that the election was void; thus, at the same time, disqualifying the petitioner as well, which, was seemingly unreasonable.
There were two petitions presented in reference to the controverted election at Morpeth, Northumberland, in 1774. On this occasion it was violence and intimidation more than corrupt and illegal practices—though all had been resorted to—which had unjustly influenced the return. The candidates were the Hon. William Byron, Francis Eyre, T. C. Bigge, and Peter Delme.
“It was proved by a number of witnesses, that, at the end of the Poll, the majority was declared to be in favour of Delme and Byron (a counter-petition set forth that a majority had been obtained for Delme by the corrupt practices of Byron), but that the returning officers were compelled to return Delme and Eyre: and it was also proved that, on the morning of the election, before it began, Eyre made an inflammatory speech to the people; that after the riot began, he having retired some time before, the returning officers sent him word they would return whom he pleased, and that an answer being brought them, that they must return himself and Mr. Delme, they complied, and the riot ceased.”
The decision of the committee was that the gentleman who, as master of the mob, had directed the storm, was not duly elected, while the Hon. W. Byron, who had found his way to the suffrages of the voters through their pockets, must be returned, together with his nominee, Delme, already seated.
At Petersfield, Hants, in 1774, the Hon. John Luttrell was unfortunate, and brought a petition against the two members returned, Sir Abraham Hume and William Jolliffe, the former being high sheriff for the county of Hertford, and both—
“having been guilty of divers acts of bribery, by money, meat, drink, reward, entertainment, and provision; and that James Showell, pretending to be mayor, had acted partially.” 242
Three or four witnesses were called to prove that gifts and promises had been made by Mr. Jolliffe in the presence of the other sitting member; in the course of this evidence—
“one Newnam was called to prove a declaration made to him by Brackstone a voter, about having got the promise of a house from Mr. Jolliffe for his vote.”
The committee resolved that the evidence was inadmissible on the grounds that—
“although the declaration (not upon oath) of a person who cannot be obliged to be a witness on the subject himself, is admissible in evidence to affect such person, yet is not admissible against a third party.”
Although the traditional figure of “Punch” is associated with punishments dealt out indiscriminately, it appears in the old electioneering days he was the agent for distributing illicit rewards for iniquitous acts. In the case of a “controverted election” for the borough of Shaftesbury (Dorset) the evidence produced vividly recalls Hogarth’s representation of an election broadside, “Punch, Candidate for Guzzletown,” introduced in his picture of “Canvassing for Votes.” After the general election, 1774, it was alleged that the sitting members, Sykes and Rumbold, by themselves or their agents, had been guilty of bribery, while it was attempted to be shown that Mortimer, who was the petitioner, had promised money to procure his election. The trial lasted four weeks, and among the points of evidence was the following indictment against the manœuvres of “Punch:”—Money, to the amount of several thousand pounds, had been given among the electors,58 in sums of twenty guineas a man (654 votes were recorded in 1774; 532 being for Sykes and Rumbold). The persons who were entrusted with the distribution of this money, and who were chiefly the magistrates of the town, fell upon a very singular and absurd contrivance, in hopes of being able thereby to hide through what 243 channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person concealed under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name of “Punch,” was placed in a small apartment, and, through a hole in the door, delivered out to the voters parcels containing the twenty guineas; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the same house, where they found a person called “Punch’s secretary,” and signed notes for the value, but which were made payable to an imaginary character, to whom they had given the name of “Glenbucket.” Two of the witnesses, called by the counsel for the petitioner, swore that they had seen “Punch” through the hole in the door, and that they knew him to be one Matthews, an alderman of Shaftesbury; and, as the counsel for the petitioner had endeavoured to prove, an agent for the sitting members. It was said that those voters who admitted that they had received “Punch’s” money, had at the poll taken the bribery oath; it was contended for the other side that this was not legal evidence, that “it would be unjust to suffer what a man had said in conversation, and without an oath, to invalidate what he had solemnly sworn.” The committee determined that, with regard to supposed agents, evidence should be first produced to establish the agency, before the bribery by such persons should be gone into. In the sequel it was determined that the two sitting members were not duly elected, and that the petitioner should be returned. “Punch,” his exertions, and his profuse distribution of bribes proved a grievous failure.
Not only was bribery freely practised under one or another disguise, but even the result of the petitions and scrutinies were made the subject of corruption. In a controverted election for Sudbury, in 1780, for instance, the question was put to the committee, “Whether a person who had laid a wager of about £40 on the event of the petition was competent to give evidence in the cause?” the decision being in the affirmative. This Sudbury election was altogether an odd affair. 244
“The mayor was the returning officer, and the petitioner alleged that at the close of the poll it was declared in his favour, but that afterwards a scrutiny was illegally demanded, when the other candidates were pronounced duly elected.” It was given in the evidence “that the election began Sep. 8, 1780, about ten o’clock in the morning, and continued until it was dark: that the petitioner and his friends then desired the mayor to adjourn the poll to the following day; but that he refused, and proceeded all night by candlelight”—
the election ending between six and seven o’clock the following morning: “There was some tumult during a part of the poll, but that it was upon the whole a very peaceable election.” This goes far to prove that an election must have been an extraordinarily turbulent business a century back, when proceedings varied by “a tumult during part of the poll” was admitted to be peaceful in an unusual degree.
The Shaftesbury arrangements for presenting voters with packets of twenty guineas were outdone by the electors of Shoreham, who combined and resolved themselves into a joint-stock company, that they themselves might derive the advantage from their borough which in other cases was monopolized by the patrons, or holders of bailiwicks. The suffrages being originally in the mayor and burgesses, these electors, with a forethought superior to their generation, organized themselves into a compact league, or caucus, for electioneering purposes; but not with the intention of resisting and keeping out corrupt practices: the nature of this compact was disclosed during the hearing of the petition of Thomas Rumbold, on the election of a member in place of Sir Samuel Cornish deceased, and is set down in the Journals of the House (vol. 33), 1770-1. It appeared that the petitioner was duly elected, those who voted for him, to the number of eighty-seven, taking the bribery oath; as to the other candidates, thirty-seven votes were given for Purling and four for James; but the returning officer placed queries against the names of seventy-six of the petitioner Rumbold’s voters, and immediately on the close of the poll declared Purling duly 245 elected. The fourth plea related that in this borough of Shoreham had subsisted for many years a body which had assumed the name of the “Christian Society,” though its organization was quite outside the diffusion of benevolence or Christianity; none but electors for representatives in parliament were admitted into the society, but the great majority of those who had votes were enrolled. A clerk was employed, and a meeting-place provided, where regular monthly and frequent occasional meetings were held, upon which gatherings a flag was hoisted to give notice to the members. About 1767, the members of the society entered into articles for raising and distributing small sums of money for charitable uses, these articles being designed to cover the real intention of the institution. The principal purpose of their meetings was for what they denominated burgessing business. An oath of secrecy was administered to all the members, who farther entered into a bond, under a penalty of five hundred pounds, to bring them all together with regard to burgessing; but otherwise the conditions of the bond were not allowed to appear. Upon any vacancy in the representation of the borough, the society always appointed a committee to treat with the candidates for the purchase of the seat, and the committees were constantly instructed to get the most money and make the best bargain they could; the society had no other purpose in view, and had no standing committee. On a false report of the death of the sitting member, Sir Samuel Cornish, the society was called together by the signal of the flag. On that meeting, which was numerously attended, the members declared that they would support the highest bidder; but some of their number, including Hugh Roberts, the returning officer impeached in the petition, expressed themselves offended at such a declaration, and declared that they were afraid of the consequences, for the society was nothing but a heap of bribery, and withdrew from the body; but two months later, one of these ex-members returning to a meeting of the society, was treated with 246 harsh expressions, and was told he came among them as a spy. The society, however, continued to meet, their gatherings being more frequent near election time. It was said that, on the death of Sir Samuel Cornish, when a vacancy occurred, a committee was appointed to treat for the seat with the incoming candidate, the members of the said committee themselves being careful to abstain from voting, though they were there on the day of election; three days before the polling, the society was reported to be dissolved, in order to escape the odium of proceedings on petition, but that the meetings had been resumed since. In the face of this evidence, Mr. Purling’s counsel acquainted the court “that he could not carry his case further than by the witnesses examined, and could not impeach Mr. Rumbold’s election or affect his votes.” Although this closed the petitioning case, it was resolved that a further inquiry ought to be made into the transactions of the society, and a bill was ordered “to incapacitate certain persons from voting at elections,” together with an address to the king to order the attorney-general to “prosecute certain persons for an illegal and corrupt conspiracy in relation to the late election for Shoreham.” The bill was carried, printed, copies served on the offenders, passed through the House, agreed to by the Lords, and received the royal assent. The returning officer was ordered into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms; he was finally brought to the bar of the House to be reprimanded and discharged.
New Shoreham appears later under the patronage of the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Egremont; the suffrage in 1771, after the extraordinary federation described in the foregoing, was extended to forty-shilling freeholders, “in the rape of Bramber,” in which Shoreham is situated.
R. B. Sheridan, the brilliant but unstable genius,59 sat for Stafford from 1780, until that ill-considered attempt 247 to represent the city of Westminster in the place of his deceased friend, the great Charles James Fox, which completed his financial ruin. “Sherry” was notorious for looseness in his accounts, and it is curious to find one of the few circumstantial statements of election outlays calculated upon this unbusinesslike representative’s borough expenses for the first parliament in which he represented Stafford—always a moderate place, as prices ruled,—Sheridan being brought in chiefly by the influence of the shoemakers, an extensive body there.
| £ | s. | d. | |||||||
| 248 Burgesses paid £5 5s. each | 1302 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| YEARLY EXPENSES SINCE. | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| £ | s. | d. | |||||||
| House Rent and Taxes60 | 23 | 6 | 6 | ||||||
| Servant at 6s per week, Board Wages | 15 | 12 | 0 | ||||||
| Ditto, Yearly Wages | 8 | 8 | 0 | ||||||
| Coals, &c. | 10 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 57 | 6 | 6 | |||||||
| Ale Tickets | 40 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Half the Members’ Plate | 25 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Swearing Young Burgesses | 10 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Subscription to the Infirmary | 5 | 5 | 0 | ||||||
| Do., Clergymen’s Widows | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||||||
| Ringers | 4 | 4 | 0 | ||||||
| 86 | 11 | 0 | |||||||
| class="i4">One year | 143 | 17 | 6 | ||||||
| class="i4">Multiplied by years | 6 | ||||||||
| 863 | 5 | 0 | |||||||
| Total expense of six years’ parliament, exclusive ofexpenses incurred during the time of election and your own annual expenses | £2165 | 5 | 0 | ||||||
In 1806, when R. B. Sheridan was, by a coalition with Sir Samuel Hood, elected for Westminster—a seat lost by him, to his ruin, on the unexpected dissolution the year following,—his son, Tom Sheridan, that “proverbial pickle,” whose love of mischief and readiness of resource were alike remarkable, was offered for election in his gifted father’s place; the reputation of the Sheridans was, however, on the wane, and Tom, though admirable and even unapproachable at the hustings, was hardly endowed with the sterling qualities which should be found in a representative of the people to the Commons. The electors made choice of two Tory candidates, R. M. Phillips (412), and the Hon. E. Monckton (408), leaving but a poor record of votes for Thomas Sheridan (165). An amusing instance is recorded of the good-will of the constituents on this occasion:—
“When Mr. Clifford introduced Mr. R. M. Phillips to the electors—the journeymen shoemakers, as a token of respect, insisted that they should present him with a new hat, which was accordingly done, on the hustings, by a contribution of one penny each.”
Truly an exceptional circumstance, when voters—although expectant to receive—were rarely prepared to bestow, even their “voices,” unless for an adequate consideration!
The first entry into public life of William Pitt, as related by Earl Stanhope, is characteristic of the easy mode of procedure in those days, when a great man had merely to name his friends, and his tenants elected them. “Hitherto,” wrote Sir George Savile in 1780, “I have been elected in Lord Rockingham’s dining-room. Now I am returned by my constituents.” The spirit of the country, it was asserted, was rising at that period, but in 1780, it was still manifest that the territorial magnates and the monopolists of the borough franchises had their “own sweet will.” Pitt’s early friend, the eldest son of that Granby who had been an attached follower of Lord Chatham, had, mindful of this hereditary friendship, sought the acquaintance of William Pitt at the beginning of the latter’s career at Cambridge. Granby was five years Pitt’s senior; he became 249 one of the members for Cambridge University, and in 1779 had the fortune to succeed his grandfather as Duke of Rutland. On Pitt’s coming to London, to commence his career, the young men became intimate, and the warm attachment between them, which continued during the whole of the duke’s life, was the cause of the early advancement of the son of the great Commoner. Owing to the Duke of Rutland’s solicitude to see Pitt in parliament, he spoke upon the subject to Sir James Lowther, another ally of his house, and the owner of most extensive borough influence. Sir James quickly caught the idea, and proposed to avail himself of a double return for one of his boroughs to bring the friend of his friend into parliament. The duke mentioned the offer to Pitt; and Pitt, who was writing on the same day to his mother, Lady Chatham, added a few lines in haste to let her know. But it was not until he had seen Sir James himself that he was able to express his entire satisfaction at the prospect now before him.
“My dear Mother,
“I can now inform you that I have seen Sir James Lowther, who has repeated to me the offer he had before made, and in the handsomest manner. Judging from my father’s principles, he concludes that mine would be agreeable to his own, and on that ground—to me of all others the most agreeable—to bring me in. No kind of condition was mentioned, but that if ever our lines of conduct should become opposite, I should give him an opportunity of choosing another person. On such liberal terms I could certainly not hesitate to accept the proposal, than which nothing could be in any respect more agreeable. Appleby is the place I am to represent, and the election will be made (probably in a week or ten days) without my having any trouble, or even visiting my constituents. I shall be in time to be spectator and auditor at least of the important scene after the holidays. I would not defer confirming to you this intelligence, which I believe you will not be sorry to hear.”
It is added (Dec. 7, 1780),—
“I have not yet received the notification of my election. It will probably not take place till the end of this week, as Sir James Lowther was to settle an election at Haslemere before he went into 250 the north, and meant to be present at Appleby afterwards. The parliament adjourned yesterday, so I shall not take my seat till after the holidays.”
This confidence discloses that such a thing as a contest, let alone a defeat, was not for a moment entertained.
“I propose before long, in spite of politics, to make an excursion for a short time to Lord Westmoreland’s (Althorp, Northamptonshire), and shall probably look at my constituents that should have been, at Cambridge, in my way.”
About three years later, William Pitt, by that time the most conspicuous statesman of his day, and already prime minister of England by the royal will, on the downfall of the coalition, realized his former ambition, and he offered himself successfully for the University of Cambridge. In order to enter for this distinction, Pitt had declined two seats, voluntarily placed at his disposal: when the war-cry arose from the hustings throughout the kingdom, he was put in nomination, without either his knowledge or consent, for the city of London, as usual the first election in point of time; the show of hands was declared to be in the young statesman’s favour, but when apprised of the fact he declined the poll. Such were the honours heaped upon this proud juvenile premier, that he was constantly refusing favours solicitously placed at his acceptance.
“He was pressed,” says Earl Stanhope, “to stand for several other cities and towns, more especially for the city of Bath, which his father had represented, and the king was vexed at his refusal of this offer. But the choice of Pitt was already made. He had determined, as we have seen, to offer himself for the University of Cambridge.”
He held at this time all the state patronage, and, moreover, with the king at his back, he meant mischief to the members of the ministry recently displaced from power by his royal master; and was about to trust to his faculties and the reserve forces he could command for a great electioneering campaign. He found time to write to his friend in Yorkshire:— 251
“Dear Wilberforce,
“Parliament will be prorogued to-day and dissolved to-morrow. The latter operation has been in some danger of delay by a curious manœuvre, that of stealing the Great Seal last night from the Chancellor’s, but we shall have a new one ready in time. I send you a copy of the Speech which will be made in two hours from the Throne. You may speak of it in the past tense, instead of in the future.... I am told Sir Robert Hildyard is the right candidate for the county. You must take care to keep all our friends together, and to tear the enemy to pieces. I set out this evening for Cambridge, where I expect, notwithstanding your boding, to find everything favourable. I am sure, however, to find a retreat at Bath.
Though Pitt had the “good things” to give away he did not escape sarcasm: thus it was suggested—it is said by Paley, who was then at Cambridge—as a fitting text for a university sermon, “There is a lad here which hath five barley loaves and two small fishes; but what are they among so many?”
“The author of this pleasantry,” declares Stanhope, “did not allow for the public temper of the time; in most cases the electors voted without views of personal interest; in some cases they voted even against views of personal interest.”
Pitt was supported by Lord Euston, the heir of the Duke of Grafton, and between them they defeated the late members, the Hon. John Townshend, and James Mansfield, both members of the coalition ministry, the former as lord of the admiralty, the latter as solicitor-general. After a keen contest, Pitt and Lord Euston were returned, Pitt at the head of the poll. It was a marked triumph, and exercised an influence elsewhere; nor was it a fleeting victory or a temporary connection, for Pitt continued to represent the university during the remainder of his life. Pitt, now, as he called himself, “a hardened electioneerer,” entered into the spirit of the warfare, and carried his forces into the strongholds of the Whig estates:—
“But,” writes Earl Stanhope, “of all the contests of this period the most important in that point of view was for the county of York. 252 That great county, not yet at election times severed into Ridings, had been under the sway of the Whig Houses. Bolton Abbey, Castle Howard, and Wentworth Park had claimed the right to dictate at the hustings.”
The spirit of the country in 1784 rose still higher; the independent freeholders of Yorkshire boldly confronted the great Houses, and insisted on returning, in conjunction with the heir of Duncombe Park, a banker’s son, of few years and of scarcely tried abilities, though destined to a high place in his country’s annals—Mr. Wilberforce. With the help of the country gentlemen, they raised the vast sum of £18,662 for the expense of the election (twenty-one years later this “vast sum” would not have produced much effect on the same field, when Wilberforce fought, in 1807, what has been described as the “Austerlitz of electioneering,”—the candidates between them expending above three hundred thousand pounds,—the details of which follow in their chronological sequence); and so great was their show of numbers and of resolution, that the candidates upon the other side did not venture to stand a contest. Wilberforce was also returned at the head of the poll by his former constituents at Hull. “I can never congratulate you enough on such glorious success,” wrote the youthful prime minister to his equally youthful friend. Rank and file, leaders and spokesmen, of the coalition party fell before the masterly tactics of the young chief, who stirred the minds of the people by extreme views as to England’s sinister future (if the Whigs prevailed) menaced with the onslaught of sweeping revolutions, and the destruction of every moderate institution and every safeguard of the state. In this manner, writes Pitt’s biographer, the party of the opposition was scattered beyond rallying. “To use a gambling metaphor,” declares Stanhope, “which Fox would not have disdained, many threw down their cards. Many others played, but lost the rubber.” A witty nickname was commonly applied to them. In allusion to the History, written by John Fox, of the 253 sufferers under the Romish persecution, they were called “Fox’s Martyrs;” and of such martyrs there proved to be no less than one hundred and sixty. Amidst all these reverses, however, Fox’s high courage never quailed. On the 3rd of April, we find him write as follows to a friend: “Plenty of bad news from all quarters, but I think I feel misfortunes when they come thick have the effect rather of rousing my spirits than sinking them;”—as set down by Earl Russell in his “Memorials.”
One of the most remarkable features of the great electioneering contest of 1784 was the fact of the ex-demagogue Wilkes being returned as the ministerial candidate, to Pitt’s pronounced gratification too, for the county of Middlesex. But the ways of statesmen are indeed wonderful and manifold, and Wilkes, the man without prejudices, and equally unburdened by principles, was an expedient ally (though a redoubtable foe). Wilkes, very cleverly and plausibly, upon the score of Pitt’s constant advocacy of Parliamentary Reform, was enabled to press upon the freeholders of the county of Middlesex the advisability of extending their entire support to the “virtuous young Minister,” whose “liberal and enlightened principles promised to advance the best interests of the country.”61
Wilkes having made the most of his patriotism, after being elected lord mayor, and subsequently obtaining the lucrative and permanent office of city chamberlain, now exhibited himself in his true colours—a remarkable instance of tergiversation, disclaiming his own acts, and 254 making no scruple of expressing his contempt for the opinions of his former supporters. On his return for Middlesex in 1784, as one of “the king’s friends,” the democrats represented the king and Wilkes hanged on one tree, with the inscription, “Give justice her claims.” The reconciliation of the “two kings of Brentford” was by no means popular, and the wits were severe on the fresh departure. One of these caricatures, May 1, 1784, is entitled, “The New Coalition.” It represents the King and the ex-archdemagogue fraternally embracing; Wilkes’s cap of liberty is cast to the ground; he declares to his Sovereign, “I now find you are the best of princes.” While great George discovers the erst agitator, his late aversion, “Sure! the worthiest of subjects and most virtuous of men!”
THE NEW COALITION - THE RECONCILIATION OF “THE TWO KINGS OF BRENTFORD.” 1784.
Charles James Fox, the most popular Whig statesman of history, was returned for Midhurst in May, 1769. He was then only nineteen years and four months old; notwithstanding this, he took his seat the November following, thus becoming a member of parliament before he reached the age of twenty. Curiously enough, his first speech, March, 9, 1770, was on a point of order, arising out of the Wilkes case and the disputes of the Middlesex election. In spite of his affected patriotism, Wilkes made a jest of his insincerity: standing on the hustings at Brentford, his opponent said to him, “I will take the sense of the meeting;” to which the pseudo “champion of liberty” responded, “And I will take the nonsense, and we shall see who has the best of it.” In the same way he coolly disavowed his friend and advocate Serjeant Glynn, his colleague for Middlesex, who had fought all his battles through the courts to the hustings, and vice versâ. Some 255 years later, as related by Earl Russell, when the “two kings of Brentford” were excellent friends, and Wilkes, by the irony of fate, became a ministerial candidate, he was received at a levée, when George III., with his habitual practice of asking awkward questions, inquired after Wilkes’s friend, Glynn. “Sire,” said Wilkes, “he is not a friend of mine; he was a Wilkite, which I never was.”
One of the most animated pictures which can be found of the humours of canvassing is that drawn from life by William Cowper, at the time the poet’s mind was influenced to cheerfulness by the company of the lively Lady Austen, who, with the more gravely solicitous Mrs. Unwin, made Olney an halcyon abode. The year the “Task” was published, and while Cowper was touching up his spirited ballad of “John Gilpin,” he has set down the visit of an aspiring young senator, no less than Pitt’s cousin, Mr. W. W. Grenville, who, with a retinue of zealous supporters at his tail, quite “without your leave,” bursts upon the poet’s retirement in pursuit of suffrages; this was at the general election of 1784:— 256
“As, when the sea is uncommonly agitated, the water finds its way into creeks and holes of rocks, which, in its calmer state, it never reaches; in like manner, the effect of these turbulent times is felt even at Orchard Side, where in general we live as undisturbed by the political element as shrimps or cockles that have been accidentally deposited in some hollow beyond the water-mark by the usual dashing of the waves. We were sitting yesterday after dinner, the two ladies and myself, very composedly, and without the least apprehension of any such intrusion, in our snug parlour; one lady knitting, the other netting, and the gentleman winding worsted, when, to our unspeakable surprise, a mob appeared before the window, a smart rap was heard at the door, the boys halloed, and the maid announced Mr. Grenville. ‘Puss’ [Cowper’s tame hare] was unfortunately let out of her box, so that the candidate, with all his good friends at his heels, was refused admission at the grand entry, and referred to the back door as the only possible way of approach. Candidates are not creatures to be very susceptible of affronts, and would rather, I suppose, climb in at the window than be absolutely excluded. In a minute, the yard, the kitchen, and the parlour were filled. Mr. Grenville, advancing towards me, shook me by the hand with a degree of cordiality that was extremely seducing. As soon as he, and as many more as could find chairs, were seated, he began to open the intent of his visit. I told him I had no vote, for which he readily gave me credit. I assured him I had no influence, which he was not equally inclined to believe, and the less, no doubt, because Mr. Ashburner, the draper, addressing himself to me at this moment, informed me that I had a great deal. Supposing that I could not be possessed of such a treasure without knowing it, I ventured my first assertion by saying that, if I had any, I was utterly at a loss to imagine where it could be, or wherein it consisted. Thus ended the conference. Mr. Grenville squeezed me by the hand again, kissed the ladies and withdrew. He kissed likewise the maid in the kitchen, and seemed, upon the whole, a most loving, kissing, kind-hearted gentleman. He is very young, genteel, and handsome. He has a pair of very good eyes in his head, which not being sufficient, as it should seem, for the many nice and difficult purposes of a senator, he has a third also, which he wore suspended by a riband from his button-hole. The boys hallooed, the dogs barked, ‘Puss’ scampered, the hero with his long train of obsequious followers withdrew. We made ourselves very merry with the adventure, and, in a short time, settled into our former tranquillity, never probably to be thus interrupted more.”
It may be added that this persuasive young politician, W. W. Grenville, succeeded in securing his return at the top of the poll for the county of Buckinghamshire in 1784, as Pitt wrote to James Grenville (Lord Glastonbury)—“William was safe.”
A MOB-REFORMER. 1780. 257
The excitement caused by Wilkes’s election for Middlesex in 1768 was forgotten in the great Westminster contest of 1784. Although on each occasion the conflicts were in opposition to those ministerial interests which enlisted the Crown, the courtiers, and the following of placemen, state pensioners, with both branches of the service upon the Tory side in antagonism to popular rights and the freedom of election, in both instances of overstrained influence the Government had to submit to the mortification of defeat. The circumstances preceding the Westminster election were exceptional. The Fox and North Coalition Administration had, by an overstrained exercise of the royal prerogative, through a “back-stair” Court intrigue, and by defiantly unconstitutional means on the part of the king, lost their hold on power, temporarily—as they then supposed—but, as subsequent events proved, beyond recall.
Fox had introduced his vast measure of reform for the reconstitution of our Eastern Empire. Passed by the majority commanded by the Coalition Ministry in the Commons, the Bill was—in direct deference to the king’s written instructions, freely heralded about—thrown out on the second reading in the Lords. Fox was feared by the king and the East India Company alike; it was apprehended that the great “Carlo Khan” was but beginning the work of revolution, and that all charters would be in equal jeopardy if that of the East India House was 258 allowed to be revised. The wealth of the company was put into requisition to hurl from power the ministers who dared to legislate for the administration of the huge empire confided to their government; and the king chiefly aimed at the dismissal of the great Whig chief, against whom an unreasonable prejudice long continued to exist in the royal mind. On Fox’s defeat it was left to Lord Temple to constitute an administration which should satisfy the king; but although this juncture brought William Pitt to the front, it was found impossible to carry on the business of the country, the ministry, too weak to divide, being beaten on every measure introduced by their rivals; finally, the opposition majority carried the following damaging resolution by nineteen votes:—
“That it is the opinion of this House that the continuance of the present ministry in power is an obstacle to the formation of such an administration as is likely to have the confidence of this House and the people.”
An address to the king in the same spirit was passed, and similar motions and addresses were repeated until parliament was prorogued with a discontented speech from the throne, and it was dissolved on the day following, March 25, 1874; thus ending for the time this threatening contest between the Crown and the most important part of the legislature, and transferring the arena of conflict to the hustings. By the royal will, Pitt, though only in his twenty-fifth year, was established as Prime Minister of England, uniting in himself the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; his colleagues being those already known as “the king’s friends,” or youthful aspirants to power willing to tread in their steps. At the elections, the opposition laboured under the disadvantage of leaving the patronage of administration in the hands of their antagonists, and though the contests were obstinate, the Court influence and the king’s name, which was used openly in defiance 259 of the privileges of parliament, secured a majority of seats at once, confirming the apprehensions of the Whig party, and fixing Pitt in security at the pinnacle of power. Horace Walpole has pictured the feelings of the day:—
“The Court struck a blow at the Ministers, but it was the gold of the East India Company, that nest of monsters (which Fox’s Bill was to demolish), that really conjured up the storm, and has diffused it all over England. On the other hand Mr. Pitt has braved the majority of the House of Commons, has dissolved the existent one, and, I doubt, given a wound to that branch of the legislature, which, if the tide does not turn, may be very fatal to the constitution. The nation is intoxicated, and has poured in addresses of thanks to the Crown for exerting the prerogative against the palladium of the people. The first consequence will probably be, that the Court will have a considerable majority upon the new Elections.”
The aversion to the late Coalition Ministry was turned to account by the Court; the elections showed the opposition, so strong before the dissolution, in a woeful minority; the great Whig families, Horace Walpole wrote—
“have lost all credit in their own counties; nay, have been tricked out of seats where the whole property was their own; and, in some of those cases, a Royal finger has too evidently tampered, as well as singularly and revengefully towards Lord North and Lord Hertford.... Such a proscription, however, must have sown so deep resentment as it was not wise to provoke, considering that permanent fortune is a jewel that in no Crown is the most to be depended upon.”
The Westminster election of 1784 was an event of importance in the political history of the last century; it was the only serious check that the Court encountered in the attempt to return a subservient House of Commons; and circumstances combined to render it the most remarkable struggle of the kind that has been witnessed. The metropolis was kept in a state of ebullition for weeks; the poll was opened on April 1st, and continued without intermission until May 17th. During this time, Covent Garden and the Strand were the scenes of daily combats between the rival mobs; the papers were filled with squibs of the most personal nature, according to their respective sides in 260 politics, and hundreds of pictorial satires appeared on every incident, and embodying all the successive stages of the struggle. Rowlandson, who entered with spirit into the contest, chiefly in the Foxite interests, alone produced on an average a fresh caricature every day; the best of these are reproduced in the life of the caricaturist, and a selection of these subjects, from the work in question, are given among the present illustrations of the subject. The representatives of Westminster in the previous parliament were Fox and Sir Brydges Rodney. Sir Cecil Wray, lately a follower of the Whig party, had been nominated for the last parliament by the Whig chief, but on this occasion Wray ungratefully deserted his political leader, and was put forward as the ministerial nominee. The king and Court had resolved to exert every influence to cause Fox’s defeat on personal grounds. Admiral Lord Hood was also a Court candidate, but it was Wray who was more especially held forth as the antagonist of the “Man of the People.” The political apostate was stigmatized as “Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his master.” Other charges against him were certain proposals he is said to have made for the suppression of Chelsea Hospital and a project for a tax upon maid-servants; to these were added the general cries against his supporters of attempting an undue elevation of the prerogative, and also against the prevalent “back-stair” influence.
Against Fox was raised the odium of the coalition with Lord North, and his attack on the East India Company’s charter was represented as but the commencement of a general invasion of chartered rights of corporate bodies. The Prince of Wales interested himself warmly in favour of Fox, to the extreme provocation of the king and queen; it was declared that the prince had canvassed in person, and that the members of his household were actively engaged in promoting the success of the Whig chief. The exertions of the Court were extraordinary; almost hourly intelligence was conveyed to the king, who is said to have been affected 261 in the most evident manner by every change in the state of the poll. Threats and promises were freely made in the royal name, the old illegalities were revived, members of the king’s household claimed votes, and on one occasion two hundred and eighty of the Guards were sent in a body to give their votes as householders—an ill-advised manœuvre, upon which, as Horace Walpole declared, his father, Sir Robert, would not have dared to venture in the most quiet seasons. All dependents on the Court were commanded to vote on the same side as the soldiers. When Fox’s friends, the popular party, protested against this unconstitutional interference, their opponents retaliated by charging the Foxites with bribery, and with resorting to improper influences of extravagant kinds. Beyond the unpopularity of relying upon Court patronage and the imputations of “wearing two faces under a Hood,” and being “a Greenwich pensioner,” Admiral Lord Hood escaped; the most bitter party and personal attacks were made upon Wray. At the beginning of the election, Hood had brought up a large contingent of sailors, or, as the opposition alleged, chiefly hired ruffians dressed in sailors’ clothes; these desperadoes surrounded the hustings, and intimidated Fox’s friends, and even hindered those who attempted to register votes in favour of the Whig chief; they grew uproarious as the poll progressed, and, parading the streets, assaulted Fox’s partisans, made conspicuous by displaying his “true blue” favours; they also attacked the Shakespeare Tavern, where his committee met, when, threatening to wreck the house, they were beaten off by the inmates. After a reign of terror, which was endured for four days without organized resistance, the sailor mob encountered a rival faction—entitled the “honest mob” by the opposition newspapers,—these were the hackney chairmen, a numerous body, chiefly Irishmen, almost unanimous in their support of Fox; these, with hearty will, basted the sailors, breaking heads and fracturing bones in the neighbourhood of Covent Garden. The sailors thence proceeded to St. James’s, 262 where the chairmen chiefly plied for hire, to wreak vengeance on their chairs; but the Irishmen beat them again and the Guards quelled the riot. The day following, both parties were reinforced. The sailors, vowing vengeance, left the hustings to intercept Fox on his way to Westminster to canvass; but he luckily managed to elude them, and escaped into a private house. The sailor mob returned to Covent Garden, where they encountered the “honest mob,” the chairmen being joined by a multitude of butchers, brewers’ men, and others. A series of pitched battles ensued, the sailors were defeated at each renewal of the fighting, and, finally, many of their number being carried off to hospitals severely injured, the popular rival mob was left in possession of the field. Special constables were now introduced at the instance of the justices of the peace, who were in the Court interest, to surround the places where Hood and Wray’s committees met, and these behaved in a manner so hostile to Fox’s party, going about impeding and insulting Liberal voters, and shouting “No Fox,” that their presence provoked a fresh outbreak. On the approach of the “honest mob,” heralded by the sounds of the marrow-bones and cleavers, the insurrectionary signal, the constables made an attack, in which one of their own body was knocked down and killed by fellow-constables by mistake in the heat of the scuffle.
In Rowlandson’s pictorial versions of the different stages of this famous election, the public were first excited against the Coalition Ministry, lately thrown out of office as described. “They Quarter their Arms” represents the contracting parties, Fox and Badger, united to share the Treasury spoils, and battening on the victimized John Bull; it was “money” which made the Coalition Wedding:—
263
The downfall of the Coalition was pictured as “Britannia Aroused; or, the Coalition Ministers Destroyed,” in which Fox and North are figuratively reaping the reward of iniquity.
THE COALITION WEDDING—THE FOX (C. J. FOX) AND THE BADGER (LORD NORTH) QUARTER THEIR ARMS ON JOHN BULL. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
264
BRITANNIA AROUSED, OR THE COALITION MONSTERS DESTROYED. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
“These were your Ministers.”
The astute young premier, whose youth at this time was alleged as his chief crime, began to bid for “loyal addresses,” and other servile expressions, to condone the rash experiments recently attempted upon the constitution. With this view he cultivated the citizens, and, being presented with the “Freedom of the City,” he was entertained by the Grocers’ Company as the son of that famous Earl of Chatham, the greatest friend of the rights of the people; it was expected he would be equally steadfast in defending popular freedom:—
In “Master Billy’s Procession to Grocers’ Hall” the adulation of the multitude is offered to the “charming youth,” who is declared to be “very like his father;” the gold box is carried before, and the voluntary slaves who are harnessed to his chariot are shouting for “Pitt and Prerogative.”
Before the dissolution (March 25th), Pitt’s ministerial manœuvres were already patent to all. The king had determined, with the obstinacy of purpose which characterized the royal mind, that he would endure any sacrifice rather than sanction the return of the members of the late Coalition Ministry to power; in the face of this eventuality, he even threatened, it is stated, to retire to Hanover, but, in the meanwhile, no effort was spared to obviate this embarrassing emergency. Places and pensions were freely employed as baits to detach followers of Fox and North. 265 A pictorial version of the situation, as given by Rowlandson, represents the extensive “ratting” system and its modus operandi, under the title of “The Apostate Jack Robinson, the Political Rat-catcher. N.B. Rats taken alive!”
T. ROWLANDSON: MASTER BILLY’S PROCESSION TO GROCERS’ HALL—PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—PITT PRESENTED WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE CITY, 1784.
T. ROWLANDSON: THE APOSTATE JACK ROBINSON, THE POLITICAL RAT-CATCHER. 1784.
Jack Robinson, as “Rat-catcher to Great Britain,” is equipped for his delicate task with a supply of baits, lures, and traps; round his waist is the “Cestus of Corruption,” in his pocket is a small aide-de-camp, who is made to exclaim, “We’ll ferret them out!” On his back is a double trap, baited with coronets and places; he is cautiously proceeding on all fours, along the Treasury floor, where “vermin” are “preserved;” the rats to be captured are toying with the gold laid down to attract them. To the nose of one veteran, whose face resembles the spectacled visage of Edmund Burke, is held a large bait of “pension,” which is regarded wistfully by other rats assembled. Under the heading of “Rats of Note,” a placard on the wall announces the list of political apostates who have been captured. No concealment was attempted, for we find in the pages of the Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, for February 10, 1784, an advertisement, under the simple heading of “Jack Robinson,” with a woodcut representing a string of rats, such as might preface a common rat-catcher’s announcement, giving the names of twenty-two parliamentary rats already decoyed from their party allegiance to go over to the good pickings the king was able to hold out. This curious notification is repeated on the Treasury wall, shown in Rowlandson’s pictorial view of the corruption abroad, as a preparation for the coming elections.
The dramatis personæ of the great performance at the Covent Garden hustings are exhibited as 266“The Rival Candidates:” “Themistocles,” Lord Hood; “Demosthenes,” Fox; “Judas Iscariot,” Sir Cecil Wray.
HONEST SAM HOUSE, THE PATRIOTIC PUBLICAN, CANVASSER FOR FOX.
One of the most enthusiastic partisans of Fox, and second only to his fair friends, the ladies of the Whig aristocracy, in popular influence, was “Honest Sam House,” the publican, remarkable for his oddity and for his political zeal, who during the election not only canvassed with admirable tact, but throughout the contest kept open house at his own expense, and was honoured with the presence of many of the Whig aristocracy.
The fact that the public was being treated to the excitement of perhaps the most momentous and embittered, if not the hardest-fought election on record, is shown in Rowlandson’s version of the Covent Garden Hustings, round which is assembled a crowd of persons who are being addressed from the platform, whereon stands one of the ministerial candidates, Admiral Lord Hood, who is made to announce his intention of carrying “two faces under a Hood!” This caricature is a pointed comment 267 upon the Court manœuvres, and exposes those royal tactics which had already demoralized the allies of the defunct Coalition Ministry. Major John Cartwright—the consistent and energetic advocate of reform, of which he was one of the most valorous pioneers—is made the mouth-piece of the artist’s satirical strictures, while endorsing those views held by “The Drum-Major of Sedition” (March 29, 1784), as the liberty-loving major, who remained conspicuous in the foremost ranks of reformers all his days, was entitled by his adversaries. A strongly ironical tendency characterizes the speech, which may be regarded as a tolerably pungent electioneering squib:—
Themistocles. |
Demosthenes. |
Judas Iscariot. |
T. ROWLANDSON: THE RIVAL CANDIDATES—GREAT WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1784.
MAJOR CARTWRIGHT, THE DRUM-MAJOR OF SEDITION.
“All gentlemen and other electors for Westminster who are ready and willing to surrender their rights and those of their fellow-citizens to secret influence and the Lords of the Bedchamber, let them repair to the prerogative standard, lately erected at the Cannon Coffee House, where they shall be kindly received—until their services are no longer wanted. This, gentlemen, is the last time of asking, as we are determined to abolish the power of the House of Commons, and in future be governed by Prerogative, as they are in France and Turkey. Gentlemen, the ambition of the enemy is now evident. Has he not, within these few days past, stole the Great Seal of England” (this had actually occurred, the great seal being mysteriously carried off on the eve of the dissolution, which had to be postponed until another seal could be made to replace the missing instrument) 268“while the Chancellor62 was taking a bottle with a female favourite, as all great men do? I am informed, gentlemen, that the enemy now assumes Regal Authority, and, by virtue of the Great Seal (which he stole), is creating of Peers and granting of pensions. A most shameful abuse, gentlemen, of that instrument. If you assist us to pull down the House of Commons, every person who hears me has a chance of becoming a great man, if he is happy enough to hit the fancy of Lord Bute and of Mr. Jenkinson.63 Huzza! God save the King!”
Pitt’s valour, then deemed intemperate, in taking up the reins of office by “the royal will,” and thereby jockeying the discomfited ex-Coalition Ministry, is commented upon by Rowlandson in the course of his numerous caricatures on the great Westminster election. “The Hanoverian Horse and the British Lion; a scene in a new play, lately acted at Westminster with distinguished applause. Act ii., scene last” (March 31, 1784), is a version intended to be prophetic of the end, a view then warranted by circumstances, but one falsified by the results of the general election, which consolidated the power in Pitt’s hands, and completely left the opposition “out in the cold!” a surprise by no means anticipated at the date of the cartoon in question. The Parliament-house is shown as the arena of this constitutional tournament, and the faithful Commons are victimized by the aggressive tendencies of Pitt’s steed; the White Horse of Hanover is trampling upon “Magna Charta,” the “Bill of Rights,” and mangling the “Constitution.” Pitt, a remarkably light and boyish jockey, is exciting the brute, who is neighing, “Pre-ro-ro-ro-ro-rogative” with vicious energy. The youthful premier is enjoying the capers of his mount: “Bravo! go it again; I love to ride a mettle steed. Send the vagabonds packing.” The heels of the White Horse are effectually scaring the members and making a clearance. The British Lion has descended from his familiar post as a supporter of the royal ’scutcheon over the Speaker’s chair; in the vacant space lately occupied by the British Lion is the announcement, “We shall resume our situation here at pleasure.—Leo Rex.” The sturdy figure of the Whig Chief is safely mounted upon the British Lion, who is keeping a watchful 269 eye upon his Hanoverian rival, while protesting, “If this horse is not tamed, he will soon be absolute king of our forest.” Fox has entered on the scene of conflict, armed for the encounter with bit, bridle, and a stout riding-whip, to tame and control the uproarious White Horse; he is volunteering advice to his upstart rival, “Prithee, Billy, dismount before ye get a fall—and let some abler jockey take your seat!” Fox was reckoning without his “Martyrs,” which the results of the election were destined to create on an unprecedented scale, as this review will show. The reverse was shortly to be realized, as set down pictorially by Rowlandson. The poll was opened April 1, and three days later appeared a version of Fox as “The Incurable,” in a strait-waistcoat, and with straw in his hair, singing:—
T. ROWLANDSON: THE HANOVERIAN HORSE AND THE BRITISH LION. MARCH, 1784.
The royal physician, Dr. Munro, is examining the patient through his eye-glass, and attesting, “As I have not the least hope of his recovery, let him be removed amongst the Incurables.”
The most active and successful of Fox’s canvassers was undoubtedly the Duchess of Devonshire, who, by the influence of her personal charms and her winning affability, succeeded in procuring for the Whig chief votes which would never have otherwise been polled in his favour. It was of the beautiful and winsome Georgiana Spencer, that Hannay said the Spencers had laid the world under further obligations by sending forth a second “Fairy Queen,” and it was the Westminster Election of 1784 which first brought 270 into celebrity this gay and graceful leader of fashion, who, by universal suffrage, was the Queen of the Foxites. In the earlier stages Fox was behind both his opponents, and although Cecil Wray had only a small majority, Fox was at his last gasp. The story is told in Wraxall’s “Posthumous Memoirs” by an eye-witness of the incidents:—
THE DEVONSHIRE, OR MOST APPROVED MANNER OF SECURING VOTES. 1784. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
“The party were driven to new resources, and the Duchess of Devonshire restored the fates of the Whig champion. The progress of the canvass thenceforward is amusing. The entire of the voters for Westminster having been exhausted, the only hope was in exciting the suburbs. The Duchess instantly ordered out her equipage, and with her sister, the Countess of Duncannon, drove, polling list in hand, to the houses of the voters. Entreaties, ridicule, civilities, influence of 271 all kinds were lavished on these rough legislators; and the novelty of being solicited by two women of rank and remarkable fashion, took the popular taste universally. The immediate result was, that they gallantly came to the poll, and Fox, who had been a hundred behind Sir Cecil, speedily left him a hundred behind in return. An imperfect attempt was made on the hostile side to oppose this new species of warfare by similar captivation, and Lady Salisbury was moved to awake the dying fortunes of the Government candidate. But the effort failed; it was imitation, it was too late; and the Duchess was six-and-twenty, and Lady Salisbury thirty-four! These are reasons enough, and more than enough for the rejection of any man from the hustings.”
The Tories were furious at the success of the duchess, who, attended by several beauties of the Whig aristocracy, and, among others, by the fascinating Lady Carlisle, carried all before her; another rival canvasser, in addition to the “Diana of Hatfield,” was set up in the person of the Hon. Mrs. Hobart, Lady Buckinghamshire, of “Pic-nic” fame, who, though “fat and fair,” was under “forty,” and remarkably volatile, but, being of portly figure, this dashing lady, a connection of Pitt’s, was by the opposition nicknamed “Madame Blubber,” and the caricaturists, who represent her as canvassing for Hood and Wray, with a weighty purse by way of inducement, make the electors on whom she has tried her persuasive powers unanimous in asserting “I’m engaged to the Duchess.” Mrs. Hobart was, however, looked upon as a rival of the gracious Georgiana, and many satirical shafts, both by verse and picture, were launched at her full-blown charms. Balloons, as novelties at that time, were exciting a share of attention, and Madame Blubber as the “Ærostatic Dilly,” was, as a 272 balloon “launched at Richmond Park,” shown in mid-air, convoying to the hustings outlying and dependent voters.
Walpole wrote under date, April 13th:—
“Mr. Fox has all the popularity in Westminster; and, indeed, is so amiable and winning that, could he have stood in person all over England, I question whether he would not have carried the parliament. The beldams hate him; but most of the pretty women in England are indefatigable in making interest for him; the Duchess of Devonshire in particular. I am ashamed to say how coarsely she has been received by some worse than tars. But nothing has shocked me so much as what I heard this morning. At Dover, they roasted a poor fox alive by the most diabolical allegory—a savage meanness that an Iroquois could not have committed!” “During her canvass the Duchess made no scruple of visiting the humblest of the electors, dazzling and enchanting them by the fascination of her manner, the power of her beauty and the influence of her high rank, and sometimes carrying off to the hustings the meanest mechanic in her own carriage.”
“The Duchess of Devonshire,” writes Lord Cornwallis, on the 19th of April, “is indefatigable in her canvass for Fox. She was in the most blackguard houses in Long Acre by eight o’clock this morning.”
The fact of the duchess having purchased the vote of an impracticable butcher by a kiss is said to be unquestionable. It was on one of these occasions that the well-known compliment is said to have been made her by an Irish mechanic, “I could light my pipe at your eyes.”
Of great beauty and unconquerable spirit, she tried all her powers of persuasion on the shopkeepers of Westminster, as Earl Stanhope declares in his “Life of Pitt”:— 273
“Other ladies, who could not rival her beauty, might at least follow her example. Scarce a street or alley which they did not canvass on behalf of him whom they persisted in calling the ‘Man of the People,’ at the very moment when the popular voice was declaring against him.”
Pitt and his royal patron were, however, exerting every method to secure the downfall of the redoubtable “Carlo Khan.” Up to the third day of the polling, “Fox was in a minority, notwithstanding the immense exertions that were made on his behalf. The Ministerial Party,” according to the statement of their own historians, “were sanguine in the hope of wresting from him the greatest and most enlightened, as it was then considered, of all the represented boroughs of England.” Pitt’s proud spirit was roused at the obstinacy of the contest, and, unlike his more magnanimous if not greater rival, he lost patience with his opponents; in a strain of acrimonious pleasantry he wrote to Wilberforce, “Westminster goes on well in spite of the Duchess of Devonshire and the other Women of the People, but when the poll will close is uncertain;” this was on the seventh day of the poll, and Pitt then little dreamt of its running for forty days uninterruptedly. By the 23rd of April, the premier was evidently losing temper, and the strain of electioneering was becoming tenser, as appears from a letter written to his cousin, James Grenville, afterwards Lord Glastonbury:—
“My dear Sir,
“Admiral Hood tells me he left Lord Nugent at Bath, disposed to come to town if a vote at Westminster should be material. I think from the state of the poll it may be very much so. There is no doubt, I believe, of final success on a scrutiny, if we are driven to it; but it is a great object to us to carry the return for both in the first instance, and on every account as great an object to Fox to prevent it. It is uncertain how long the poll will continue, but pretty clear it cannot be over till after Monday. If you will have the goodness to state these circumstances to Lord Nugent, and encourage his good designs, we shall be very much obliged to you; and still more, should neither health nor particular engagements detain you, if, besides prevailing upon him, you could give your own personal assistance. At all events 274 I hope you will forgive my troubling you, and allow for the importunity of a hardened electioneerer.... Mainwaring and Wilkes are considerably ahead in Middlesex, and Lord Grimston has come in, instead of Halsey, for Herts.”
Pitt further alludes to W. W. Grenville, his cousin, “the kissing young gentleman” who visited Cowper in the course of his canvass, “I have not yet heard the event of Bucks, but William was safe, and, by the first day’s poll, Aubrey’s prospect seems very good.” John Aubrey was returned second, and William Grenville was at the head of the poll.
Fox’s prospects were gradually improved as concerned his own seat at Westminster; but the slaughter amongst his followers was altogether unexampled, the muster-roll of “Fox’s Martyrs” grew ominously longer as each election was determined. On the twenty-third day of the polling at Covent Garden the Whig chief passed Sir Cecil Wray, and continued to advance until the fortieth, when, by law, the contest closed. On the 17th of May, the poll stood—Lord Hood, 6,694; Fox, 6,237; Sir Cecil Wray, 5,998.
“There was,” writes Earl Stanhope, “strong reason, however, to suspect many fraudulent practices in the previous days, since it seemed clear that the total number of votes recorded was considerably beyond the number of persons entitled to the franchise. For this reason Sir Cecil Wray at once demanded a scrutiny, and the High Bailiff—illegally, as Fox contended—granted the request. But further still, the High Bailiff, Mr. Corbett, who was no friend to Fox, refused to make any legal return until this scrutiny should be decided. Thus Westminster was left for the present destitute of Representatives, and Fox would have been without a seat in the new Parliament but for the friendship of Sir Thomas Dundas, through which he had been already returned the member for the close boroughs of Kirkwall.”
Gallant Whig poetasters were rapturous in their praises of the fair canvassers who were making such havoc in the Tory ranks.
THE WIT’S LAST STAKE; OR, THE COBBLING VOTER AND ABJECT CANVASSERS. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
275
The Tories in their annoyance resorted to libels of the most ungallant and ungenerous order; they accused the duchess of wholesale bribery, and reported that she had in one instance bought the vote of a butcher with a kiss, a rumour which was immediately seized by the whimsical wits for the basis of endless exaggerations. “The Devonshire, or Most Approved Method of Securing Votes” embodies the butcher episode. The practice of claiming some slight service, rewarded at election times with extravagant liberality, as a subterfuge for bribery, is shown 276 in the duchess engaging an elector to put a stitch in her shoe, and illustrated as “The Wit’s Last Stake; or, the Cobbling Voter and Abject Canvassers.”
Besides “The Devonshire, or Most Approved Method of Securing Votes,” two caricatures appeared on the 12th of April from Rowlandson’s prolific graver: one, exhibiting the struggle between the fair canvassers arrayed in rivalry at Covent Garden hustings, under the symbol of “The Poll:” a balancing plank, whereon the beauteous Georgiana “Devon’s Queen,” is elevated high in the air, while her stouter rival, the Hon. Mrs. Hobart (Lady Buckinghamshire), is overweighing her extremely. Above the heads of the group, which includes the rival candidates, Fox, Hood, and Wray, flutters a placard, “The Rival Candidates, a Farce.” Against Wray was revived, in allusion to the Court patronage under which he was fighting, the well-worn cry of “Slavery and wooden shoes,” and much stress was laid on the extreme measure of polling the Guards as householders; in reference to the two hundred and eighty votes given by soldiers at one time in a body—an astounding manœuvre, which shocked constitutional minds—appeared the placard:—
“All Horse Guards, Grenadier Guards, Foot Guards, and Black-Guards, that have not polled for the destruction of Chelsea Hospital and the Tax on Maidservants are desired to meet at the Gutter Hole, opposite the Horse Guards, where they will have a full bumper of knock-me-down and plenty of soap-suds, before they go to the poll for Sir Cecil Wray or eat. N.B.—Those who have no shoes or stockings may come without, there being a quantity of wooden shoes provided for them.”
A further presentment of the famous canvassing duchess, whose prominence at the great Westminster election of 1784 gave her such universal and lasting celebrity, is offered by Rowlandson in a fanciful domestic interior at Devonshire House, where the favoured candidate, Fox, and his staunch and invaluable ally, “brave Sammy House,” are introduced as “Lords of the Bedchamber” 277 (April 14, 1784). In the caricaturist’s highly imaginary version, the duchess is entertaining the pair with a cup of tea in her boudoir; above her hangs the Reynolds portrait of her liege-lord. Sam House, in his publican’s jacket, otherwise attired in that neat costume which became historical, is stirring the cup “that cheers but not inebriates” with an air of supreme contentment, while Fox is patting, in friendly familiarity, the no less remarkable completely bald head of his indefatigable supporter by way of encouragement.
Sam House. Fox. Duchess of Devonshire.
LORDS OF THE BEDCHAMBER. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
Fox. Hood. Wray.
THE WESTMINSTER WATCHMAN. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
The third plate, “The Westminster Watchman,” is inscribed—
“To the Independent Electors of Westminster, this Print of their staunch old watchman, the guardian of their rights and privileges, is dedicated by a grateful Elector. N.B.—Beware of Counterfeits, as the Greenwich and Chelsea Watchmen are upon the look-out!”
Fox is standing firm, with his cap of “Liberty;” and the lamp of “Truth” is shedding its light around, the Whig chief is unmoved by the storm of “ministerial thunderbolts;” a trusty dog, “Vigilance,” is by his side; the “Counterfeits” are shuffling off, Hood for Greenwich, and Wray for Chelsea.
The ballads, epigrams, and poetical jeux d’esprit to which the circumstances of this famous contest gave birth are sufficiently numerous to fill a volume. The rhymsters on both sides were evidently resolved to do their best: many of the lyrics and “squibs” are worthy of preservation; they are as a rule far above the average compositions evoked upon similar occasions. The tuneful songster, Captain Morris, wrote many of the most graceful and witty “impromptus” and verses. The bards of “Opposition” were severe upon the Court influence exerted against Fox’s cause, and justly exposed some of the manœuvres resorted to by Pitt’s adherents.
It was the old story of intimidation, undue influence, and coercion, as practised at the Westminster elections for the best part of a century. The scene of the hustings is thus sketched:—
Allusions to the machinations of “the King’s Friends” were abundant:—
The countenance shown to Fox by the youthful rank, fashion, and wealth of the day excited the bitterness of Tory rhymsters. The active partisanship of the Prince of Wales was a source of caustic recrimination and envy:— 279
Arrayed on the Whig chief’s side was all the beauty and grace of fair and fascinating wives and daughters of the Whig aristocracy, a bevy of lovely political Circes, whose enchantments were all potent:—
280
Walpole’s lovely nieces, the three Ladies Waldegrave, added the influence of their charms to those of the winsome Georgiana, and were gallantly apostrophized with “Devon’s Queen:”—
The influence of this novel captivation upon the hearts of those so happy as to be admitted to the electoral franchise acted like magic:—
The compliments poured forth at the altar of this fair divinity were not alone addressed to the beauty of her face, the grace of her person, the excellence of her heart, and her captivating manners,—her intellectual charms also secured due recognition:—
| Fox. | Wray. | Hood. |
THE CASE IS ALTERED. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
281
Although every concession was made to the empire of Beauty, many of the verses were slyly sarcastic, while some of the caricatures were strongly coloured by the uncompromising coarseness of the age:—
As an antidote to the bitterness there was, however, a surfeit of “sweets:”—
The turn of affairs which placed Fox in a majority over Sir Cecil Wray, who for some time was in advance of the Whig chief, is summed up by Rowlandson, amongst other caricaturists, as “The Case is altered” (April 29, 1784). 282 The election had nearly another three weeks to run, but already the satirists were forecasting the result. Fox, be it remembered, had other resources in reserve, and, at the close of the poll, when Wray demanded a scrutiny, and the high bailiff illegally declined to make his return, he was seated for Kirkwall. In the caricaturist’s version, the election has already settled Wray’s chances, and Fox is magnanimously driving off his defeated opponent, and late dependent, to Lincoln: the ministerial candidate is travelling, “without drums or trumpets,” smuggled away from the exciting platform of the hustings, in the “Lincolnshire caravan for paupers;” he is buried in self-contemplation,—“I always was a poor dog, but now I am worse than ever.” The generous Fox, charioteering his renegade protégé, is volunteering, “I will drive you to Lincoln, where you may superintend the small beer and brickdust.” Lord Hood’s majority was safe at the head of the poll,—for no reason which history has made manifest; he is pictured as suddenly surprising the degrading pauper-conveyance, and, in compassion for his late colleague, is exclaiming, much moved at these reverses, “Alas, poor Wray!”
MAN HAS HIS HOBBY-HORSE—FOX AND THE DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE.
The doings of the Duchess of Devonshire, her sister, Lady Duncannon, and their fair following of female canvassers are pictorially treated by the caricaturist in his version of “The Procession to the Hustings after a Successful Canvass,” in which a select group of outlying voters, secured after much exertion, are seen conducted in triumph, and with “rough music,” to the polling-place. The circumstance that, chiefly owing to the opportune assistance of the Duchess, Fox was placed second on the poll was 283 commemorated in “Every Man has his Hobby-horse.” Fox may truly be said to have been carried into the House of Commons by his fair coadjutor.
THE PROCESSION TO THE HUSTINGS AFTER A SUCCESSFUL CANVASS. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
The fact that Wray—who, as a double “Renegado,” shortly rejoined the Whigs—appears to have gained but scant sympathy, was defeated and done for, is turned to satirical account in a travestied view of Fox, North, and the Duchess—the latter wearing a foxtail in her hat—“For the Benefit of the Champion.—A Catch, to be performed at the New Theatre, Covent Garden. For admission apply to the Duchess. N.B.—Gratis to those who wear large tails;” the lady is pointing to a headstone put up in memory of “Poor Cecil Wray, Dead and turned to Clay.”
| Duchess of Devonshire. | Charles James Fox. | Lord North. |
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHAMPION—A CATCH. DEFEAT OF THE MINISTERIAL CANDIDATE, SIR CECIL WRAY, WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1784. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
“Oh! help Judas, lest he fall into the Pitt of Ingratitude!!!
“The prayers of all bad Christians, Heathens, Infidels, and Devil’s Agents, are most earnestly requested for their dear friend Judas Iscariot, Knight of the back-stairs, lying at the period of political dissolution, having received a dreadful wound from the exertions of the lovers of liberty and the constitution, in the poll of the last ten days at the Hustings, nigh unto the Place of Cabbages.”
The fate of Wray, with Fox reinstated in his seat for 284 Westminster, and the concluding election scenes at Covent Garden are figured in “The Westminster Deserter Drumm’d out of the Regiment.” Sam House, with his perfectly bald head, and dressed in the clean and natty nankeen jacket and trousers, his invariable wear summer and winter, is drumming Wray off the stage: “May all Deserters feel Public Resentment”—is the sentiment of both the indignant Chelsea veterans and buxom maid-servants to whom Wray’s projects had given mortal offence. “The Man of the People” is planting the standard of Liberty and Britannia, and acknowledging his gratitude to his supporters with simple fervour—“Friends and fellow-citizens, I cannot find words to express my feelings to you on the victory.”
Finally, as an apotheosis of the fair champion who had contributed most of all to the success and glory of the triumph over the Court, Rowlandson etched the allegorical picture of “Liberty and Fame introducing Female Patriotism to Britannia.”
At the close of the poll, Fox was 235 votes ahead of Wray, but, as related, the high bailiff, Corbett, acting partially, refused to return him on the plea that a scrutiny had been demanded; Fox was also a candidate for Kirkwall, so that, in case of defeat at Westminster he might still have a seat.
At the end of the election there was an immense crowd collected for the chairing of Fox. A classic car was prepared, an improvement on the perilous glory of being hoisted on the shoulders of excited chairmen, or, worse still, lifted on those of volunteers—intoxicated alike with enthusiasm and drinking toasts. The Whig chief mounted his triumphal chariot; a multitudinous procession following, closed by the state-carriages of the Duchesses of Portland and Devonshire, drawn by six horses each. Fox descended from the car at Devonshire House, where was erected a temporary scaffolding, on which was raised a bevy of notabilities, including the Prince of Wales, with the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, to whose exertions Fox 285 owed a debt of gratitude. A commemorative dinner was given at Willis’s Rooms, where Fox made a glowing speech on the subject of the election. The Prince of Wales, after attending the king at a review at Ascot, rode up St. James’s Street in his uniform, and was received with acclamations, in acknowledgment of his partisanship for the Whig chief, whose favours he wore,—and ended his day of triumph by dining at Devonshire House, where he appeared wearing Fox’s colours (the Washington uniform), and with a laurel branch in token of victory.
| Sir Cecil Wray. | Sam House. | Charles James Fox. |
THE WESTMINSTER DESERTER DRUMMED OUT OF THE REGIMENT. DEFEAT OF SIR CECIL WRAY. HUSTINGS, COVENT GARDEN, WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1784. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
LIBERTY AND FAME INTRODUCING FEMALE PATRIOTISM (DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE) TO BRITANNIA. 1784. BY T. ROWLANDSON.
The party rejoicings and festivities at the conclusion of this election are felicitously related by Wraxall, who enjoyed the advantages of himself participating in the scenes he pictures. “Still the Whigs were not to be disappointed of their ovation. The exultation of those gay times forms a strange contrast to the grim monotony of our own. Fox, after being chaired in great pomp through the streets, was finally carried into the court-yard of Carlton House. The Prince’s plume was on his banners in acknowledgment of princely partisanship. A banner, inscribed ‘Sacred to Female Patriotism,’ recorded the services of the Duchess. The carriages of the Dukes of Devonshire and Portland, each drawn by six horses, moved in procession, and Fox’s own carriage was a pile of rejoicing Whiggism. On its boxes and traces, and where they could, sat Colonel North, afterwards Lord Guilford; Adam, who but a few years before wounded the patriot in a duel; and a whole cluster of political friends, followers, and expectants. The prince came to the balustrade before the house64 to cheer him, with a crowd of fashionable people. Fox finished the triumph by an harangue to the mob, and they in return finished by a riot, an illumination, and breaking Lord Temple’s windows.
“But the festivities were scarcely begun. The prince threw open his showy apartments to the nobility, and gave 286 them a brilliant fête in the gardens, which happened to be at its height just when the king was passing through St. James’s Park in state to open the new parliament. The rival interests were within a brick wall of each other, and their spirit could not have been more strangely contrasted than in their occupations. But nights and days to those graceful pursuers of pleasure and politics alike knew no intermission. On that very evening the celebrated beautiful and witty Mrs. Crewe gave a brilliant rout, in which ‘blue and buff’ were the universal costume of both sexes; the buff and blue were the uniform of Washington and his troops, and imprudently adopted by Fox to declare his hostility to the Government. The prince himself appeared in the party colours. At supper, he toasted the fair giver of the feast in the words ‘True Blue and Mrs. Crewe.’ The lady, not unskilfully, and with measureless applause, returned it by another, ‘True Blue and all of you.’”
With the enforced termination of the polling at the fortieth day, arrived the demand of Wray for a scrutiny, and the high bailiff’s unjustifiable attitude, for which he subsequently suffered severely, of declining to make a return, compelled Fox to look elsewhere for a seat, or find no place in the coming parliament, where, as Walpole said, could Fox have stood for every seat in the kingdom he would have represented the entire return in his own person, such was his influence and popularity. “The Departure,” (May 18, 1784), the day succeeding the close of the poll, shows Fox leaving behind him the palatial abode of his warm supporter, the Prince of Wales, and taking leave of his delectable champions, the Duchess of Devonshire and her sister, the fair Lady Duncannon, en route for “Coventry” or “Out-in-the-cold-shire.” Fox is observing on his retreat:—
Fox’s early ally, Burke, equipped as an outrider, is prepared to drive his friend away from the scene of his 287 triumphs; under Edmund’s arm is a “plan of economy,” suggestive of necessary retrenchments in the Whig camp.
DEFEAT OF THE HIGH AND MIGHTY BALISSIMO CORBETTINO AND HIS FAMED CECILIAN FORCES, ON THE PLAINS OF ST. MARTIN, ON THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1785, BY THE CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE AND HIS CHOSEN BAND.
Among the tactics of the Ministerialists may be reckoned the ominous “scrutiny,” which was threatened directly Fox’s votes began to outnumber those in favour of his rival, Wray. On Fox’s success this intention was carried out, the returning officer acting partially in order to connive at the manœuvre; a scrutiny being notoriously a tedious, lengthy, and costly affair, and hence more vexations to Fox than to the combined forces of his opponents. This circumstance is illustrated by the caricaturist, nearly a twelvemonth later; when the excitement of the protracted contest had cooled down, Fox secured another victory over his adversaries, which is commemorated in Rowlandson’s version of the affair (March 7, 1785), entitled:—
“Defeat of the high and mighty Balissimo Corbettino and his famed Cecilian forces, on the plains of St. Martin, on Thursday, the 3rd day of February, 1785, by the Champion of the People and his chosen band, after a smart skirmish, which lasted a considerable time, in which many men were lost on both sides. But their great ally at length losing ground, desertions took place, and notwithstanding their vast superiority in numbers and weight of metal at the first onset, this increased apace, altho’ often rallied by the ablest man in command, till at length the forces gave way in all quarters, and they were totally overthrown. This print is dedicated to the Electors of the City and Liberty of Westminster, who have so nobly stood forth and supported their champion upon this trying occasion, by an Independent Elector.”
Rowlandson has pictured the rival combatants at the head of their learned forces. Fox’s lawyers are triumphant, and armed with such legal weapons as “Eloquence,” “Truth,” “Perseverance,” and “Law;” the Whig chief, in person, is dealing vengeance upon the disconcerted figures of his antagonists, Wray and Corbett. Fox had successfully prosecuted his action and recovered heavy damages against the bailiff, who, as a courtier, had made himself the tool of the Ministerialists. Fox is defended by his buckler, “Majority 38;” he is wielding the keen sword of “Justice;” 288 a laurel crown is placed on the chieftain’s brow by a celestial messenger, who is charged with the decision of the Law Court—“It is ordered that Thomas Corbett, Esq., do immediately return.” Fox is declaring:—
“The wrath of my indignation is kindled, and I will pursue them with a mighty hand and outstretched arm until justice is done to those who have so nobly supported me.”
Sir Cecil Wray’s defence of “Ingratitude” is a sorry shield for the protection of himself or of his fallen ally; his sword is broken; in despair he cries, “My knees wax feeble, and I sink beneath the weight of my own apostasy.” The high bailiff is cast down; he confesses, “My conscience is now at peace.” Another supporter of the returning officer is exclaiming, “Help, help! our chief is fallen. O conscience, support me!” Corbett’s lawyers have turned their abashed backs on their client and his cause: “Nor law, nor conscience, nor the aid of potent Ministers, can e’er support the contest ’gainst such a chief!” “Our support is gone, and we are fallen into a Pitt; yea, even into a deep Pitt!”—the premier having been unable to protect the guilty against the consequences of their act. 289
We have seen Admiral Lord Hood’s energetic canvass at the great Westminster election, when, with the powerful assistance of the Court, he fought the Whigs, but failed to hinder Fox’s election. In spite of the victory gained in 1784 by their opponents, four years later the ministerialists and the “king’s friends” were again forced into a fresh contest on the same field, and more ignominiously defeated; the popular Lord Hood, their chosen champion, having in July, 1788, been appointed to a seat at the Admiralty Board, as a recognition of his services to Government, a fresh election was necessary for the city of Westminster. The Whigs were still to the front, and Lord John Townshend came forward and canvassed in that interest, with such strong support from the Opposition that the ministers now experienced a more inglorious reverse, their candidate being unseated, although recourse was had to every expedient, lawful or otherwise, that could promote the return of Hood, the Government nominee. After the close of the poll, which showed Lord John Townshend with 6392 votes, to Lord Hood’s 5569, thus giving two Whig members for Westminster, Gillray exposed the corrupt practices of the Court agents in the caricature, published on August 14, 1788, entitled, “Election Troops Bringing in their Accounts to the Pay-Table.” The premier is seen behind the bars of the Treasury gates; the 290 undisguised and direct applications of his quondam allies are so compromising that it is inexpedient to admit the claimants, or acknowledge an acquaintance with such disreputable connections; but a saving compromise is suggested. Pitt is made to plausibly protest, “I know nothing of you, my friends. Lord Hood pays all the expenses himself;” then, in a whisper, “Hush! go to the back-door in Great George Street, under the Rose.” Sir George Rose was Pitt’s secretary and factotum; he is chiefly seen in the contemporary satires as associated with what was called “back-stairs influence,” of which he may be accepted as chamberlain; his scene of operations was generally represented as the “back-door of the Treasury,” where he diplomatically carried out the stratagems of the premier—especially, as in the present instance—in the indirect recognition of secret services.
ELECTION TROOPS BRINGING THEIR ACCOUNTS TO THE PAY TABLE, WESTMINSTER. 1788.
BY JAMES GILLRAY.
Foremost in the rank of election troops is the modish Major Topham, a conspicuous personage in his day, who 291 frequently appears in the caricatures of the time; his notoriety was due to the World, a society newspaper of the last century, of which the major was proprietor, editor, and fashionable gossip-monger. Topham has brought a copy of his organ to prove the active support he had lent the Government during the Westminster contest, and is the first to present his bill “for puffs and squibs, and for abusing the Opposition.”
AN INDEPENDENT ELECTOR.
A ragged newsboy from the Star has also brought his journal and a claim for payment “for changing sides, for hiring ballad-singers, and Grub Street writers.” As usual, some scenes of a desperate character had marked the election, and three downright bullies, giant troopers of the Guards, with ensanguined bayonets as evidence of their late employment, demand pay “for the attack in Bow Street;” a publican brings in a reckoning “for eating and drinking for jackass boys;” ballad-singers have come to claim “five shillings a day” for their professional services; a cobbler, with Hood’s cockade, presents a modest bill “for voting three times” as “an independent elector;” a clothesman of the Hebrew persuasion is clamouring for money “for perjury, and procuring Jew voters;” and a body of Hood’s sailors, armed with formidable cudgels, are come for payment “for kicking up a row,”—as in the election of 1784, Hood’s boisterous sailors were brought up to the hustings to support their admiral, and were particularly violent and reckless in their zeal for the cause, intimidating those voters who were recognized as favouring the opposite party, and forcibly keeping them away from the polling booth. These jolly Jack Tars, with perfect singleness of mind, and oblivious of nice distinctions which they did not understand, were filled to overflowing with 292 explosive loyalty for the king, and fealty for their admiral; but on this occasion the sailors were beaten by the Irish chairmen with hearty goodwill, and, with their patron, Lord Hood, experienced a defeat.
In 1790, it is consolatory to find that the gallant Lord Hood was again returned for Westminster; Fox heading the poll with 3516 votes; Hood, as a good second, with 3217: on this occasion the Whigs lost a seat, for John Horne Tooke, although so prominent a figure, failed to repeat the success of Lord John Townshend, 1679 votes were polled for the “Parson of Brentford,” otherwise John Horne Tooke, the celebrated philologist.
Curious anomalies were witnessed under the old boroughmongering system, anterior to the sweeping measure of reform. Helston, in Cornwall, was a typical case. The elective franchise was formerly invested in the corporation, which consisted of the mayor, who was the returning officer, eleven aldermen, and twenty-five common council-men, thirty-six in all. The old charter of Elizabeth was confirmed by Charles I., and, according to common report, there survived but one elector under this charter in 1790, to whose lot accordingly fell the unusual distinction of nominating two representatives on his own account.
The family interest of the Osbornes (Duke of Leeds) proved so paramount as to here prevent any hope of successfully contesting against their power.
It is interesting to find that a certain grace was lent to the generally discordant elements of electioneering by the zealous participation of Beauty in the canvassing department, where the seductive wiles of female charms and persuasions were relied upon, it is understood, with reason.
PROOF OF THE REFINED FEELINGS OF AN AMIABLE CHARACTER, LATELY A CANDIDATE FOR A CERTAIN ANCIENT CITY. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
293
The assistance of the fair sex was much relied upon for soliciting and securing votes; but at such turbulent times, when licence predominated, the electioneering Circes must have been prepared for brusque exchanges of pleasantry, though hardly for such encounters as the one preserved in Gillray’s “Proof of the Refined Feelings of an Amiable Character, lately a Candidate for a Certain Ancient City.”
Some obscurity surrounds the incident represented; obviously the caricature was destined for electioneering purposes, but the positive history cannot he traced. It is assumed that the three circumstances of the candidate being “an eccentric,” a sportsman, and a representative of a cathedral city point to Sir Charles Turner (created a baronet by the Marquis of Rockingham in 1782), who represented York from 1768 to 1783. This gentleman always dressed as a sportsman, wearing a green coat, “tally-ho” buttons, with top-boots, etc., upon all occasions; he was described by Coombe (Royal Register) as the “Marplot” of his own party, “and in his parliamentary capacity demands the pity of his friends, the contempt of the wise, and makes himself a laughing stock for the crowd.” On the discussion of Pitt’s motion for parliamentary reform, May 7, 1782, Sir Charles Turner by his blunt originality attracted more attention than either the mover or seconder; he declared—
“that in his opinion the House of Commons might be justly considered as a parcel of thieves, who, having stolen an estate, were apprehensive of allowing any person to see their title deeds, from the fear of again losing it by such an inspection.”
The personage depicted by Gillray is flourishing his whip “Pro bono Patriæ,” and forcibly demonstrating his aversion to rival canvassers of the gentle sex, much to the consternation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and gownsmen, while the rough townsmen are cheering their eccentric candidate, and promising to support him.
It is to Gillray that we owe the version embodying the glorification of autocratic boroughmongering as 294“The Pacific Entrance of Earl Wolf into Blackhaven,” January, 1792. Before Lord Grey’s Reform Bill altered the constituencies, in the sordid old days of corrupt influence, when the representative system of electing parliaments was purely theoretical, a certain number of territorial magnates apportioned about half the constituencies between them; of this, the “upper order,” or aristocratic patrons, trafficked in the seats in exchange for “honours” for themselves, or lent their boroughs to support ministerial influence in return for places and pensions, or offices—sinecures for choice—in which to provide for their less opulent relations; thus in the old lists of place-holders, pensioners, and “ministerial patronage” may be traced the younger sons and cousins in several degrees, besides the names of those who have by marriage entered the families of the prime holders of “marketable ware,” otherwise parliamentary interest. When boroughmongering was a profession—a very highly paid one—and boroughs were farmed for sale, it might be expected that a less elevated class of adventurers would treat the question of buying and selling “seats” in parliament like any ordinary item of commerce, as was the fact; the markets fluctuated, thus we find Lord Chesterfield, whose authority is unquestionable, looking round for some venal borough to bring in that young hopeful to whom he addressed the famous “Letters,” thinking it a finishing part of a gentleman’s training to be in the House; the ex-ambassador communicated with an agent, proposing to pay “twenty-four hundred pounds for a seat,” presumably the price in Chesterfield’s younger days; but he found seats had risen to inordinate rates—up to five thousand pounds—owing to imported competition, chiefly rich factors returned home with fortunes from the East and West Indies. Bubb Dodington has set down in his “Diary” how he, the lordly proprietor of this said “marketable ware,” went about bargaining to bring in ministerial nominees for his five or six seats in exchange for places at the disposal of the 295 administration; and instances might be multiplied to a tedious extent from the journals of the House containing the evidence of trafficking in boroughs and buying up voters, en gros et en détail, as disclosed on controverted elections.
This condition of affairs produced a mechanical majority as long as the prime minister in power could command wealth and influence sufficient to secure a larger number of seats than the opposition. It was in this direction that the famous electioneering genius, the Marquis of Wharton, spent a hundred thousand pounds in William III. and Queen Anne’s days; while Walpole manipulated such huge sums, thinly disguised as “Secret Service Money,” that, never wealthy enough to purchase all, and meeting occasional honest members, he was, at intervals, impeached for corruption in a House two-thirds venal, as it is alleged.
Walpole’s successors, who finally drove him from office, bought elections on even a more extended scale; the Pelhams were clever dissemblers and apt negotiators for this commodity; it was written of the Duke of Newcastle, by his antagonist, Lord Hervey, it is believed:—
Major Cartwright, the advocate of universal suffrage, who had the misfortune to live a trifle before the times were ripe enough for reform to be carried, addressed a petition to parliament in 1820, showing “that 97 Lords usurped 200 seats in the Commons House in violation of our Laws and Liberties;” while 90 wealthy commoners “for 102 vile sinks of corruption (pocket boroughs) brought in the House 137 members;” Ministerial patronage returning another twenty, thus giving, according to the petitioner’s statistics, “a total of 353 members corruptly or tyrannically imposed on the Commons in gross violation of the law, and to the palpable subversion of the constitution.” At that time the Earl of Lonsdale commanded 296 eight seats, as did the Earl of Darlington. William Pitt, as already described, was seated in Parliament, 1781, by Lonsdale, then Sir James Lowther, who had been stigmatized by “Junius” as “The contemptuous tyrant of the North,” and who himself declared that he was in possession of the land, the fire, and the water of Whitehaven. When the youthful Pitt became premier, one of his first acts was to acknowledge his obligations to “the Wolf,” and Lowther was raised to the peerage as Earl Lonsdale. The “pacific entrance” of this plutocrat shows the docile “free and independent voters” of Whitehaven, driven by Lonsdale’s law agent, and lashed with thongs of “sham suits at law,” dragging the earl through the tumble-down streets of his town, every window being illuminated with candles in his honour. He exclaims, “Dear gentlemen, this is too much; now you really distress me!” Mobs of his miners are cheering vociferously, he having brought the townsmen to submission by suspending the working of his coal-mines. Fair canvassers, with complimentary inscriptions on their banners, head the triumphal procession:—
Before the parliamentary dissolution of 1796, the country was in an agitated state, for distress was prevalent among the poorer classes, the expenses of the continental wars were impoverishing the country, and there was a general outcry for peace; bread riots were common at the time, and the price of provisions in general was exceptionally high; political agitators were taking advantage of these circumstances to fulminate against the king and his ministers; while the various societies, called “seditious” by the Tories in office, received encouragement from the Whig party, whose prospects of succeeding to power were not encouraging. A meeting of an enthusiastic nature, largely attended, had been held in St. George’s Fields, the scene of the former riots, to petition for annual parliaments, and for universal suffrage, theories which at that 297 time were regarded hopefully, and which would, it was anticipated, redress existing grievances. In the autumn of 1795, meetings were held at Copenhagen Fields, where an immense multitude assembled to sign addresses and remonstrances on the state of the nation. The immediate consequences of the inflammatory orations pronounced to the people on this occasion was that, on the opening of the final session of the parliament which had assembled in 1790, the king, on his way to the Peers to open the House in state, was assailed by vociferous cries of “Give us peace and bread!” “No war!” “No king!” “Down with him! down with George!” Before the House of Peers was reached, an attack was made on the royal carriage, stones were thrown, and one passed through the window. The riot on this occasion was made the pretext for the ministry to bring forward new bills for the defence of the king’s person, and to attempt further infringements on the liberty of the subject by interfering with the right of public meetings.
ENTRANCE OF EARL WOLF (LORD LONSDALE) INTO BLACKHAVEN. 1792. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
The political clubs renewed their clamours for a more extended system of representation freed from corruption, and protested against Pitt’s new enactments; the London Corresponding Society called another public meeting, at which the premier is said to have shown symptoms of alarm. Gillray’s engraving of a meeting of “Patriotic Citizens at Copenhagen House,” November 16, 1795, satirizes the order of agitators and their disciples as the dregs of the people, which he represents them to be. This demonstration, which was largely attended, was held to protest against the “Seditions Bill” for the protection of the king’s person, for which, it was argued, ample provisions were already legalized. Petitions to both Houses were prepared, and remonstrances numerously signed.
This situation is embodied in the picture of the assembly. The orator, Thelwall, is holding forth to an audience which is more picturesque than distinguished. Platforms are arranged at intervals as rostrums for the speakers, at one 298 of which a butcher is enlarging on “The Rights of Citizens.” The proprietress of a halfpenny gaming-table has labelled it, “Equality and no Sedition Bill.” An emissary of Thelwall’s is offering the remonstrance to sweep-boys for signature; and the autographs attached thereto, though notorious, are hardly such as to command the respect of parliament—“Jack Cade, Wat Tyler, Jack Straw, etc.”
After the elections of 1784 parliament was entirely in the control of Pitt. It met, wrote Horace Walpole, “as quietly as a Quarter Session,” the opposition seemed quelled, or driven to despair.
The meeting at Copenhagen House failed to accomplish its purpose, and further protests were entered against the Seditions Bill “for the better protection of the king’s person,” which was carried in the House by large majorities; this repressive measure provided that no gathering exceeding fifty persons should take place, even in a private house, without previous information had been laid before a magistrate, who might attend, and, if he saw cause, order the meeting to disperse, while those who resisted would be guilty of felony. In the face of such unconstitutional interference, fresh hostility sprang up throughout the land; and there being anticipations of an appeal to the country, the opposition endeavoured to present a bold front before the constituencies in view of that event; one of these meetings was summoned by the Sheriff of Middlesex, inviting the freeholders to assemble at the Mermaid, Hackney; this gathering has been commemorated by Gillray. The object of the meeting was to obtain a repeal of the obnoxious Seditions Bill, which, as the artist shows, the Whig member, George Byng, is vigorously denouncing from the platform; it was at the same time proposed to prepare an “Address to the King,” and Mr. Mainwaring, the ministerial representative, is, with Jesuitical expression, deprecating hostility both to the Government and to their oppressive legislation, Fox is holding the hat of his oratorical disciple, Byng. It was on this occasion that the 299 sturdy Duke of Norfolk, who raised the royal ire by proposing as a toast in a public assembly, “The Majesty of the People,” took occasion to warn those who valued the liberty of the subject that they must not be misled by the specious titles of the bill.
MEETING OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS AT COPENHAGEN HOUSE, 1795. SPEAKERS: THELWALL, GALE JONES, HODSON, AND JOHN BINNS. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
“I tell you, Citizens, we mean to new dress the Constitution, and turn it, and set a new Nap upon it.”
AT HACKNEY MEETING—FOX, BYNG, AND MAINWARING. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
“I daresay,” he observed, “if the High Priest of the Spanish Inquisition was to come among us to introduce his system of inquisition here, he would call it an act for the better support and protection of religion; but we have understandings, and are not to be deceived in this way.” 300
Mainwaring stated in the House that the meeting had been most respectably attended, and that the requisition had been signed by three dukes, one marquis, two earls, and several freeholders.
As we have seen, in describing the elections of 1784, the results of which ended for a while all the prospects of the Whigs, William Pitt was called to office in the face of an unmanageable opposition, and almost in contravention of the voice of parliament; the youthful premier’s bold resort to dissolution, with his energetic election tactics, disembarrassed him of the troublesome majority, and placed at his disposal a perfectly docile House. The progress of our relations with France, and many unpopular and stringent measures, like the Seditions Bill, had revived antagonism, and every fresh legislation which encroached on the rights of the people weakened the Government influence. Pitt, anticipating the struggle, boldly resorted to his old policy, and the intention of dissolving parliament was announced in the speech from the throne. Gillray, whose admirable caricatures illustrate the leading political events from 1782 to 1810, has epitomized the situation as “The Dissolution, or the Alchymist Procuring an Ætherial Representation,” May 21, 1796. Pitt is seated on the model of his new barracks; the transmutation is carried out from the premier’s recipe, “Antidotus Republica;” Treasury coals, i.e. golden pieces, feed the furnace; the breeze is raised by the Crown as a bellows; the old House of Commons, seen in the alembic, shows a few tenants, such as Fox and Sheridan, left on the opposition benches, but all is rapidly dissolving into a new chamber, where the alchemist is enthroned as “Perpetual Dictator,” “Magna Charta” and “Parliamentary Rights” become his foot-stools, and adulation of the most slavish order is offered up by the members of the newly constituted and subservient Commons.
Maidstone, for which Benjamin D’Israeli took his seat in 1837, has been the scene of many severe and exceptionally 301 costly contests. At the general election, 1796, the defeated candidate, Christopher Hull, is reported to have polled the greatest number of single votes ever tendered for that constituency, he having expended three thousand pounds in about seven hours. This heavy outlay proved fruitless, as Mr. Hull stood last on the list; but attempting to make a merit of this liberal use of money, the reputation of which he hoped might serve for a future occasion, the incipient “electioneerer” was assured by his friends “he must start on fresh grounds, as the present would be considered as nothing more than electioneering experience.”
THE DISSOLUTION; OR, THE ALCHYMIST PRODUCING AN ÆTHERIAL REPRESENTATION. WILLIAM PITT DISSOLVING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1796. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
THE HUSTINGS—COVENT GARDEN. 1796. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
Vox Populi.—“We’ll have a mug.”—Mayor of Garratt.
Charles James Fox.—Loq. “Ever guardian of your most sacred rights, I have opposed the ‘Pewter Pot Bill!’”
The general election of 1796 was less fruitful in incidents than its predecessor in 1790. The celebrated 302 philologist, John Horne Tooke, endeavoured to gain the second seat, as the colleague of the great Whig chief. On this occasion “the Brentford parson” secured, though unsuccessful, a larger number of votes; Fox was returned at the head of the poll, and Sir A. Gardner was second. Gillray has left a characteristic likeness of the Whig chief, very “spick and span,” deferentially bowing from “The Hustings,” in acknowledgment of the ribald, if popular, reception his admirers are according their old “true blue” member for Westminster. Fox is pressing to his heart, in parody of another measure, the “Pewter Pot Bill.” “Ever guardian of your most sacred rights, I have opposed the Pewter Pot Bill.” His audience is filled with enthusiasm. As an allusion to Fox’s supposed sympathies with events then proceeding in France—the pot-boy of “The Tree of Liberty,” Petty France, is offering a foaming measure to the well-tried patriot and popular representative.
THE FRIEND OF HUMANITY AND THE KNIFE-GRINDER.
The well-known “Friend of Humanity and the Knife-Grinder,” one of the most spirited poetical squibs, which first appeared in the Anti-Jacobin, was reprinted as a broadside for electioneering purposes, with a no less spirited plate, by Gillray, as a heading; and dedicated 303“To the Independent Electors of the Borough of Southwark,” of which constituency Tierney—whose person was figured as “the Friend of Humanity”—was the representative in parliament. Canning’s admirable parody was founded upon Southey’s poem, “The Widow,” and written in English sapphics, in imitation of the original.
304
It was in the session of 1797 that Mr. Grey first moved “for leave to bring in a bill to reform the representation of the country.” The motion, seconded by Erskine, was debated until three o’clock in the morning—an exceptional sitting in those days—when it was rejected by a Government majority of fifty-eight votes. Although the system of representation was notoriously corrupt, at least half the seats being in the patronage of interested persons, it was thirty-four years before Earl Grey’s measure for reform could be carried, and then only under extraordinary circumstances. After Grey’s earlier defeat, it was felt that in a House of Commons completely submissive to the ministerial dictates, and which resisted amendment, the opposition leaders could make no impression, and they accordingly announced their intention for the present of taking no further part in its proceedings; the voice of Fox was scarcely heard in the House till the century closed.
Meanwhile, after the secession of the Whig party from the debates, the agitation throughout the country increased, political societies became more active, and frequent meetings were held to discuss the necessity for parliamentary reform. One of the most remarkable of these was held under the auspices of Bertie Greathead, the owner of “Guy’s Cliff,” near Warwick; a medal commemorative of this gathering and its object, reform, was struck for the occasion. These medals were a popular method of spreading political opinions. The patriotic reform medal was parodied by another of a loyal nature, representing the devil suspending three halters over the heads of the demagogues, 305 who are mounted in “a condemned cart;” on the one side are shown the applauding “wrong-heads,” while a large assembly of “right-heads” express their contempt for the proceedings.
| Wilkes. | Abbé Siéyès. | Horne Tooke. | C. J. Fox. | William Pitt. | Lord Holland. | Earl of Chatham. |
TWO PAIR OF PORTRAITS. PRESENTED TO ALL THE UNBIASED ELECTORS OF GREAT BRITAIN. 1798. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
LOYAL MEDAL. 1797.
A parody of the patriotic medal struck in commemoration of the Reform meeting held at Greathead’s, Guy’s Cliff, Warwick.
The Tories exulted over the secession of “the party,” and numerous caricatures appeared, imputing all sorts of offences to the Whigs; and one version represented Fox as “Phaeton” involving the Whig Club in his destruction. We have noticed the candidature of Horne Tooke for Westminster; ever since his prominence upon the occasion of Wilkes’s return for Middlesex in 1768, the “Brentford Parson” had striven to obtain a seat in parliament. He was in 1798 one of the most conspicuous members of the reform associations. Few were his match in ready eloquence, his pen was ever active, and his writings to the purpose. At an earlier stage of his career, a pamphlet appeared, written, it was alleged, by his hand, contrasting the two Pitts with the two Foxes as a pair of portraits; the comparison being in favour of the former. Advantage was taken of this circumstance to bring into discredit the confederation of Horne Tooke (who held more democratic views) with Fox for the advancement of the reform cause. James Gillray designed for the Anti-Jacobin Review his own satirical version of “Two Pair of Portraits, presented to all the unbiased Electors of Great Britain, by John Horne Tooke,” December 1, 1798. The eminent philologer is represented as a portrait-painter, seated before his easel, on which appear the two original likenesses of the Whig and Tory chiefs, Pitt resting on the pedestal of “Truth,” and Fox on that of “Deceit.” The presentment of Lord Holland with the plunder of “unaccounted millions” so frequently quoted, is placed beside the portrait 306 of the patriotic Earl of Chatham, dowered with the “Rewards of a Grateful Nation.” Horne Tooke, who has in his pocket, “Sketches of Patriotic Views, a pension, a mouth-stopper, a place,” is presumed to be retouching his unflattering and sinister portrait of the Whig chief, while demanding of the electors of Great Britain, which two of them will you choose to hang in your Cabinets, the Pitts or the Foxes? “Where, on your conscience, should the other two be hanged?” Allusions to various periods of the limner’s life and principles appear round the studio—the windmill at Wimbledon (where Tooke resided), the parsonage at Brentford, the bust of Machiavel, the shadow or “silhouette” of the Abbé Siéyès; the picture of his old friend Wilkes, in his aldermanic gown as the prosperous and handsomely remunerated city chamberlain, ci-devant Wilkes and Liberty; “The effect in this picture to be copied as exact as possible;” “A London Corresponding Society, i.e. a Sketch for an English Directory;” with a folio of “Studies from French masters, Robespierre, Tallien, Marat,” together with the prospectus for a new work, “The Art of Political Painting, extracted from the works of the most celebrated Jacobin professors.”
The Shakespeare Tavern, celebrated as the head-quarters of the Whig party during Fox’s candidature for Westminster, was the scene of a popular ovation on the twentieth anniversary of the Whig chief’s election for that important constituency; the event was celebrated by a public dinner, October 10, 1800. Fox had so long absented himself from Parliament, feeling, as he declared, “his time of action was over when those principles were extinguished on which he acted,” that his reappearance excited the greatest enthusiasm amongst his partisans, who were anxious both to hear his sentiments on the political outlook, and to demonstrate their unabated attachment to the “Man of the People,” who preferred to seclude himself from public business and from the platform of his most brilliant oratorical triumphs, that he “might steadily 307 adhere to those principles which had guided his past conduct.” Every room in the house was filled with company. In replying to the cordial reception of his health, Fox reminded his auditors that “During the twenty years I have represented you in Parliament I have adhered to the principles on which the Revolution of 1688 was founded, and what have been known as the old Whig principles of England;” and recalled that his first connection with his constituents occurred “during the calamitous war with America;” he then alluded to his absence from Parliament, extended to three years, and thus eloquently concluded: “I shall ever maintain that the basis of all parties is justice—that the basis of all constitutions is the sovereignty of the people—that from the people alone kings, parliaments, judges, and magistrates derive their authority.” Gillray has embodied this situation in his pictorial version of this most enthusiastic reception, ungenerously representing Fox as “The Worn-out Patriot; or, the Last Dying Speech of the Westminster Representative,” October 10, 1800. The great statesman is depicted as both mentally and physically in a state of decadence; Erskine is sustaining him with a bottle of brandy to stimulate his strength artificially, while Harvey Combe, in his robes as Lord Mayor, is lending his substantial support; a measure of Whitbread’s “entire” is also ready for the emergency. Among the guests are figured Sir J. Sinclair, and the gifted member for Southwark, Tierney. The speech the satirist has sarcastically introduced is a parody on that delivered by the Whig chief to the electors on the occasion:— 308
“Gentlemen, you see I am grown quite an old man in your service. Twenty years I’ve served you, and always upon the same principles. I rejoiced at the success of our enemies in the American War, and the war against the virtuous French has always met with my most determined opposition; but the infamous Ministry will not make peace with our enemies, and are determined to keep me out of their councils and out of place. Therefore, gentlemen, as their principles are quite different from mine, and as I am now too old to form myself according to their systems, my attendance in Parliament is useless, and, to say the truth, I feel that my season of action is past, and I must leave to younger men to act, for, alas! my failings and weaknesses will not let me now recognize what is for the best.”
THE WORN-OUT PATRIOT, OR THE LAST DYING SPEECH OF THE WESTMINSTER REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE ANNIVERSARY MEETING, HELD AT THE SHAKESPEARE TAVERN, OCTOBER 10, 1800. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
Pointed and pungent as is this version, it is on record that Fox’s mental activity was still most brilliant; indeed, to the extent of converting his consistent enemy, George III. The supposed “Worn-out Patriot” lived to form an administration in 1806 in conjunction with Lord Grenville, who made Fox’s accession to power a sine quâ non. He filled the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at perhaps the most delicate and critical period of our history, 309 when Napoleon entertained designs against England; and on the death of the patriotic statesman, the king declared “he had never known the duties of that office so efficiently discharged for the honour of the country.”
“Who,” remarked a contemporary, “in reviewing Fox’s noble adherence to the cause of Liberty, as it affected the American nation, and weighing the wisdom of his forewarnings of the fatal consequences of the American War, but must admire the prophetic spirit with which he foretold all the direful events which resulted both to the Mother Country and her colonies from that unnatural fratricidal war.”
The first Parliament after the Union with Ireland met January 22, 1801, and was marked by the reappearance of Fox and the election of Horne Tooke for the borough of Old Sarum through the influence of Lord Camelford. The return of one who had been in holy orders involved a great constitutional question; his admission was opposed on the ground of his clerical profession, and it led to a bill making clergymen incapable of sitting in parliament. Tooke occupied his seat until the next dissolution, which occurred the year following, when he was no longer eligible. The circumstances are commemorated in a caricature by Gillray, entitled, “Political Amusements for Young Gentlemen, or the Brentford Shuttlecock between Old Sarum and the Temple of St. Stephen’s,” March, 1801. Lord Temple led the opposition to Tooke’s admission, and he is represented as resisting his entrance to the House, within which Fox is pictured crying, “The Church for Ever!” Lord Camelford, who was in the navy, is batting the shuttlecock from Old Sarum (the electors depicted as swine at a trough) to the Commons; he cries, “There’s a stroke for you, messmate; and if you kick him back, I’ll return him again, if I should be sent on a cruise to Moorfields for it! Go it, Coz.” Lord Temple is replying, “Send him back? Yes, I’ll send him back twenty thousand times, before such a high-flying Jacobin shuttlecock shall perch it here in his Clerical band.” Lord Camelford’s “List of Candidates” includes, besides Tooke, the names of Black Dick (his 310 negro servant), and orator Thelwall, in case his ex-clerical nominee’s election was annulled; but his lordship disclaimed ever having entertained the intention of offering so gross an insult to the House. The inscriptions on the feathers stuck in the head of the noble lord’s plaything, “The Old Brentford Shuttlecock,” are intended to indicate his character.
| Lord Temple. | J. Horne Tooke. | Lord Camelford. |
POLITICAL AMUSEMENTS FOR YOUNG GENTLEMEN, OR THE BRENTFORD SHUTTLECOCK BETWEEN OLD SARUM AND THE TEMPLE OF ST. STEPHEN’S. 1801. BY J. GILLRAY.
THE OLD BRENTFORD SHUTTLECOCK—JOHN HORNE TOOKE RETURNED FOR OLD SARUM. 1801.
Though the cause of Sir Francis Delaval suffered at Andover from a contretemps in which the commanding officer of the district was concerned, by an opposite course of events the return of Mr. N. Jefferys for Coventry was assured through military intervention. When writs were issued for a new parliament in 1802, a meeting was convened at Coventry, when it was resolved to invite Mr. Jefferys again to become a candidate to represent them, and to support his re-election. Upon Mr. Jefferys accepting this invitation, and proceeding down to Coventry to meet his constituents, his entrance into the city was unhandsomely 311 opposed, a riot ensued, and things began to look dangerous, when Captain Barlow of the First Dragoon Guards, who happened to be there, his regiment being stationed in the neighbourhood, exerted himself with much spirit to quell the riot and protect the candidate and his friends from insult. Rarely has a casual and unexpected service been more singularly acknowledged; Captain Barlow was at once invited to join Mr. Jefferys as second Conservative candidate, which he readily accepted; the show of hands at the hustings was in his favour, and both were triumphantly returned. The contest was a close one; Captain Barlow stood at the head of the poll with 1197 votes, N. Jefferys was elected with 1190; and the two Whig candidates were defeated—Wilberforce Bird with 1182, and Peter Moore with 1152 votes.
The Middlesex election of 1804 vividly recalled the previous excitement manifested at the Brentford hustings on the return of John Wilkes; the new party of “root-and-branch reformers,” more extreme in their political views than the Foxites, were now becoming most conspicuous by their agitations for the revision of the Constitution, and began to be known under the designation of Radicals. At the head of these “patriots” in the House of Commons were several of the younger politicians and “new luminaries,” such as Whitbread, Lord Folkestone, and others; but the most prominent leader of the movement was Sir Francis Burdett, then occupying the position previously held by “Wilkes and Liberty” at the commencement of the reign, and by Fox before his secession from Parliament. Horne Tooke, who passed out-of-doors as the baronet’s political sponsor, “guide, philosopher, and friend,” was actively supporting his pupil, and William Cobbett was, by his energetic writings, proselytizing in the same cause, and was generally regarded as the apostle of the latest sect. In the same ranks were included the wealthy Bosville and other zealous partisans. At the Middlesex election of 1802, Sir Francis Burdett, in the Radical interest, had unseated 312 the Tory candidate, W. Mainwaring, polling nearly double the votes obtained by the ministerial candidate, who had represented the county from 1784.
In 1804, the election for Middlesex was equally trying for the administration as the memorable struggle at Westminster in 1784, and recalled the scenes witnessed on the same spot in 1786. Gillray has commemorated this occurrence in one of his most elaborate caricatures, published August 7, 1804:—“Middlesex Election, 1804—a Long Pull, a Strong Pull, and a Pull All Together;” the hustings at Brentford appear in the distance, whereon the ministerial candidate is holding forth to an exuberant crowd, amidst which derisive symbols are displayed—a huge begging-box, a gallows with an effigy suspended, and a banner inscribed, “No Begging Candidate.” The head-quarters of the Court party, at the sign of the Constitution (a crown and mitre) placarded with posters, “Mainwaring, King, and Country,” and advertising “good entertainment,” is treated to a perfect shower of missiles and dirt; a free fight is proceeding at a distance. Beneath the standard claiming “Independence and Free Elections,” now a reasonable aspiration, but, in those days, regarded as little short of sedition, a rat is hung to a lantern, expressive of contempt for “ministerial rats.” Sir Francis Burdett is carried triumphantly to the hustings; his barouche, drawn by the most illustrious members of the opposition, is emblazoned on the panels with suggestive devices: “Peace” is figured as a French eagle, with the legend, “Égalité;” the Torch of Liberty is a flaming and incendiary brand; and “Plenty” is symbolized by a pot of porter with the head of Bonaparte on the measure. Beneath the wheels of Burdett’s chariot is figured a dog with “A Cur-tis” on his collar, a blow at Sir William Curtis, enriched by “fat” Government contracts; by him is Tooke’s tract, “A Squeeze for Contractors.” On the box is the baronet’s reputed preceptor, the Brentford Parson himself, “in his habit as he lived,” smoking his pipe like his confederate “Bellenden,” that 313 “revolution sinner” Dr. Parr; from the prime agitator’s pockets fall the speeches, “hints,” and addresses it is implied he had prepared for his hopeful pupil.
MIDDLESEX ELECTION, 1804. A LONG PULL—A STRONG PULL—AND A PULL ALL TOGETHER. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
“The Party” is doing its utmost to forward Burdett’s career, and to mortify the Ministry. Tyrwhitt Jones and General Fitzpatrick, eccentric and independent politicians, are leading the “marrow-bone and cleaver” music; two lines of influential Whig statesmen are propelling the car; Bosville, Grey, the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Duke of Norfolk in one file, and Lord Carlisle, the Duke of Bedford, Lord Derby, and Fox in the other, all travestied felicitously under disguises which the caricaturist has suggested as appropriate to their characters or situations. Lord Moira (Marquis of Hastings), with the prince’s plume on his instrument, is acting as drummer. Behind the carriage rides Erskine in his bar robes, with the cap of liberty on a pike, marked “The Good Old Cause.” Tierney has “The Key of the Bastille,” in allusion to Burdett’s exertions on behalf of the political prisoners with which the prisons, such as Coldbath Fields, were at that time filled; while Sheridan is raising aloft the pictorial version of the “Governor in All His Glory,” i.e. Pitt flogging Britannia, who is fixed in the pillory, of which an enlarged version appears.
BRITANNIA FLOGGED BY PITT—THE GOVERNOR IN ALL HIS GLORY. 1804.
The election contests in 1806 and 1807, which ensued on the death of Fox, fully occupied the pencil of Gillray: his elaborate cartoons, of which reduced fac-similes are given, prove that election squibs must in his day have enjoyed a large circulation; the artist seems to have developed them into elaborate conceptions. Westminster was 314 again the constituency, where the struggle was regarded as of most absorbing interest. Sheridan, who had sat for Stafford from 1780, now flattered himself that his popularity and his intimacy with Fox would, on the decease of the Whig chief, point him out as the natural successor of the illustrious statesman. He found an embarrassing opponent in James Paull (the son of a prosperous tailor), who had returned from India, where he filled an appointment, and brought home with him a moderate fortune and liberal ideas as regarded administrative reform. His candidature for Westminster was supported by the influence of all the advanced politicians, the ultra-Liberals, and the Radical Reformers.
In the first of Gillray’s satires on this topic, the “Triumphal Procession of Little Paull, the Tailor, upon his new Goose,” November 8, 1806, Sir Francis Burdett, who was for some time travestied as “The Famous Green Goose,” is lending Little Paull a helping mount; Tooke is leading his pupil; Colonel Bosville is distributing money to make the candidate popular; Cobbett, with “Political Register” in hand, is canvassing for Paull and “Independence and Public Justice”—referring to the new patriot’s articles of impeachment against the Marquis of Wellesley on his return from India. In view of the energetic tactics of the new candidate and his allies, Sir Samuel Hood and Sheridan thought it advisable to combine their interests, and make a coalition for the occasion. The situation is pictorially summed up as “The High-flying Candidate, Little Paull Goose, mounting from a Blanket—Vide Humours of Westminster Election” (November 11, 1806). Paull, according to the ungenerous practice of all concerned, was taunted with being the son of a tailor. Sir Samuel Hood, with one arm lost in his country’s service, and Sheridan in sables for his late friend, and with the farce of “The Devil Among the Tailors” in his pocket, are together raising their high-flying antagonist in the “Coalition Blanket.” The Admiral’s sailors and patriotic volunteers for Sheridan are alike 315 pronouncing emphatically for the combined names of the two senior candidates. At the feet of the Coalition members is the memorial slab to departed greatness, “Sacred to the Memory of Poor Charley, late member for the City of Westminster,” “We ne’er shall look upon his like again;” the monument is thrust aside by the outraged spirit of the deceased patriot, who is in anguish exclaiming, “O tempora! O mores!”
| Lord Granville. | Mellish. |
Marquis of Buckingham. Lord Temple. |
Head of Fox. | Byng. | Wm. Cobbett. |
| Sheridan and Sir Samuel Hood. | James Paull. | Napoleon as Postillion. | Sir F. Burdett. | J. Horne Tooke. | Col. Bosville. |
POSTING TO THE ELECTION; OR, A SCENE ON THE ROAD TO BRENTFORD. 1806. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
| Sir Samuel Hood. | James Paull. | R. B. Sheridan. |
THE HIGHFLYING CANDIDATE, LITTLE PAULL GOOSE, MOUNTING FROM A BLANKET—Vide HUMOURS OF WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1806. BY J. GILLRAY.
Gillray’s third caricature on the general election of 1806 exhibits a spirited panorama of the procession to the hustings as “Posting to the Election: a Scene on the Road to Brentford,” in which each of the candidates is hastening in the way supposed to best characterize his prospects and party: William Mellish, who enjoyed the interest of the Coalition Ministry then in office, is driven in style, in a dashing “Rule Britannia and the Bank” four-in-hand, under the “Flag of Loyalty and Independence,” by Lord Granville as coachman; Lords Temple and Castlereagh, and the Marquis of Buckingham are perched behind; the latter is giving a sly helping pull to the post-chaise and pair in which is seated George Byng—“in the good old Whig interest;” the head of Fox is displayed on the box as “the good old Whig Block.” Prominent in the foreground is the grand melée of the Coalition candidates for 316 Westminster—Sheridan and Sir Samuel Hood, mounted on a prancing brewer’s horse, just escaped from the dray, with panniers overflowing with gold pieces, and labelled, “Subscription Malt and Hops from the Whitbread Brewery.”
COALITION CANDIDATES—SHERIDAN AND SIR SAMUEL HOOD. 1806.
Burdett’s ballad-singers and marrow-bone-and-cleaver men are scattered by the plunging dray-horse from Whitbread’s, and the startled donkey, which bears little Paull, is giving the rider an upset, in which Paull’s famous “Impeachment of the Marquis of Wellesley” is falling to the ground. Last comes Sir Francis Burdett, who, on this occasion, experienced a mortifying defeat in the face of his former triumphs at Brentford; the gay barouche of 1800 and 1804 has given place to an “untaxed cart” with four miserable jackasses; the efforts of a posse of sweeper-boy followers with difficulty extricate this shabby conveyance from the slough. Acting as postillion is the little Corsican, Bonaparte, then but recently elected Emperor of the French. It was at this time one of the theories of Napoleon I., that, after the visionary conquest of England, he would inaugurate a republic, for the presidency of which he declared Sir Francis Burdett to be, in his estimation, the fittest person in England; this opinion, it is believed, was 317 shared by the baronet—an entertaining aspect of the “might-have-beens”! “Liberty and Equality, No Placemen in Parliament, and No Bastilles,” are the watchwords of the party in the condemned cart; all the members wear “Liberty” favours in their hats. Burdett has “The Life of Oliver Cromwell” for consultation ready at hand; behind him is his political preceptor, Horne Tooke, shown in parsonic guise, and Bosville with the “Rights of Man” next his heart. Cobbett appears as the “Radical Drummer,” beating up recruits for Burdett and Paull, with his “Political Register” and “Inflammatory Letters.” “Orator Broad-face, of Swallow Street,” whose mob pleasantries overpowered the veteran Sheridan at Covent Garden, is among the baronet’s enthusiastic supporters.
A RADICAL DRUMMER. 1806. W. COBBETT.
| Sir Samuel Hood. | Whitbread. | Sheridan. | James Paull. | Sir F. Burdett. |
VIEW OF THE HUSTINGS IN COVENT GARDEN—WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1806. BY J. GILLRAY.
It was at the Westminster election of 1806 that the excitement culminated. This long and expensive contest was fruitful in incidents. Gillray has produced the most characteristic “View of the Hustings in Covent Garden.” At the time this version appeared, Paull was at the head of the poll; he is shown vigorously denouncing his discomfited antagonist—“Harlequin Sherry” as “the sunk, the lost, the degraded treasurer.” Immediately behind Paull is the Duke of Northumberland, whose son, Lord Percy, had relinquished Westminster after representing it in parliament for one session, that immediately following Fox’s decease; the Duke has “No Coalition” inscribed on his hat, and a “Letter to the Vestry of St. Margaret’s” in his hand. Cobbett, Burdett, and Bosville, wearing favours for Paull, are in the front ranks of his supporters. Sheridan, exhorted to “Pay your Debts, Mr. Treasurer,” is represented as filled with consternation; Whitbread is vainly trying to rally his spirits with his 318“New Loyal Porter;” Sir Samuel Hood is seemingly ashamed of his colleague, and is chuckling over his confusion. The exchange of personalities between Paull and Sheridan, who was assisted by the notorious “Pickle,” his son Tom, exceeded all that had gone before, and degenerated into “Billingsgate” abuse. Sheridan, with questionable propriety, dwelt more particularly on the descent of his opponent from “tailordom,” and was waggish in allusions to the “ninth part of a man.” Paull complimented Sheridan on “his good taste,” and justified it by referring to the manager of Drury Lane as the “son of a vagabond,” actors being by Act of Parliament classed in that category. Paull was the readier at mob oratory, and Sheridan, “erst the wit of the Commons,” found the hustings a terrible penance; his appearance was the signal for violent uproar, and requests for “renters’ shares” and sums of money owing, and for which it was alleged he was liable. Painfully conscious of his familiar embarrassments, this raillery, in the presence of persons of credit and influence whose 319 support was growing lukewarm, broke down the spirit of the veteran champion of this order of encounter. He had trusted to his well-seasoned experience in mob demonstrations, to his playful wit, apt jocularities, and sarcasms to convert the mob to good humour, and to cajole them with his popular persuasions into a friendly disposition; but he reckoned without allowing for rivalry. Besides the fluent Paull, there was one man in the crowd who fairly compelled “Sherry” to retire abashed; in vain he tried by turns ridicule and denunciation of “hireling ruffians,” the broad-faced orator in the green coat seemed stimulated by these counter-attacks. A comedy was then popular in which a dandy was repeatedly quizzed by inquiries, directed to the various portions of his apparel, of “Who suffers?” This artillery was constantly played upon Sheridan: “Sherry, I see you’ve got a new coat—who suffers?” “Sherry, who suffers for that new hat?” After this the disconcerted treasurer avoided the hustings, and his son Tom, whose cool audacity was proverbial, managed to take his place. Sheridan only gained the election through his coalition with Hood; but the shafts of Cobbett’s “porcupine quills” and the conflict of the hustings rankled in his breast. A dissolution shortly followed, and he lost his seat, which, by precipitating his financial difficulties, ingloriously finished Sheridan’s career.
The defeat of the famous Coalition Ministry of “All the Talents” upon the vexed question of Catholic Emancipation was the cause of a fresh appeal to the country early in 1807, when the followers of the late Granville Administration contested the constituencies at a disadvantage, confronted with the popular cries of “Church and King” and “No Popery.” Paull now flattered himself that his chances of being returned for Westminster were reviving, but candidates were more numerous, and Sir Francis Burdett, who was discouraged by his last experience from contesting Middlesex, was appealing to Westminster himself. Paull advertised a dinner to be held at the Crown 320 and Anchor, and as Burdett had promised his support, and had actually gone to the length of nominating Paull, he was announced, without authority it appeared, to take the chair; this was the cause of a rupture between the prominent Radical candidates. Two days before the meeting, Burdett wrote to Paull:—
PATRIOTS DECIDING A POINT OF HONOUR; THE DUEL AT WIMBLEDON, BETWEEN SIR FRANCIS BURDETT AND JAMES PAULL. WESTMINSTER ELECTION. 1807. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
“I must say, to have my name advertised for such meetings is like ‘Such a day is to be seen the great Katterfelto,’ and this without any previous consent or application. From any one else I should regard it as an insult!”
At the dinner, it was explained by Sir Francis’s brother that Burdett had given no promise to preside; after the meeting broke up, Paull waited on his proposer, and a warm altercation ensued, when a hostile meeting was arranged to take place the next morning near Wimbledon. This duel is made the subject of a fresh satire by Gillray—“Patriots Deciding a Point of Honour! or, the Exact Representation of the Celebrated Rencontre which took place at Combe Wood on May 2nd, 1807, between Little Paull the Tailor and Sir Francis Goose.” On the field of honour, Burdett continued to be travestied as the famous “great green goose:” his letter to the electors at the Crown and Anchor is, with other political and 321 personal publications, scattered around as the cause of the encounter; one pair of pistols is already discharged. At the second exchange of shots, which Paull demanded, as Burdett declined to apologize, both combatants were wounded, as shown in the picture. Sir Francis was highly indignant, according to the satirist’s version: “What, must I be out! and a Tailor get into Parliament?—You’re a liar! I never said that I would sit as Chairman on your Shopboard!” Paull, who is girt with a huge pair of shears sword-wise, responds, “A liar!—Sir, I’m a Tailor and a Gentleman, and I must have satisfaction.” Bellenden Kerr and Cooper, the seconds of the respective combatants, are provided with two armfuls of pistols for the emergency, which Sam Rogers described as “ending in a lame affair.”
THE POLL OF THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION, 1807. ELECTION CANDIDATES, OR THE REPUBLICAN GOOSE AT THE TOP OF THE POLL. ON THE POLL: BURDETT, COCHRANE, ELLIOTT, SHERIDAN, PAULL; BELOW ARE TEMPLE, GREY, GRANVILLE, PETTY, ETC. BY JAMES GILLRAY.
The further results of the contest are shown as the “Poll of the Westminster Election.” According to Gillray’s figurative version, Burdett, still as the goose with wounded 322 limb, is pitchforked to the top, whence he is hissing at the Crown as the “Sun of the Constitution;” his political tutor, travestied as the Evil One, is helping his rise; Lord Cochrane, flourishing a club, marked, “Reform,” is second; Elliot, the brewer, as “Quassia,” is overset; Sheridan, in his old Harlequin suit, is slipping down, never to rise again; and Paull, with his leg damaged, has come down with a run, he having cut an insignificant figure in the polling; the members of the dismissed ministry are commemorating Burdett’s triumph with “rough music.” This version, which contains a number of portraits, is entitled—
“Election Candidates; or, the Republican Goose at the Top of the Pol(l)e—the Devil Helping Behind! vide Mr. Paull’s Letter, article Horne Tooke. Also an exact representation of Sawney M’Cockran (Lord Cochrane) flourishing the Cudgel of Naval Reform, lent him by Cobbett, and mounting triumphantly over a small Beer Barrel, together with an old Drury Lane Harlequin trying in vain to make a spring to the top of the pole, and slipping down again; and lastly, poor Little Paull, the Tailor done over! wounded by a Goose, and not a leg to stand on.” (May 20, 1807.)
THE HEAD OF THE POLL; OR, THE WIMBLEDON SHOWMAN AND HIS PUPPET. 1807. TOOKE AND BURDETT.
The support and assistance afforded by the author of the “Diversions of Purley” to his pupil are further indicated in a caricature which represented the “Brentford Parson” carrying the candidate at the end of his pole, and, as in the former example, exhibiting Burdett to the crowd assembled in Covent Garden, under the title of “The Head of the Poll; or, the Wimbledon Showman and his Puppet.” Horne Tooke is advertising “The finest puppet in the world, gentlemen; entirely of my own formation. I have only to say the word, and he’ll do anything.” 323
Another view of a hustings is afforded by the caricaturist. From the platform a select few of superannuated statesmen are addressing the constituents, in this instance pictured as calves. This version, which is by Gillray, represents a phase of the “Patriotic Petitions on the Convention” (of Cintra); “The Chelmsford Petition,” with Patriots addressing the Essex Calves—who, it is notified, are “To be sold to the highest bidder.” Lord Temple is unfolding the Essex Petition—“Horrid Convention! Ministers firing the Park guns; Armistice in French lingoes!” Earl St. Vincent is appealing to the electors, and declaring that all the misfortunes are due to the want of him; the gouty veteran is supported by the Marquis of Buckingham, who is asserting “It’s all for want of us, Gentlemen Calves!” sentiments which the other occupants of the platform, Windham and Lord Henry Petty, are applauding.
| Marquis of Buckingham. | Lord Temple. |
| Lord H. Petty. | Earl St. Vincent. |
THE CHELMSFORD PETITION: PATRIOTS ADDRESSING THE ESSEX CALVES. 324
It was the “royal” Duke of Norfolk, who, on the appeal to the country which followed the downfall of Lord Granville’s Ministry of “all the Talents,” declared in the true spirit of the old political grandees, “After all, what greater enjoyment can there be in life than to stand a contested election for Yorkshire, and to win it by one?” The harder and more costly the fight, the better the fun, and the more relishable the victory which stirred the blood of the Howards.
It is curious to view the precise Wilberforce, as pictured by himself, entertaining at midnight suppers his constituents, the Hull freemen located in London, to the number of three hundred, at waterside public-houses round Wapping, and by his addresses to them “gaining confidence in public speaking.” As a young man, only just of age, Wilberforce successfully contested a seat for Hull. His entry to the senate cost him between £8000 and £9000, on his own showing.
“By long-established custom the single vote of a resident elector was rewarded with a donation of two guineas; four were paid for a plumper, and the expenses of a freeman’s journey from London averaged £10 apiece. The letter of the law was not broken, because the money was not paid until the last day on which election petitions could be presented.”
This early success of Wilberforce was won in opposition to the paramount influence of Lord Rockingham, and that 325 of the Government, “always strong at a seaport;” but this contest sinks into insignificance beside Wilberforce’s later experiences. It was after the philanthropist had already represented the county of Yorkshire for twenty-three years that, on the unexpected dissolution in 1807, he found himself plunged in the most expensive contest on record, one in which it was alleged half a million of money was squandered, and which has been aptly designated the “Austerlitz of Electioneering.”
Wilberforce’s opponents were Lord Milton, backed by the powerful influence of his father, Earl Fitzwilliam, and with the active co-operation of the Duke of Norfolk; and the Hon. H. Lascelles, in promoting whose return his father, Lord Harewood, was “ready to spend his whole Barbados property.” When the great abolitionist arrived in York, he found his rivals had already marshalled their forces, retained all the law-agents, and engaged canvassers, houses of entertainment, and every species of conveyance in any considerable town. As Wilberforce assured his friends on the nomination day, when nearly every hand was uplifted in his favour, “he would never expose himself to the imputation of endeavouring to make a seat in the House of Commons subservient to the repair of a dilapidated fortune,” a vast subscription was set on foot to defray the expenses he incurred in standing, and, within a week, this fund reached £64,455. At the hustings, the high sheriff declared the majority in favour of Lord Milton and the Hon. H. Lascelles, whereupon a poll was demanded by Mr. Wilberforce, which commenced at once, and continued for fifteen days. The high sheriff presided in court, and the poll was taken at thirteen booths in York Castle yard. For the first few days Wilberforce stood so low that his professional adviser stated that “the sooner he resigned the better.” While the heavy purses had secured every mode of conveyance, even to “mourning coaches,” Wilberforce’s adherents were, at their own charges, slowly making their way to the poll. 326
“No carriages are to be procured,” says a letter from Hull, “but boats are proceeding up the river heavily laden with voters; farmers lend their waggons; even donkeys have the honour of carrying voters for Wilberforce, and hundreds are proceeding on foot. This is just as it should be. No money can convey all the voters, but if their feelings are roused his election is secure.”
“How did you come up?” they asked a countryman who had “plumped” for Wilberforce, and who denied having spent anything on his journey. “Sure enow I cam all’d way ahint Lord Milton’s carriage.” Vast hosts of mounted freeholders rode in bodies to York, and, when interrogated, “For what parties do you come?” the response was, “Wilberforce” to a man, and these continued to arrive both by day and night. The York Herald summarizes the excitement of the election:—
“Nothing since the days of the revolution has ever presented to the world such a scene as this great county for fifteen days and nights. Repose or rest have been unknown in it, except it was seen in a messenger asleep upon his post-horse, or in his carriage. Every day the roads in every direction to and from every remote part of the county have been covered with vehicles loaded with voters; and barouches, curricles, gigs, flying waggons, and military cars with eight horses, crowded sometimes with forty voters, have been scouring the country, leaving not the slightest chance for the quiet traveller to urge his humble journey, or find a chair at an inn to sit down upon.”
As Wilberforce’s majority increased, the “Miltonians” and “Lascellites” freely resorted to tricky manœuvres included among “election tactics.” Falsehoods about “coalitions” were circulated; it was asserted there was “an unholy alliance” between “Saint and Sinner”—Wilberforce and Harewood House; that the great slave abolitionist was in league with the “Nigger Driver,” otherwise Lord Harewood, the holder of the Barbados slave property. “Then,” says Wilberforce, “the mob-directing system—twenty bruisers sent for, Firby, Gully, and others.” It was the object of Milton’s “bravos” to drown Wilberforce’s refutations of the “Coalition” charge, and when he addressed the people, the mob interrupted his explanation. 327“Print what you have to say in a handbill, and let them read it, since they will not hear you,” cried a friend. “They read indeed!” said Wilberforce. “What, do you suppose that men who make such a noise as these fellows can read?” This sally won the heart of the crowd. To the other false rumours against him was added that of his own death; four days before the election closed he was attacked by an epidemic which disabled him from taking a further personal share in the struggle. Wilberforce stood at the head of the poll with 11,806 votes, Lord Milton was returned with 11,177, and Lascelles was defeated, with 10,989.
“Had I not been defrauded of promised votes, I should have had 20,000,” Wilberforce wrote to Hannah Moore. “However, it is unspeakable cause for thankfulness to come out of the battle ruined neither in health, character, or fortune.”
A large proportion of the subscriptions was returned. The motives which influenced Wilberforce to this arduous adventure are such as command the sympathies of those who prize constitutional freedom.
“It is but too manifest,” he wrote, “that expensive contests have a natural tendency to throw great counties and populous places into the hands of men of immense wealth; just as it has been sometimes found that mankind have sought a refuge from the evils of anarchy, by running into the opposite extreme, and surrendering their liberties.”
In a footnote to a series of satirical epistles, published in 1807, as “The Groans of the Talents,” in six epistles, purporting to be written by ex-ministers to their colleagues, we get a curious, if apocryphal, electioneering anecdote. The putative author of the epistle in question, the Right Hon. W. Windham, and his correspondent, T. W. Coke, were both sufferers from the damaging indiscretion recorded. It is explained how these candidates were supposed (incorrectly according to facts) to have lost their seats for Norfolk. In the general election, 1806, two ladies of the first respectability drove about the county to canvass for Col. Hon. J. Wodehouse (Conservative), and as they were universally respected, their success was proportionably great. Messrs. Coke and Windham were much chagrined at this circumstance; 328 at length, however, the latter gentleman’s inventive genius devised a plan by which he hoped to turn it to their own advantage. Having procured two comely nymphs of light reputation, somewhat resembling in age and appearance the “fair petitioners” they were destined to personate, he arrayed them in similar apparel, and, having procured a carriage which formerly belonged to one of these ladies, they canvassed another part of the county in favour of Messrs. Coke and Windham; the trick, however, was discovered, and so indignant were Col. Wodehouse’s fair friends, that they instigated their husbands and friends to petition parliament against the sheriff’s return. Thus did the means by which Mr. Windham hoped to defeat the Hon. John Wodehouse contribute to the discredit of himself and friend. It must be added, it is hardly credible the Right Hon. W. Windham would be likely to resort to so disreputable an electioneering ruse.
In the days when candidates paid their electors’ travelling expenses (and these ranged high, averaging, for example, from London to Hull, ten pounds apiece for freemen, the recognized tariff), curious manœuvres were resorted to by the “other side;” one of these was to buy off the persons who had the responsibility of delivering these expensive cargoes safe and in good voting order at the end of their expedition. Among these anecdotes, it is related that, when those Berwick freemen who happened to reside in the metropolis—
“were going down by sea, the skippers, to whose tender mercy they were committed, used to be bribed, and have been known in consequence to carry them over to Norway!”
This is the forerunner of the Ipswich story, that the Ipswich freemen, under precisely similar conditions, have occasionally found themselves in Holland; while, on the authority of R. Southey, it had also occurred to electors to find themselves delivered at a port in the Netherlands. The notorious Andrew Robinson Bowes, who was famous for being undeterred by scruples, once stood for Newcastle. 329 A cargo of Newcastle freemen were shipped from London for his opponent, and the master was bribed by Bowes to carry them to Ostend, where they remained till the election was over.
The majesty of the people is adequately represented from a humoristic standpoint by Pugin and Rowlandson, as it might have appeared on its septennial returns in the boisterous eighteenth century. In the view of the most celebrated polling-place of the kingdom, one of the candidates has secured the ears of the adjacent crowd:—
Possibly the voices will follow; a show of hands is offered with hearty goodwill; but, put to the test of the poll-book, it would seem that, for the most part, the audience is voteless. However, the polling-places may be recognized, like cattle pens, in front of the hustings, with the attendant officials under the supervision of the high bailiff of Westminster as returning officer. The flags indicate the respective parishes of the district, such as St. Margaret’s, St. James’s, St. Martin in the Fields, etc. Pugin is responsible for the literal exactitude with which the locality is represented; his drawing may be accepted as a faithful view of the customary arrangement of the Covent Garden hustings at the time of the Westminster elections: while Rowlandson has added the life and zest of the subject from actual observation. With the history of the famous contests held on this spot before us, it is noteworthy that the artist has given prominence to one well-known feature, characteristic of Westminster elections for nearly a century, the nomination of an influential naval officer in the Court interest, whose supporters, backed up by a contingent of loyal jack-tars, produced a due effect on 330 the opposition. Rowlandson was quite at home in the scene: he has reproduced the bludgeon-boys, ballad-singers, professional pugilists, marrow-bone-and-cleaver “rough music,” and those vendors of cakes, nuts, fruit, and such small wares as were in request at such times; these itinerant traders found at elections a large mart for their commodities, but the business was at such times conducted at some personal risk, the baskets being overset, the contents scattered, and the owners roughly handled in the course of the attacks, counter-charges, and other party-manœuvres which diversified the proceedings in the vicinity of the hustings.
G. Cruikshank supplied a frontispiece to Fairburn’s “Electors of Westminster,” 1810—a copy of the “Speaker’s Warrant for the Commitment of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower,” with a burlesque portrait of that privileged functionary, the Speaker, in an enormous wig, surmounted by a miniature hat; the Right Hon. Charles Abbott was further caricatured by the artist as “The Little Man in the Big Wig”—vide “Fuller’s Earth reanimated.”
A burlesque, by George Cruikshank, upon one of the candidates for the City appeared in 1812, under the title of “The Election Hunter;” it consists of a broadside, commencing:—
G. Cruikshank has supplied the pictorial embellishments. Sir Claudius Hunter, the canvassing candidate, is standing in the stirrups of his famous charger, “White Surrey,” mounted on the platform, attended by masked horsemen, and squired by a dilapidated knight in armour, who has evidently seen overmuch service. The candidate is thus addressing the civic constituency: “Gentleman, I earnestly solicit your vote and interest for me and my horse.” This appeal the electors receive with derision, “No, no; you may saddle White Surrey for Cheapside if you like, but not for the House,” “Off, off,” etc. 331
This electioneering squib was probably preceded by another, also designed by G. Cruikshank (published April 10, 1812). In this version, entitled, “Saddle White Surrey for Cheapside to-morrow—W. Lon. Mil. Regt. [West London Militia Regiment], General Orders,” Sir Claudius, mounted on his steed, is making, like a true knight-errant, a quixotic charge upon his constituents, preceded by the woeful man-in-armour, like Sancho Panza, on an ass; he is charging the throng with his lance. A groom behind Sir Claudius is exclaiming, “This is our High-bred Hunter!”
In 1812, G. Cruikshank found fresh exercise for his etching-needle on another electioneering cartoon—“The Borough Candidates,” published October 1812. Suggestions of Gillray will be identified in this plate, for the artist is dealing with Charles Calvert, the brewer, who was elected for Southwark with H. Thornton, in opposition to W. J. Burdett; the new member is seated astride a barrel of his own brewing, the “stingo” is pouring forth from spigot and vent-peg. The discomfited candidates are figured on either side; while the heads of the brewer’s constituents appear in front.
Elections happily brought both food and occupation to the caricaturists and satirists, as it has been shown. Incidents connected with this subject evidently caught the popular taste, for we find Cruikshank making the most of the mere title, in association with the etching of a somewhat commonplace presentment of a country assembly-room, conveying no flattering impression of the provincial grace and deportment of the period; this was published in 1813—as “An Election Ball:” the floor is occupied by knock-kneed dancers doddering through figures, while the master of the ceremonies is shouting his instructions to the leader of the band, elevated in an orchestra overhead.
The artist evidently found this topic remunerative, for in 1819 he produced a smaller version of “An Election Ball”—a similar subject, with the arrangement of the room reversed; a country dance is proceeding with “hands 332 across;” the clumsy master of the ceremonies, who is pigeon-toed, stands viewing the scene with evident gratification. This plate reappeared, with a new publisher’s name, in 1835 (republished by Thomas McLean, Haymarket).
| Hunt. | Burdett. | Cartwright. | Sir S. Romilly. | Sir M. Maxwell. |
THE FREEDOM OF ELECTION; OR, HUNT-ING FOR POPULARITY, AND PLUMPERS FOR MAXWELL. 1818. BY G. AND R. CRUIKSHANK.
Both Robert and George Cruikshank were working away on the popular side of the Westminster election contest, June 18, 1818. “The Freedom of Election; or, Hunting for Popularity, and Plumpers for Maxwell,” published June 22, 1818, owes its origin to this combination of talent. In the caricature, the candidates and their most prominent supporters are mounted on the Covent Garden hustings, of which a front view is given. Hunt stands hat in hand (he and Sir Francis Burdett sport “favours”); the Radical reformer is backed by his colours, his flag proclaims “Universal Suffrage and Liberty;” the standard is surmounted by a cap of liberty. Hunt is making a characteristically downright appeal to his audience:—
“I am a plain Englishman. I approve of the conduct of Sir Murray Maxwell in coming forward as he has done. Why should you send Sir Samuel Romilly to Parliament? He can find his way into the 333 Den of Corruption. You know the hero of the Tower, as well as I do—who ran out at the back door when his friends were waiting for him at the front. I have hoisted the Cap of Liberty!”
The followers of the speaker are shouting, “Hunt for ever! no Sovereigns, no Regents, no Churches, no Lawyers! Universal Plunder for ever! No Sham Patriots. Hunt and Liberty. Hunt and Revolution.” Sir Francis Burdett comes next, beside the Hon. Douglas Kinnaird and Major Cartwright; these candidates are variously received. “Burdett for ever!—No Weathercocks. No Coalition. The Spenceans for ever! Napoleon for ever! Burdett for ever! No Spafields Rioters.” “Kinnaird for ever!” “Cartwright for ever! No old woman in Parliament.” Sir Samuel Romilly is standing beside the poll on which the results of the first day’s votings are recorded. The cries for “Romilly and Justice,” “Romilly and Reform,” indicate a popular candidate. Sir Murray Maxwell is a prominent figure, and is represented in the full swing of his eloquence; like Hunt, he is disposed to be a courteous opponent:—
“Gentlemen,—Mr. Hunt is anxious you should hear me now. I am certain you will hear him presently with pleasure. I am certain my cause is as popular as his; for I see many pretty girls pressing forward to hear me. Of all the days in the year, none appear more favourable for a British officer to receive your support than the anniversary of Waterloo.”
“Maxwell and the British Navy! Let every man do his duty!” is shouted; while hostile voices cry, “No Maxwell—no Captain Flog-’em.” A notice-board, capped by the crown, sets forth the merits of this candidate:—
“Who is Sir M. Maxwell? He is a brave, learned, loyal, and Constitutional man. He hoists only the colours of his King and country—not the red flag. He has engaged to pay his share of the Hustings to prevent new levies on the people.”
Sir S. Romilly (W) headed the poll with 5339 votes; Sir Francis Burdett was a good second with 5238; Sir Murray Maxwell, the unsuccessful candidate, polled 4808: the 334 others were “nowhere”—Hunt, 84; Kinnaird, 65; Cartwright, 23.
HUNT, A RADICAL REFORMER.
In the same spirit the satirists regarded as fair game for their shafts of ridicule the new political section which had seceded from the Whig party as being behind the age; these were the “root-and-branch reformers,” who, from their electing to call themselves Radical reformers, obtained the party designation of “Radicals.” The orator Hunt is travestied in this guise.
The general turbulence of the times at this precise period is graphically pictured in “The Law’s Delay.”
There appeared in 1819 “A Political Squib on the Westminster Election, Covent Garden” (March 3), by G. Cruikshank. This etching forms the frontispiece to a tract published April 20, 1819, for Bengo, print-dealer, Maiden Lane, Covent Garden. The somewhat mystifying title of the election squib is “Patriot Allegory, Anarchical Fable, and Licentious Parody,” and it purports to be written by Peregrine Castigator. G. Cruikshank has availed himself of that long-suffering animal, the British Lion; in this instance the monarch of the beasts personates the successful candidate, the Hon. George Lamb being figured as the lion. He is exhibited standing under the city gate, beneath a 335 portcullis, wreathed with laurels; his tail is lashed in anger, while the unsuccessful candidates, as an additional ignominy to their defeat, are travestied as the heads of a hydra trampled beneath their political victor. John Cam Hobhouse (W) polled 3,861, and was beaten by G. Lamb (C) with 4,465 votes. T. T. Wooler, the revolutionary publisher, for whom Cruikshank was working in 1815, is personified as the “Black Dwarf,” as his whilom ally ever after represented him; his duck’s-head cap is made to exclaim, “Cartwright and ’38!!!” the next individual says, “Quack! quack! quack!”—an allusion to the small minority of votes polled by the Radical candidate at the Westminster election for 1819, vice Romilly deceased, when 8,364 votes were registered, and only 38 of these for Cartwright.
THE LAW’S DELAY. READING THE RIOT ACT. 1820. BY G. CRUIKSHANK.
Showing the advantage and comfort of waiting the specified time after reading the Riot Act to a Radical mob; or a British magistrate in the discharge of his duty, and the people of England in the discharge of theirs! See speeches of the Opposition—Passim.
Major Cartwright, the “Drum-major of Sedition” of the ministerial satirists, was one of the Radical reformers who laboured actively for the reform of parliamentary abuses. He put up for Westminster in the Radical interest in 1818 and 1819, but seems to have had no support. In 1820, Major Cartwright addressed a petition to the House of Commons for the purpose of disclosing “that ninety-seven Lords usurped two hundred seats in the Commons-House in violation of our Laws and Liberties.”
“Resolved. That it is a high infringement upon our Liberties and Privileges for Lords of Parliament to concern themselves in the Elections of members to serve for the Commons.” (Journals at the commencement of every Session.)
How far the measure of reform was needed in the corrupt system of boroughmongering is clearly demonstrated by Major Cartwright’s—
“Lists and Tables of Peers of the Realm who have unlawfully concerned themselves in the Election of members to serve for the Commons in the Parliament which was then sitting (1820), with the Counties and Towns where the unlawful interference of Peers has operated, either by nomination or influence, with the number of members unlawfully returned.”
For instance, the Dukes of Bedford and Rutland respectively returned four representatives; the same number was in the 336 nomination of the Earls of Ailesbury, St. Germans, Mount Edgecumbe, etc., while such powerful autocrats as the Earl of Lonsdale contrived to return eight nominees, as did the Earl of Darlington; six members were returned by the Duke of Norfolk and Earl Fitzwilliam respectively; while the Dukes of Devonshire, Newcastle, and Northumberland, the Marquises of Buckingham and Hertford, the Earl of Powis, and Baron Carrington each managed to return five seats. To the calculations given in his table, the petitioner added the Treasury patronage, then in the Earl of Liverpool’s control, giving eleven members; the Admiralty, under Viscount Melville’s patronage, imposing three members, the Ordnance (Duke of Wellington) one—adding again, according to the calculations given in Oldfield’s “Representative History” (vi. 289),—
“There are ninety wealthy Commoners who, for 102 vile sinks of corruption over which they tyrannize, further dishonour the House by forcing on it 137 members,” thus giving a total of no less than 353 members, who, as Cartwright represented to the House of Commons in his very remarkable Petition, [the Major writes] “to use the words of the royal proclamation of the 30th July, 1819,” were created such “in gross violation of the law, and to the palpable subversion of the constitution, being corruptly or tyrannically imposed on the Commons.”
“The pure and undefiled principles of the Constitution” were inculcated by Major Cartwright in his “Lectures on the British Constitution,” “Letters to Lord Mayor Wood,” “Letters to Clarkson on African and English Freedom,” “Resolutions and Proceedings of the Hampden Club,” “A Bill of Rights and Liberties; or, an Act for restoring the Civil Branch of the Constitution,” and the companion work, “A Bill of Free and Sure Defence, for restoring the Military Branch.” The major was brimming over with zeal, and had almost too good a case; unfortunately for the enforcement of his reforms, he was too early in the field.
The coming elections of 1820 were preceded by several caricatures. Those by George Cruikshank are the most meritorious, the artist’s work for this date being at its best. He was at that time employed by Humphrey, the print-publisher, 337 of St. James’s Street, as a successor to James Gillray, an honour the artist regarded with pride to the close of his long career. On the 1st of January, John Cam Hobhouse, who was then canvassing Westminster, and was this year to be sent to parliament as the colleague of his friend, Sir Francis Burdett, was exhibited as “Little Hob in the Well,” under the title of “A Trifling Mistake—Corrected.” The diminutive statesman is exhibited in the place of his confinement, a prison-cell; he is gloomily contemplating two pictures on the wall, “St. Stephen’s Chapel versus Newgate.” A pile of manuscripts, blackened by the upsetting of an inkstand, and a mouse-trap assist the allusions. “The Trifling Mistake” is placarded on the wall in the indiscreet but pertinent utterances of the captive, which, if truly set forth, may account for his incarceration.
“What prevents the people from walking down to the House and pulling out the members by the ears, locking up their doors, and flinging the key into the Thames? Is it any majesty which lodges in the members of that assembly? Do we love them? Not at all; we have an instinctive horror and disgust at the abstract idea of a boroughmonger. Do we respect them? Not in the least. Do we regard them as endowed with any superior qualities? On the contrary, individually, there is scarcely a poorer creature than your mere member of Parliament, though in his corporate capacity the earth furnishes not so absolute a bully. Their true practical protectors, then—the real efficient anti-Reformers—are to be found at the Horse Guards and the Knightsbridge Barracks. As long as the House of Commons majorities are backed by the regimental muster-roll, so long may those who have got the tax-power keep it,—and hang those who resist.”
In the same month appeared another strong “anti-reform” caricature from the same source—though, as we see by a later work, the artist’s sympathies were at this time on the side of the reformers, while Radical publishers of an advanced type were his chief employers,—“The Root of King’s Evil—Lay the Axe to it,” January 14, 1820. A learned prelate, seated in his library, is considerably scared by the apparition of the red spectre, literally a root—possibly implying the tree of liberty—planted in “le bonnet rouge,” and wearing the cap of liberty. On a pike in one 338 hand is the mitred head of a bishop, in the other is another pike surmounted by a battered crown, with the tricolour flag edged with crape, and inscribed “Blood, Reform, and Plunder,” with a list of the “reds” and reformers in juxtaposition—Watson, Thistlewood, Preston, Hooper, Waddington, Harrison, Hunt, Pearson, Wood, Waithman, Parkins, etc. In the second category are Cobbett, Carlile, Tom Paine, Burdett, Little Hob, Death, and the Devil,—no King, etc. The prelate is interrogating the spectral visitor: “In the name of Satan, what the Devil are you, and where were you hatched?” “In Hell, your worship. I’m a Radical. Give me leave to present you a list of my best friends.” “Burn’s Justice” stands open at “Treason,” and a huge volume of “Etymology” stands exposed at the definition of “Radical”—“Ex Radix is a root, and Calor is heat, anger, strife; q.d.—The root of all strife.”
A comprehensive view of the respective sections of Radicals and Reformers on the dissolution of Parliament, February 29, 1820, is afforded by one of G. Cruikshank’s most successful caricatures, which may be considered, in point of execution, as among the works most worthy of his reputation; it is entitled, “Coriolanus Addressing the Plebs,” February 29, 1820. The scene is the screen in front of Carlton House Palace, and His Majesty, the magnifico George IV., is flatteringly travestied as Coriolanus. The “cauliflower” wig and false whiskers affected by “the finest gentleman in Europe” detract from the consistency of the figure, otherwise attired in classic guise, and presenting a dignified appearance; for, wonderful to relate, Cruikshank has gone out of his way to compliment the king in more than one respect. The address, a felicitous quotation from Shakespeare, is antagonistic to the actual sentiments held by the artist at this stage of his career:—
“What would ye have, ye curs, that like not peace nor war? The one affrights you, the other makes you proud. He that trusts to you, where he should find you lions, finds you hares; where foxes, geese. 339 Hang ye! trust ye!! With every minute you change a mind, and call him noble that was now your hate; him vile, that was your garland. What’s the matter, that in the several places of the city, you cry against the noble Senate, who (under the gods) keep you in awe, which else would feed upon one another?”
CORIOLANUS ADDRESSING THE PLEBS. 1820. BY GEORGE CRUIKSHANK.
Beneath the quotation is a passage from Buffon, eulogizing the nobility of the figure above, “L’image de l’âme est peinte par la physionomie”—“animé d’un feu divin,” and other extravagances, such as “his majestic presence, and the firm and bold deportment which marks his nobility and rank.” In the other “Great George’s” parody, the various sections, from Reformers to Revolutionists and Socialists, are carefully kept apart, although the plebeians at the first glance appear but a miscellaneous mob.
First comes “Liberty of the Press,” a tricolour standard, topped by the “cap of liberty.” At the front stands William Hone, a stalwart champion, armed with two formidable clubs, one is styled “Parody,” and the other inscribed with the names of the famous satirical tracts, “The Man in the Moon,” and “The House that Jack Built,” both objectionable weapons in the eyes of the “Coriolanus” of the picture. Behind his ally and publisher, Hone, is the portrait of the artist himself, with a tricoloured portfolio marked “Caricature.” George Cruikshank, in his later days, when turned to Tory proclivities like one or two other notabilities in the group, endeavoured to soften the impression conveyed by this print, and described “your humble servant” as “one of the moderate reformers,” evidently not relishing the company of those among whom, in his early truculent days, he had voluntarily enrolled himself. Next comes the figure of the champion of the Princess of Wales, “Sheriff Double Hue,” otherwise Waithman, who is hugging a project for “Hell-wide Measures;” beneath the standard of the “Examiners” and “Chronicles” stands a figure clad in complete Highland garb; this is Douglas Kinnaird, on the alert, and armed with his trusty claymore. Sir Francis Burdett and John Cam Hobhouse, jointly grasping a formidable 340 weapon, are enlisted under the standard of “Parliamentary Reform.” Hobhouse is trampling on the “Trifling Mistake,” a parodied version of the speech which procured him more notoriety than was desirable: over his head is seen Thelwall as a champion lecturer; Major Cartwright, the so-called “Drum-Major of Sedition,” after all his struggles in the cause, is but a broken-down leader, supported on a crutch stick with one hand, while raising the redoubtable sword of “Universal Suffrage” in the other. Prominent in front of the group enlisted under the ensign of “Revolution and Plunder,” capped with the Death’s head, stands Wooler, travestied as the “Black Dwarf,” after the paper he had then made notorious. Orator Hunt, with pike reversed, is resting one hand on Cobbett’s shoulder; the latter, a brawny figure, flourishing two gigantic bones (of contention?); another communist is skulking away, having let fall Tom Paine’s “Age of Reason.” The publisher of the “new lights,” Carlile, is resting on a staff capped with a thistle; Preston, the bootmaker, a violent Democrat, together with Thistlewood and others holding extreme views, are enrolled under a bond of “Blood and Plunder.” The figure to the extreme left, next to the screen of Carlton House, is described by Cruikshank as intended for Dr. Watson. Truly the “Plebs” form a muster-roll of all the prominent Radicals and Revolutionists of a period when secret societies of those whose designs were inimical to constitutional order were presumed to flourish.
The evils which disfigured constituencies in the boroughmongering days are pictorially set forth by George Cruikshank, under date April 23, 1820, in a caricature entitled “Freedom and Purity of Election!!! Showing the Necessity of Reform in the Close Boroughs.” The scene refers to the elections in Cornwall; the locality being indicated by a signpost as Tregony and St. Austel. The unhappy villagers, by the independent exercise of their suffrages, have displeased their feudal proprietor, and are being summarily evicted from their houses, with their household belongings, by a 341 truculent steward, with a list of the “proscribed” held in his hand. Old and young, women and children, are alike doomed, because they or their protectors have dared to act with independence, and have not voted according to the fiat of the lord of the manor. Daniel O’Connell appears as the unsuccessful candidate; he is viewing this mischief with compassion, and is encouraging those evicted “not to be cast down, as there are other houses besides his lordship’s,” and that he—the Liberator—“will not desert them, although they have lost the election.”
Parliament reassembled at the end of April, 1820, and in May, George Cruikshank again favoured the public with another anti-reform cartoon, “Radical Quacks giving a New Constitution to John Bull!” In this version the persons most prominent among the “Plebeians” are alluded to incidentally. John Bull, the national prototype, is reduced, under the new “regimen,” out of all recognition; in fact, he is but the mangled remnant of his former portly self, for the new charlatans are having “their own sweet will.” John Bull is placed between Burdett and Hobhouse; many desperate operations have already taken place. He wears the bonnet-rouge of “Liberty” as a night-cap. His left arm is in a tricoloured sling, while his right arm is being bled. His two sufficient supports of Church and State have been amputated, and in their places are strapped two wooden-legs—“Universal Suffrage,” propped on the “Rights of Man,” and “Religious Freedom,” which is raised on the “Age of Reason;” the legs of his invalid-chair are equally unreliable—“Mistaken Confidence,” and “Mistaken Security;” the sufferer is resting on a pillow stuffed with “False Promises” and “Reformers’ Opinions.” Sir Francis Burdett, as a professional adviser, is holding the arm from which he is draining the patient’s blood:—
“Mr. Bull, you have lived too well, but when we have renovated your constitution according to our plan, the reform will be so complete—that you will never again be troubled with any fulness whatsoever!” 342
John Cam Hobhouse is administering a tricoloured bolus of formidable dimensions, to be followed by a corresponding draught:—
“Never mind, Mr. Bull; if we have thought it necessary to take off both your legs, you will find the others very good substitutes; this Revolutionary Bolus and decoction of disloyalty are very harmless, but they will restore the general equality of the intestines and remove any obstruction which may prevent us from effecting a Radical Reform in the system.”
The victim of these experiments is by no means assured as to his future—
“Maybe, gentlemen,” he replies to these plausible assurances; “but you have taken all the honest good blood out of my veins; deprived me of my real supporters, and stuck two bad props in their place, and if you go on thus, I shall die before ever my constitution can be improved.”
The real supporters, “Mr. Bull’s two legs—Church and State,” are consigned to a coffin, “to be entombed in the vaults of St. Stephen’s Chapel.” A formidable array of nostrums are displayed in the vicinity: Burdett has soporifics and opiates handy—a huge bottle, labelled “Burdett’s Mixture,” contains a red, white, and blue republican decoction, “Hobhouse’s Newgate-proof Purity,” and “Whitbread’s Entire;” a large packet of “Cartwright’s Universal Grease,” with a phial of “Wooler’s Black-drops;” “Old Bailey Drops” (the bottle broken); ditto, “Dr. Watson’s White + Comfort;” a packet of “Hunt’s Powder,” and a full supply of “Cobbett’s Hellebore Ratsbane”—enough, in all conscience, to kill or cure. 343
The last parliament of George IV.’s reign met November 14, 1826. Towards the close of the session, as is shadowed in Doyle’s early cartoons, the nation was tiring of the Tories, and the unpopular and somewhat antiquated Wellington Ministry found the country in distress and clamorous for retrenchment, to each of which complaints the rigid disciplinarian in chief command turned a deaf and unsympathetic ear. Towards the middle of the year 1830 the king’s condition was threatening, and with his impending decease the close of the session was anticipated. The situation is pictorially summed up in one of HB’s sketches as the “Present State of Public Feeling Partially Illustrated” (May 28, 1830). The views entertained by various individuals upon the king’s illness are illustrated in their persons: a dandy regrets the postponement of routs and balls, a speculator complains of the dulness of the funds, a merchant finds business at a standstill, while a lady of fashion is resigned to the will of Providence by the opportune reflection that should the king die there would be the gayer prospect of a queen and Court—an advantageous exchange for a sovereign shrouded from his subjects. John Bull good-naturedly declares he hopes George may recover, “he was such a fine princely fellow!” But the part of this picture which applies most pertinently to the subject in hand is found in a member of the Tory Government, who is reflecting “That should there be a change in the ministry—then I must walk out. That 344 would be very inconvenient at the present. I wish most sincerely His Majesty won’t die yet!” while another M.P. is filled with apprehension: “There will he a dissolution of parliament, and I shall lose my seat, and with it all chance of preferment. Oh, I pray God to preserve His Majesty’s life these many years.” Swiftly indeed, and somewhat unexpectedly too, came the end of the king’s reign and the inauguration of a more liberal régime.
The next day appeared HB’s version of the “Mourning Journal—Alas! Poor Yorick” (May 29, 1830), showing the Duke of Cumberland and Lord Eldon as mutes in attendance on the (to them) melancholy occasion of their chief’s decease. “The Magic Mirror, or a Peep into Futurity” (June 8, 1830), shows a magician favouring John Bull with the prospect he might anticipate: the youthful Princess Victoria becoming the point of contention on the one hand between her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her uncle, Prince Leopold, of Liberal proclivities, and the Tory pressure of her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, assisted by the Duke of Wellington, on the other.
While the dissolution was impending, Doyle indicated the revival of Whig prospects, “The Gheber worshiping the Rising Sun” (July 6, 1830) shows Mr. (afterwards Lord) Brougham paying his devotions to “William IV. Rex,” the head of the king on the gold coin, known as “a coronation medal,” rising over the waters, and taking the place of the orb of day. Parliament dissolved on July 24th. Owing to some intrigues of the old campaigner at this emergency, the Duke of Wellington was made to appear as “A Detected Trespasser,” ordered off the slopes of Windsor by “John Bull, Ranger:” “Halloa, you sir; keep off the grass (see anecdote, Times, July 19th).”
Another pictorial version of strategies in high life is entitled “Anticipation; or, Queen Sarah’s visit to Bushy” (July 27, 1830). At the door of the Lodge at Bushy, where resided the Duke and Duchess of Clarence, is the carriage of Lady Jersey, with attendants in her handsome liveries. 345 One of her footmen is imparting the unwelcome intelligence, “Duchess not at home, my lady.” The Duke of Wellington, who is on horseback at the other side of the carriage, is consoling Lady Jersey’s disappointment: “Never mind, never mind, I’ll get you a key to what is going on here thro’ my dear little St. James’s Marchioness.” The duchess’s footman, in the royal livery, cannot fathom the intrigue: “I wonder what brings her down here now? I have been in this place these twelve years, and never saw her here before!”
| Henry Brougham. | King William IV. |
THE GHEBER WORSHIPING THE RISING SUN. JULY 6, 1830. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
What unknown marvels might be anticipated from the combinations of party, is hinted in the “Un-Holy Alliance, or An Ominous Conjunction” (July 29, 1830), showing the Duke of Cumberland and Lords Durham, Grey, and Eldon in close confabulation. “Old Bags,” as the whilom lord chancellor was irreverently christened, is characteristically “laying down the law,” for the enlightenment of his comrades in this strangely assorted quartette. 346
A general and somewhat conventional satire on the possible conduct of candidates before, upon, and after their return, appeared among the “Election Squibs and Crackers for 1830,” “Look on this Picture, and on that.” “General Election—dedicated to Electors in General—the difference between one hour after the return, and one month after.” The voter represented is evidently a prosperous mechanic; he wears the colours of the newly elected one in his hat, and is thus addressed by the member he has contributed to return: “My worthy, my best friend, it will be my constant study to comply with your wishes—how can I serve you? Let me see you often; pray come to the Hall; we shall be so happy to see you.” This overcoloured state of things is strangely altered within a month; the candidate is now a full member, and is evidently studying his own interests to the exclusion of those of his constituents; in his hand is a peremptory Government “whip,” thus worded: “Ministers wishing to pass the measure, your vote will be required.” The legislation in question appears to threaten the welfare of his late enthusiastic supporter, who has ventured to interview his member on the momentous topic: “Sir, there is a Bill about to pass that will quite ruin our trade, and bring our families to beggary. I hope, sir, you will use your influence to throw it out.” The member now wears an indignant expression: “You are an impudent fellow! I don’t know you, and, if I did, do you suppose I should be dictated to, fellow?” This plate was executed by William Heath, and issued by T. McLean, of the Haymarket. Perhaps the most notable feature is an announcement that “Election caricatures can be executed for gentlemen in three hours.” This advertisement, appended to the caricature in question, is curious. Of course, for a not-extravagant consideration, intending candidates could secure the playful services of William Heath for rendering ridiculous or contemptible the persons and principles of their antagonists, and for the exaltation of their own.
LOOK ON THIS PICTURE—AND ON THAT.
| Before the Election. | After the Election. |
ELECTION SQUIBS AND CRACKERS FOR 1830. BY W. HEATH.
347
Political satirists, happily for themselves, as a rule (with one or two exceptions, such as Sayer and HB) have soared above mere party distinctions; and though it may at first sight strike the observer as indicating a looseness of principles—rather, say, a freedom from prejudices—that each gifted artist seems to lash and laugh at both sides alternately to the best of his abilities, some allowance must be made for the impartiality which enables these latter-day Juvenals to detect the foibles of either faction. As a rule, it may be assumed the old generation of famous caricaturists, taking Gillray, Rowlandson, and George Cruikshank as the most eminent exponents, rather leaned to the popular side of any given question; but, inclination apart, they were just as capable of glorifying “the powers that be,” and of “dusting the jackets” of the would-be reformers. Of this trio, Cruikshank particularly prided himself, as he has himself recorded, upon espousing the side of right against palpable wrong, and of championing the weak against the strong. But, in spite of this pleasing illusion, his caricatures are equally trenchant on either side—to-day the Regent is demolished, to-morrow his unfortunate wife is held up to opprobrium, with happy nonchalance and impartiality. In fact, it may be said of Gillray, as the specimens of his ability in this direction sufficiently demonstrate, that his pictorial satires against Pitt and the Tories were equalled only by his satires directed against Fox and the Whigs, or the youthful Burdett and the Radical reformers of his earlier day.
Apropos of the same general elections, we find our old friends, Sir Francis Burdett and his whilom preceptor and champion, William Cobbett, of Political Register repute, engaged in what the artist delineates as “A Character-istic Dialogue” (September 2, 1830). “Peter Porcupine,” having parliamentary aspirations, is applying to his ancient pupil and ally for a voucher: 348“Being much in want of a character, I make bold, Sir Francis, to ask you for one; it appearing that your benevolence in this way embraces all sorts of criminals, you cannot consistently refuse me!” Burdett, in spite of this touching reference to his exertions on behalf of the prisoner inmates of Coldbath Fields, is turning a haughty front to the applicant: “I cannot do anything for you; your character is already Registered.” With the reformed parliament, Cobbett was returned for Oldham. In the House he disappointed expectations, and was regarded as somewhat in the light of a failure.
WILLIAM COBBETT—“PETER PORCUPINE.” BY J. GILLRAY.
The usual changes of seats had taken place in the course of the elections, and it was hinted that the Wellington-Peel Administration might find it expedient to increase its strength by the infusion of new blood, with a 349 view to the “power-to-add-to-their-numbers” policy. The chiefs still in office are shown by Doyle as visiting “The Noodle Bazaar” (September 9, 1830, Q. and HB delt.). Reviewing the files of various assorted “bustoes,” Wellington, using his eye-glass, is observing to his colleague, “Peel, I am in great want of a few good heads to place in our Cabinet before the opening of the new House in October, and I see some here which I think would answer, if they could be had on reasonable terms.” Peel, alive to the results of the elections, is replying, “I perceive that the places of some have been changed, and their value raised since I last saw them, and pray observe the strange mixture of heads upon the upper shelf.” The Peers who, according to the notification below them, “May be had separately or together,” occupy the upper shelf, and below is a cabinet of busts for sale, ready assorted. The shelved lords offer a motley choice: Lords Grey, Eldon, Holland, Lansdowne, the Duke of Cumberland, etc.,—all statesmen out of work. Below the upper shelf is a platform on which is an assorted ready-made ministry (of busts) arranged in a regular order. “This group is to be sold in one lot. Every head has its price marked on it.” The respective busts represent Huskisson (president of the Board of Trade), Grant (colonies), Palmerston (foreign secretary), Melbourne (home secretary), etc. On a pedestal marked “Yorkshire, to wit,” is the brazen bust of Henry Brougham, the plinth with the word “Rolls” struck out in favour of “Chancery.” The bust of Hume in marble stands on a square and massive pediment, marked “Middlesex.” O’Connell is below in clay; he is thus ticketed: “This head won’t be sold—(until it be bought).” A row of lesser men on a shelf in the distance bears the advertisement, “These small busts may be had remarkably cheap.” The bust of Charles X. is just upset; while, on a high plinth, marked “The People’s Choice—a French pattern of inestimable value,” stands his successor, Louis Philippe. The Dey of Algiers is also thrown aside, while Lords 350 Manners, Redesdale, and Sidmouth are among the “antiques,” obsolete patterns, and “oddments.”
The proverbial independence of John Bull’s character is playfully called in question (September 10, 1830), the national prototype being represented (not for the first or last time) as “The man wot is easily led by the nose.” The Times is the potential leading organ to which John Bull is attached in the way described; he is exclaiming, in happy delusion, “What a glorious thing it is to enjoy the liberty and independence of an Englishman!”
The displacement of the Wellington-Peel Cabinet followed a little later on. We next see the Duke of Cumberland surrendering office: “Resignation and Fortitude; or, the Gold Stick.” The king is seated busied in State affairs, the ex-Gold Stick, handing in the wand of office, is remarking, “I have now only to cut my stick and be off!” William IV., still pen in hand, replies briefly, “Thank ye, brother, thank ye,” being evidently reconciled both to his situation and the enormous sacrifice involved.
Incidentally we find a reference to the general election which was then engaging public attention; Doyle has ingeniously given a novel turn to his view of one of the candidates, by introducing a comparison with a performer who was also enjoying popular notice, “The Rival Candidates” (August 9, 1830). There are two hustings erected, and the crowd of free and independent electors is filling the intervening space. The satire is evidently aimed at Sir Alexander Grant, who, standing in front of his committee, is pointing, with a self-satisfied air, to his chin, of which Doyle has made the most. His rival is Michel Boai, “the musical wonder,” a Tyrolese performer, who “played tunes on his chin” by sheer muscular force. He is shown hammering his nether jaw with his fists, and giving a specimen of his chin-proficiency, supported by another minstrel with a small violin. Boai’s performance has won the sympathies and suffrages of his audience, who have with one accord turned their backs upon Sir A. Grant, 351 and are applauding the new musical marvel. Boai’s agent is skilfully “working the oracle” while drawing attention to the rival booth:—
“The honble Gentleman opposite has certainly a most extraordinary chin, and when he places his claims to your suffrages upon that broad and ample basis, it must be GRANTed that he rests his hopes upon some foundation; but, Gentlemen, the Candidate whom I propose to you possesses such transcendent superiority in this important feature that I feel BOAIed up with confidence, when I claim for him your triumphant preference (cheers); and, Gentlemen, permit me to add that, in the event of his return, which I now consider certain (cheers), few orators in the hon: House will command more attention, or be listened to with so much pleasure.”
That the interests of the Wellington Cabinet were in jeopardy is pictorially conveyed. “The Unsuccessful Appeal” (September 25, 1830) shows John Bull arm-in-arm with the king, while Wellington is pointing to a distant movement amongst the crowd, and asking Mr. Bull’s protection against his political foes. “My good old friend, I want your assistance against these fellows, who are about to unite for the purpose of overpowering me by numbers.” The inimical confederates are Brougham and Lords Holland, Durham, Grey, etc., on the one side, who are fraternizing with Lord Eldon, the Duke of Cumberland, and others, on the other. Johnny is thus responding to the old campaigner’s appeal:—
“I should be sorry to see you defeated by such an unholy alliance after all the battles we have fought and won together; but the fact is, I feel so oppressed with the glory of so many victories, that I must beg to be excused from interfering any more for the present in the disputes of others. There are, however, plenty of clever fellows to be had, who are able and willing enough to assist you, but when you again meet with such, let me advise you not to be too ready to quarrel with them!”
William IV. is quite at one with his friend, the last speaker—“Whatever you say, John, I will agree to; for your will is my pleasure.”
Before the new parliament assembled, the Cabinet 352 received some damaging assaults from the press. The nature of this concealed warfare is explained by HB in his sketch of “A Masked Battery” (October 4, 1830). The assailant is Henry Brougham: in his legal guise, entrenched behind the “Result of the General Election,” with the Edinburgh Review for a screen, he is bespattering his opponents, the beleaguered “Ins,” with ink. The Tory Cabinet is suffering severely: Wellington is to the front, trying to ward off the shower from Brougham’s inkstand-battery; in his hand is a damaging attack on paper,—“The Duke of Wellington and the Whigs.” Sir Robert Peel is endeavouring to shelter himself behind his chief. Lords Bathurst, Ellenborough, Lyndhurst, and Aberdeen are all suffering from the assault.
When the House met, we get a prospect of the prime minister reviewing his forces—“A Cabinet Picture” (November 5, 1830). Wellington, with his colleagues, Lords Aberdeen, Lyndhurst, Bathurst, Rosslyn, Melville, and others, whom the chief is thus addressing:—
“Having been obliged to recognize the King of the French, we must, as a set-off—acknowledge our friend Miguel. The Belgians—poor people!—not knowing how to take care of themselves, must be protected from the evils of independence! So much for foreign affairs, now for domestic. I say that our present system is the very perfection of systems, and consequently admits of no improvement; I will go further, and say that, while I have power, no species of reform shall take place! and now—having said it—if Peel will but manage the new Police, Hardinge Ireland, Goulburn [Chancellor of the Exchequer] abstain from projects of finance, and Ellenborough hold his tongue, we may manage to keep our seats for another session.”
After the elections it was evident that things out-of-doors were moving antagonistically to the interests of the Wellington Cabinet, but the “Old Campaigner” still hoped by stratagem to keep in power, although resolute in asserting that while he kept office no species of reform should take place. The premier’s optimist confidence “that his ministry might keep their places for another session” is shown to be misplaced, for the defeat of his ministry was 353 clearly foreshadowed: “Guy Fawkes, or the Anniversary of the Popish Plot” (November 9, 1830), shows that destruction was abroad; and this cartoon is a late exemplification of the old British institution of burning in effigy a minister when out of favour. The political Guy is, of course, Wellington, the hero of a hundred fights, reproduced in straw, tied to a rickety chair, and is gaily borne to the bonfire by a rejoicing mob of statesmen, his political antagonists. Lord Lansdowne leads the way, with a blazing torch to fire the fatal pyre; the bearers are the Duke of Cumberland and Prince George (Duke of Cambridge), Lords Holland, Sidmouth, Eldon, etc.; Aberdeen, Stanhope, and the Duke of Newcastle bring up the rear in a high state of exaltation;—these were the peers who “sapped the Tory defences.”
Wellington was evidently losing popularity, and the lustre he gained in the field was being clouded in the Cabinet; John Bull has to come to his rescue against the rabble, and the valiant captain is once more shown sheltered under the king’s mantle. It appears the lord mayor’s banquet was threatened with a hostile demonstration, and the city magistrate, “Don Key,” was thrown into a deadly state of apprehension by the alleged prospect of being received with “cold indifference.” This cartoon is entitled “The False Alarm; or, Much Ado about Nothing.”
The Wellington tenure of power was doomed, and, like Cæsar’s, his fatal stab was to come from the hand of a colleague, on the inopportune revival of the Eastern Question. “Scene from the suppressed Tragedy, entitled the Turco-Greek Conspiracy,” shows the minister (wearing his well-earned laurels) done to death by the Peers at the foot of Canning’s statue in the forum; the Senators being armed with deadly speeches wherewith to accomplish this tragic immolation. “Et tu Brute” are the hero’s closing words addressed to his past comrade, Lord Londonderry, who is giving the coup de grâce. 354
W. Heath, who was employed by McLean at the time Doyle’s sketches were making their appearance, has given many versions of events during George IV.’s somewhat oppressive reign. At the close of 1830, with the advent to the throne of a more constitutionally-minded sovereign, the artist sums up the dismissal of a Cabinet whose actions he had frequently criticized from a pictorially satirical point of view. In the version of “His Honour the Beadle Driving the Wagabonds Out of the Parish,” November 28, 1830, Heath has impressed Sir David Wilkie’s well-known picture of “The Parish Beadle” into the service of parody. King William IV., as the Bumble of the situation, is making a clean sweep of the relics of the past reign: “Come, be off: no hangers behind—out with you all! I’ll let you see I represent the aristocracy of the parish!” John Bull, who may be considered to have generally endorsed his friend William’s policy with hearty goodwill, is giving his approval: “That’s right, Master Beadle, do your duty and clear the parish of the varments; they’ve been a pest ever since they’ve been here.” The chancellor Lyndhurst, Lord Ellenborough, Goulburn (late chancellor of the exchequer), and the rest, are making a hasty retreat. Peel, dragging his “new police” monkey attached to a string, is hardly reconciled to his banishment from office: “Vell, ve did all ve could to kick up a row afore ve vent!” Wellington, as the “hurdy-gurdy” woman, dressed in the faded splendours of an old soldier’s coat, is making all the noise of which the instrument is capable while retreating with his face to the foe.
The results of the general election of 1830 culminated within a month of the reassembling of parliament in the substitution of a Whig for a Tory ministry, and William IV.’s tenure of the throne was inaugurated by the early adoption of that liberal progress which developed into the larger measure of reform within two years, the most memorable act of his reign. Doyle shows the ensuing distribution of offices, and sketches one of the intrigues for 355 place—Henry Brougham, as “The Coquet,” being tempted by Lord Grey to a political allegiance, and courted on the woolsack with the bait of the chancellor’s wig. After the preliminary skirmishing and cementing of necessary alliances, the end was short, sharp, and decisive, and is embodied by HB with his customary point and felicity, as “Examples of the Laconic Style” (November 26, 1830). The king is “standing at attention;” he has sent for Lord Grey. “Your conditions?” The coming premier answers, “Retrenchment, Reform, and Peace.” “Done!” says the king, holding out his hand on the bargain. The Duke of Wellington, on the left, is stepping off the scene, while John Bull, to the right, is not reluctantly giving his late commander the order, “Right about face, march!”
| Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst. | Scarlett. | Lord Ellenborough. | Goulburn, Chancellor of Exchequer. |
| Duke of Wellington. | Sir Robert Peel. | William IV. | John Bull. |
HIS HONOUR THE BEADLE (WILLIAM IV.) DRIVING THE WAGABONDS OUT OF THE PARISH. NOV. 28, 1830. By W. HEATH.
With the advent of the powerful Whig party came such sweeping reforms that minds accustomed to the old order of things began to take fright. It seemed that national institutions, and those fabled landmarks, “The bulwarks of the constitution,” bid fair to be swept away within six months, and another appeal to the constituencies was imminent. The Tory views of the new order of things were embodied by Doyle (April 4, 1831) in “A Very Prophetical and Pathetical Allegory,” in which it was foreshadowed that the institutions of the country could not survive reform, but must succumb within ten years. This vision conjures up a deserted cemetery, wherein, in woeful anticipation, is erected the tomb of departed greatness: “Here lyeth the British Constitution, which, after a rapid decline of ten years, departed this world, 1841.—I was well; wishing to be better, here I am. Sic transit gloria mundi.” The Duke of Wellington, as a widowed and ancient crony in deep sables, is shedding a tear, and depositing a wreath on the family vault, which is presumed to contain such honoured dust.
The gloomy forebodings of the Tories are further illustrated with much spirit in the guise of an expected game of “Leap-Frog down Constitution Hill,” April 13, 356 1831, in which the Whigs are flying over the heads of the opposition. On Constitution Hill stand Burdett, O’Connell, Hunt, and other advanced politicians, crying, “Go it, my boys; we shall soon have it our own way;” the game is proceeding swimmingly down the slope. Lord King has brought down an archbishop—the head of the Church; Lord Althorp is sweeping down the judges; Lord Lansdowne has upset Lord Eldon; Lord Durham directs the tall Duke of Cumberland to stoop his head; Lord Brougham, in his chancellor’s robes, has alighted on the shoulders of the Duke of Wellington; William IV. has “tucked in his head” and “made a back” for Lord Grey; but the premier, in his flying leap, has failed to clear the crown, which is sent spinning. “D—n it,” says the king, “didn’t you tell me you wouldn’t touch the Crown?”
The coming appeal to the country was preceded by the usual political meetings; this circumstance is made the subject of a felicitous parody, “Anticipated Radical Meeting” (April 20, 1831). In one of Hunt’s Matchless (Blacking) carts stands the glib-tongued Radical in the full tide of his harangue; “Hunt, the Matchless Reformer,” is surrounded by the Tory party; the opposition consists of the ex-ministers, and includes Sugden, Peel, Horace Twiss, Wetherell, Goulburn, Ellenborough, Wellington, Aberdeen, and others, who are ironically welcoming and encouraging the oration. Hunt’s speech is thus reported:—
“Will the Bill, I ask, do away with places and pensions? (Cheers.) Will it abolish tithes and taxes? (Cheers.) In a word, will it make the poor rich and happy? (Great cheering.) No! It will do none of these! therefore I say this Bill is all a delusion! (Tremendous cheering and waving of hats.)”
Old Eldon, mounted on the shoulders of his ally, the Duke of Cumberland, is vociferously calling for “One cheer more!”
The House dissolved on the 22nd of April, and the fresh elections took place in May. The nature of John Bull’s complaint and the respective views of the rival practitioners 357 who were called in for consultation are set forth by HB (May 2, 1831) as “Hoo-Loo-Choo—alias John Bull and the Doctors.” The national prototype is seated in an arm-chair; his huge corporation seems to have become utterly unwieldy and inconvenient; he occupies the centre of the picture. His doctors “in and out of place,” are on the respective sides. John Bull is addressing Lord Grey:—
| Sir F. Burdett. | Lord Durham. | Duke of Cumberland. | |||
| Lord Holland. | Lord Althorp on a Judge. |
Lord King on the Bishop. |
Lord Brougham (Lord Chancellor). Duke of Wellington. |
The King (William IV.) | Lord Grey. |
LEAP-FROG DOWN CONSTITUTION HILL. APRIL 13, 1831. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
| Lord J. Russell. | Lord Althorp. | Lord Grey. | John Bull. | Sir Robert Peel. | Duke of Wellington. |
HOO-LOO-CHOO, alias JOHN BULL AND THE DOCTORS. MAY 2, 1831.
“I can’t say that my bodily health was ever better, or that I ever felt stronger, tho’ to be sure I am not growing younger; but then every one is telling me how deformed I am grown of late, and this tumour—which I have had from my infancy—is all a mass of Corruption.”
Grey, while indicating his colleagues, Althorp and Russell, says in reply, “This deformity is quite inconsistent, believe me, with the nature of your Constitution, and therefore must be got rid of. I will undertake, with your approbation, to remove it, and my assistant, Doctor Russell here, will prepare you for the operation.”
Russell is observing, “I once thought that a case of this description ought to be treated with great caution, and even wrote, as well as talked, a great deal about it, but now I am quite of a different opinion. I think there is nothing like cutting away thro’ thick and thin!”
Sir Robert Peel, one of the dismissed doctors, on mature consideration, is inclined to question his past policy: “Yet I begin to think we could have done better, when we found him determined to think that his Constitution was impaired, to have tried, just in the way of soothing, a gentle alternative course.”
Dr. Wellington is still of his old opinion: “I say that the man has no defect in his Constitution, and that what they call Corruption is necessary to his existence; but now, because he would not believe me, but chose rather to submit to the experiments of those rash operators, Wharncliffe, who is a sensible man, lays all the blame on me.”
The lively proceedings while the returns were preparing were fittingly epitomized by HB as “May Day” (May 4, 358 1831), setting forth as a “Jack-in-the-Green” performance the new revels of the revisers of the constitution. The king occupies the green, which is topped by a crown, and bears the word “Reform;” the face of William IV. is peeping through the aperture. Earl Grey is “My Lord;” Sir Francis Burdett is almost equally conspicuous. Hobhouse, Hume, and O’Connell are making a good deal of rough music with shovels, and Russell has the Pandean pipes and big drum, on which he is vigorously performing. Lord Brougham, as “My Lady,” is going round with the ladle; he is interrogated by the Duke of Cumberland and Lord Eldon as to the “Man in the Green.” The Duke of Gloucester and Lord Londonderry, among the audience, are regarding “My Lady” with suspicion.
The second portion of the new tactics is developed as “Leap-Frog on a Level; or, Going Headlong to the Devil” (May 6, 1831). The turn of the Reformers has come, and the Radicals are making them submit to the same process as they lately inflicted on the Tories. Carlile is rolling over a churchman to the place of torment, having leaped a trifle too far; the Evil One, as he declares in person, “has come to end your games.” “The Devil you are,” says the author of the tracts. Sir Francis Burdett is unwillingly giving a back, “Have I stooped for this?” His old ally, “Porcupine” Cobbett, is leaping heavily on to the baronet’s shoulders, “My turn now, old Glory.” Grey is staggering while Hunt is “overing” him: “I begin to think this is a very disorderly game.” The mob are shouting, “Go it, Hunt,” which is displeasing to the now elevated orator: “D—— the Rabble, they take me for one of themselves.” Brougham is brought to his knees: “Hullo! you’ll have off my wig;” O’Connell, firmly seated on the chancellor’s back, is crying, “Oh! never mind; I’ll take care of that!” The king is brought to the earth; “This is the levelling system with a vengeance.” He is overturned by Hume, who is exclaiming, “This summing-up is the tottle of the whole.”
| Hume on Lord King. |
Dan O’Connell on Lord Brougham. |
Orator Hunt on Lord Grey. |
W. Cobbett on Sir Francis Burdett. |
R. Carlile. |
LEAP-FROG ON A LEVEL; OR, GOING HEADLONG TO THE DEVIL. MAY 6, 1831. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
359
The House had dissolved on the 22nd of April, 1831, and the elections which ensued were remarkable for spirit. A quantity of literature, in the shape of broadsides, songs, and squibs of a startling character, was produced on this occasion, in such abundance that even for small constituencies in out-of-the-way places these jeux d’esprit form huge volumes. A number of parodies appeared on the great question of the Reform Bill, imitations of scripture among others. Of the ballads published over the border, the one most descriptive of the constitutional struggle is found in a parody of “Chevy Chase.”
This view of the situation is followed up by a cartoon aimed at the opposition tactics, “Votaries at the Altar of Discord” (April 20, 1831). Hunt is the high priest fanning the incendiary flame at the Altar of Discord, before which Sir Robert Peel, who seems to have relinquished power reluctantly, as the mouthpiece of his kneeling followers, is offering this invocation: “Powerful Goddess, deign to hear our prayers; deserted in this, our great extremity, by justice and wisdom, we fly to thee as a last refuge.” The other devotees are Horace Twiss, Goulburn, Dawson, Sadler, Sir E. Sugden, Sir C. Wetherell, Earl Carnarvon, and the Dukes of Wellington and Newcastle. The opposition in the Upper Chamber was in a highly excited state, an example 366 of this is given in “Peerless Eloquence” (April 25, 1831). Lord Londonderry is boiling with indignation: “Is it to be endured, I ask, that we should be called things—things with Human pretensions? What was the fish-woman’s virtuous indignation at being called ‘an individual’ to this? Nothing!” Brougham, on the woolsack, remains calm under the torrent; Lords Aberdeen and Wharncliffe, with the Duke of Wellington, are placidly surveying the outraged senator.
The slaughter of the innocents is figuratively told (May, 1831) in a novel edition of the “Niobe Family.” Lord Grey is the destroyer, his arrows are marked “Reform.” The Niobe of this version is the Duke of Newcastle; the smitten are Sir Charles Wetherell, Attwood, Sadler, and others, whose constituencies were threatened with extinction under the Reform Bill.
The motion for reform, then in full swing, is summed up from a Tory standpoint (May 13, 1831); the legend of “John Gilpin” is pressed into the service of the caricaturist.
William IV. is, of course, the Gilpin of the situation; the bottles slung to his side are ginger-beer ones—“Rotunda Pop” and “Birmingham Froth;” the “Grey” horse is running away with the king at a dashing pace, and the crown is dislodged in the scuffle. John Bull, the pike-keeper, has thrown open his gate, and is highly excited at the sport: “Go it, my lads, never mind the turnpike!” Burdett is enjoying the fun, but opines, “The Grey is evidently running away with him.” Hume, Hunt, O’Connell, Cobbett, and others are following on horseback in the king’s wake. One cries, “Make way, make way; we’ve a great stake depending on it.” The Irish Repealer is urging on the pace, “Go along, never mind the geese and old women.” 367 The “geese” wear coronets, to symbolize the scared peers scattered by the onslaught; and the “old apple woman” capsized in the rush is old Eldon, the Tory ex-chancellor; Croker is a “croaking” raven. The sign of the inn is changed to a new version of the Crown up in the oak tree, and the balcony is filled with the late ministers, travestied as the ladies of the Gilpin party. Wellington is distressed beyond measure at this alarming spectacle, and is appealing to John Bull: “Good Mr. Gatekeeper, stop him; he doesn’t know where he is going!” Sir Robert Peel exclaims, “Oh, John Gilpin! John Gilpin! where are you going? Don’t you know your old friends?” Goulburn is declaring, “He must have lost his senses to ride at such a rate!”
| Wellington. | Sir. R. Peel. | Goulburn. | J. Hume. | Dan O’Connell. |
| Peers as Geese. | The King on the “Grey.” | Lord Eldon. | Sir Francis Burdett. |
JOHN GILPIN. MAY 13, 1831. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
“THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL.” MAY 26, 1831.
King (William IV.). Loq. “‘Reform Bill!’ Can that mean me?”
Another admirable version, the felicity of which has been much appreciated, is entitled “The Handwriting on the Wall” (May 26, 1831). The King, taking his constitutional stroll in the Park, has come upon the inscription, in huge white letters, painted on the wall, “Reform Bill!” William IV., shading his eyes with his hand, is peering at this legend,69 exclaiming “‘Reform Bill!’ Can that mean me?”
The tendencies of the time were considered fraught with danger; the measures of reform about to be experimentally tested would, it was hinted, produce a political revolution—if not a total subversion of everything; Lord Grey, the Mephistopheles of the situation, as viewed through Doyle’s “Conservative Magnifiers,” occupied an unenviable prominence, and might expect a day of terrible retribution. “Brissot’s Ghost” (May 30, 1831) is the only hint which could be offered to the innovating statesman. The ghastly figure of Brissot, with his decapitated head under his arm, is disclosed to the premier as a startling vision, with a significant warning, drawn from his fatal revolutionary experience:— 368
“Macbeth,” with the famous incantation scene, is impressed into the service of parody to sum up the anticipated state of affairs before the meeting of the House; “The Tricolored Witches” (June 6, 1831):—
There are five witches, wearing Republican red caps, and armed with besoms of destructiveness, assembled round the cauldron.
The three chief witches are Lords Grey, Durham (“Yellow Lambton”), and Brougham. As the ingredients are cast into the blaze, fed by Durham coal, Grey is singing the charm:—
Lord Brougham takes up the invocation:—
Lord Durham has his allotted share:—
369 Lords Althorp and Russell are acting as the chorus:—
The king is unexpectedly surprising the incantation. He is dumbfounded; the charm is already active, and away flies his crown. He is girt with a scarf, “Repentance,” and apostrophizes his reform friends:—
“A Tale of a Tub—and the Moral of the Tail!” (June 13, 1831) is another view of the critical juncture, as it was then assumed to be. The old constitutional ship is left for the whale-boat. The monster is in such dangerous proximity that a dash from its tail—while splashing “popular spray” over its would-be captors—threatens a fatal catastrophe. Lord Althorp has thrown over a pretty considerable tub, “Vested Interests and Chartered Rights;” “There,” he is made to exclaim, “amiable monster! In order to please you, we have thrown you all! Should you require more, you must only take ourselves.” Lord Grey is steering; Lords Brougham, Holland, and Durham have the oars. The king, wearing his naval uniform, is trying to keep the crown from falling overboard; he is evidently apprehensive of the worst: “But why approach so near the tail—the good-natured monster may, without meaning any harm, upset us all in one of his gambols!” The man at the helm is reassuring his chief: “My reasons for steering are pretty plain, tho’ fortunately for me some people don’t see them. It is by flattering the tail, that I command the head!” Lord Brougham, “the schoolmaster abroad,” is imparting this useful piece of knowledge: “It has been discovered in the march of Intellect, that the Tail often outstrips the Head!” Wellington and Peel have stuck to the ship; the latter is still of opinion that he ought to have made an effort to retain his post: 370“Yet I can’t but think we might have succeeded in amusing it for a long time with a very small Keg.” Wellington is less confident: “I tell you, Bob, the Monster is not to be satisfied!”
Other allusions of a seasonable character were also produced by Doyle, apropos of the tendency of the epoch. One of the best is selected among many, “Varnishing—a Sign (of the Times)” (June 1, 1831). The sign of the King’s Head is undergoing renovation; Lord Brougham, in his chancellor’s robes, is mounted on a ladder, and employed in touching up the royal countenance with a pot of varnish. “I think that, considering I was not bred to the trade, I am not a bad hand at bedaubing a King. After all, to produce effect, I find there is nothing like plenty of varnish.” Lord Grey, from an open window, is surveying with marked satisfaction his colleague’s work. “Canning used to talk about a Red Lion; but I say that, in our reforming times, there is no such sign for a (re) publican as a King’s Head, although a Star and Garter is not to be despised!”
The somewhat well-worn subject of the hustings is also treated pictorially amongst the cartoons which appeared during the elections. One version is entitled, “The Rival Mount-O’-Bankes; or, the Dorsetshire Juggler” (May 25, 1831). The scene of the hustings is again travestied as a fair. “Bankes and Co.’s Old-Established Booth” is left quite deserted; a pillar of the Church is the solitary patron. “If our friends don’t come up faster, we may shut up shop,” says the showman; while his assistant is declaring, in allusion to the success of the rival show, “This Juggler is juggling all our customers away from us!” The “Nonpareil Juggler” has, in fact, monopolized all the custom. Lord Grey is the showman; he is holding forth his programme to the numerous patrons: “The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill of the Performance of the Nonpareil Calcraft.” The showman, “Grey, Licensed Dealer in Curiosities,” is pointing to a glowing picture of 371 the entertainment to be seen within—Calcraft, in the very act of swallowing a lengthy speech dead against the principles of the reform party as represented by Lord Grey; he is described as “Lately exhibited in the metropolis by Monsieur Villainton, with unheard-of success.” The customers are thus exhorted:—
| King William IV. | Lord Brougham. | Lord Grey. |
VARNISHING—A SIGN (OF “THE TIMES”). JUNE 1, 1831. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
THE RIVAL MOUNT-O’-Bankes; OR, THE DORSETSHIRE JUGGLER. MAY 25, 1831. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
“Valk up, gemmen, valk up! Here you may see the most wonderful Juggler, who eats his own words! not at all in the usual way practised by pretenders to the ‘Craft, and which is now become almost as common a trick as swallowing the sword, but in a manner the most extraordinary and unparalleled! He likewise plays off many strange antics, quite peculiar to himself and most curious and amusing to behold. I aver, gemmen, I challenge the universal world to produce such a show as this here Juggler makes of himself!”
The crowds are flowing in,—says one, “I am tired of Bankes’s Booth, besides, this promises more amusement;” and another, “I like novelty, so here goes.”70
Doyle has given a clever embodiment of a current political situation, borrowed from the illustrious humourist, his predecessor: “LINEal Descent of the Crown.” See Hogarth’s works, “Four Prints of an Election” (June 23, 1832). A modernized version of the sign of the “Crown” is dependent from a beam; Lord Grey, with his face to the building, is seated upon that portion of the support which he is hacking lustily with a sickle, marked “Bill.” Cobbett, Hume, and O’Connell are tugging away at the rope which is to accomplish the downfall. The former exclaims, “If we act in union, we’ll soon bring it to our own level.” Hunt remarks, “I fear his exalted seat will turn his head.” O’Connell is encouraging the dangerous exertions of the Reform chief: “Ply the Bill well there, Grey, and it will soon be all down.”
A reference to the possible effects of changed politics upon the suffrages of constituencies is slyly conveyed by 372 HB’s sketch of “The Cast-off Cloak.” Sir John Hobhouse is standing at the entrance of the War Office; he has removed the red-lined cloak of “Radicalism,” which he is thrusting on his old colleague, Sir Francis Burdett: “Pray relieve me of this, Burdett. I shall find it a great incumbrance in a warm place like this.” The reply of the veteran Sir Francis is more politic: “Ay, but don’t forget that you have an engagement in Covent Garden.71 You may find the atmosphere rather cool in that quarter.” Burdett’s own political convictions were to undergo as sudden a transmutation, as HB has illustrated a few years later.
As it was felt by the Conservative party that the king, by whose instrumentality the important measure of reform was alone carried, was bound on an enterprise of which the results were doubtful, and, according to their apprehensions, desperate, they tenaciously fought for the inviolability of corruption.
According to Doyle’s new version of “Mazeppa” (August 7, 1832), the king is bound and tied to “Reform,” represented as “the wild horse of the steppes,” surrounded by wolves, some of whom bear Tory visages, among which the face of the Duke of Wellington is easily identified. Horse and rider are overleaping the barrier of “Vested Interests,” while beneath the courser rushes the “Revolutionary Torrent,” whose volume is increasing. The success of this spirited version induced the designer to 373 publish a second plate (September 25th), presenting the sequel. It is evident in this—which exhibits the wild horse, and Mazeppa, his rider, extended on the plains, but apparently uninjured—that the threatening vortex of the “Revolutionary Torrent” has been passed, and neither has been swamped; but the king is landed in the midst of the herd of wild steeds, weirdly careering round the prostrate pair are the rest of the tribe, on whose heads appear the faces of the leading advocates of reform—Lord Brougham, Lord Grey, Duke of Richmond, Lord John Russell, Lord Althorp, Sir James Graham, etc.
MAZEPPA—“AGAIN HE URGES ON HIS WILD CAREER.” AUG. 7, 1832. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
The new parliament only sat from June 14, 1831, to December 3, 1832. Towards the close of the session (November 22, 1832) it was hinted that ministers were not altogether too happy, and they had flown to stimulants to promote a fictitious confidence. “Ministers and (in) their Cups!” is the title; each has a presentation gold cup in his hand, and a punch-bowl is in the centre of the table. The Ministers are half-seas-over; Grey is singing “Here’s Comfort when we Fret;” Russell is joining in the chorus. Althorp declares, “I am quite overpowered;” and Brougham, who has further been presented with a gold toddy-ladle, is crying, “Ah, this is now the greatest consolation we have left. I wish some one would give poor Palmy a cup!” 374
John Doyle, as a Tory satirist, was eagerly anticipating indications of change in the popular sentiments. His warnings on the Reform Bill had fallen unheeded, and the Whig party was still strong in power. HB ventured on the hint that the Tories were only temporarily in disfavour, and that they had but to adapt themselves to the times and resume office. The “Waits” (January, 1833) gives an ingenious and novel view of political matters. John Bull, in dressing-gown and double night-cap, is leaning out of his first-floor window in critical contemplation of the minstrels’ efforts to please his ear. The Duke of Wellington, with the smallest of fiddles, has the leadership of “the waits.” Lord Ellenborough (trombone), Sir Robert Peel (flute), and Lord Aberdeen (’cello) are the midnight harmonists. The awakened householder, Mr. Bull, is requesting a more piquant programme: “I’m tired of your eternal ‘God save the King’ and ‘Rule Britannia,’—give us something French—‘The Marseillaise’ or ‘The Parisienne.’” Wellington, touching his hat, replies, “Please your Honour, we don’t play them ’ere tunes.”
“Sindbad the Sailor and the Old Man of the Sea!” (vide fifth voyage, June 8, 1833) was published after the dissolution. William IV. is, of course, the marvellous traveller, and the incubus he has submitted to get settled on his shoulders is the reforming premier, Lord Grey.
That parliamentary reform, though commenced, was 375 by the extreme party considered but an imperfect measure, is pictorially illustrated in various designs by HB; for instance, the elusive “Time” is shown running away with the great Whig Reform Bill, and Lord Althorp is seen tearing after the vanishing roll, crying, “Stop thief!” He has the Times in his pocket, presumably the organ by 376 which John Bull’s course was piloted, and is vainly trying to come up with the departing thief and his measure, one tiny corner Lord Althorp has torn off, “Schedule A,” and that promises to be all he can save from the abduction.
SINDBAD THE SAILOR AND THE OLD MAN OF THE SEA. JUNE 8, 1833. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
Another version, also by Doyle, embodies in graphic form the views of the root-and-branch reformers; a grand trio of Sir Francis Burdett, then a prominent Radical; Joseph Hume, who was all for economic reform, in which important branch he has left no true successor; and Daniel O’Connell, a most important factor in his time, whose covert designs were nothing less than “Repeal.” These gentlemen, who were among the most conspicuous politicians of their day, are linked arm-in-arm as the “Three Great Pillars of Government; or, A Walk from White Conduit House to St. Stephen’s” (July 23, 1834); published under the same auspices of Thomas McLean, at the Haymarket Gallery, as the other examples of Doyle’s satirical ability reproduced in this summary. Sir Francis Burdett is with much spirit advocating “Equal Representation and Annual Parliaments—and that (a snap of the fingers) for the Borough-mongers.” Hume is applauding this resolute front: “Bravo! and Cheap Government;” to which Daniel O’Connell is adding, “And Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot, eh?” with, as a supplement, in a very small whisper, “A Repeal of the Union.”
When another general election occurred, the situation of honest John Bull was figured as that of a stout gentleman wishing to be carried on his road, but distracted as to the conveyance he must choose. The Tory ’bus stands contrasted with the new reform steam vehicle, which is crowded with experimentalists. “The Opposition ‘Busses” is the title of this version, also due to HB. The Duke of Wellington is trying to secure John Bull for his old coach, which does not seem much patronized.
“Don’t trust ’em, Sir, and their new-fangled machinery. Can’t get on at all without being kept in constant hot water, and sure to blow up in the end; with us you’ll be much more safe and comfortable,—careful 377 driver, steady train’d horses, and rate of going much faster than formerly.”
| Sir Francis Burdett. | Joseph Hume. | Daniel O’Connell. |
THREE GREAT PILLARS OF GOVERNMENT; OR, A WALK FROM WHITE CONDUIT HOUSE TO ST. STEPHEN’S.
JULY 23, 1834. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
Sir Robert Peel is the coachman. Steam-coaches were fashionable novelties in 1834; the uncomfortable-looking, nondescript new conveyance, with its steam up, is crowded with statesmen. O’Connell, Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston are distinguishable. Hume is touting for his new invention:—
“You are not such a silly Chiel as to go with them old screws? Eh, you’ll never get to your journey’s end. Ours is the new grand-junction Steam Omnibus, constructed upon scientific and feelosophical principles—warranted to go at race-horse speed, and no stopping.”
DESIGN FOR THE KING’S ARMS, TO BE PLACED OVER THE NEW SPEAKER’S CHAIR. FEB. 17, 1835. BY J. DOYLE (HB).
With the renovated and redressed Constitution, the wits hinted that novel accessories would be in request, and that the insignia of regality would also have to be revised. Such a suggestion is offered in Doyle’s “Original Design for the King’s Arms, to be placed over the New Speaker’s Chair,” where old Cobbett, late “Peter Porcupine,” the persistent agitator, who obtained a seat in Parliament after the passing of the Reform Bill, is playfully substituted as the British Lion; and the high-bred Sir Francis Burdett, who, as is seen in these electioneering illustrations, had so long figured before the public as a Radical reformer, and was now beginning to turn to the Tory interest, is usurping 378 the position in the royal escutcheon generally appropriated to the fabled unicorn.
The advent of the ballot was not ardently desired by the Tories, and it was hinted that the consequences of its introduction would entail such inconveniences as are figured in the two illustrations here given, rather implying that violence and coercion would henceforth be unavailing, and that, as bribery would be in vain also, administrative corruptors would prefer to make a more legitimate use of their money.
A ballad of the “broadside” order appeared upon “The Windsor Election” of 1835. As a genuine rough-and-ready production, called forth by the circumstances of the contest, and embodying the names of the candidates, it is worth preserving as typical of thousands of similar ballads, which have in all probability perished from the bills of mortality.
INCONVENIENCES THAT MIGHT HAVE ARISEN FROM THE BALLOT. BY G. SEYMOUR.
Duke of Wellington.—“Yes, my Lord, fifty thousand pounds expended, four-fifths of the votes promised, and yet the Election lost!”
Lord Eldon.—“Oh, horrible!!”
INCONVENIENCES THAT MIGHT HAVE ARISEN FROM THE BALLOT. BY G. SEYMOUR.
“Gipsy-boy” Bludgeon-men.—“Arn’t we Gipsy-Boys to be your Bullies this Election, my Lord—if you want anything done, we arn’t at all partickler what it is?”
First Lord.—“No; I’ve got no use for you now!”
It appears that the Whig interest had it all their own way; Sir John Elley was put forward by the Windsor corporation as an independent candidate, as appears from the following extracts from “A Parody of the Mistletoe Bough:”—
380
Sir John Elley leaves his committee forlorn, and is sought for far and near without success:—
Two years later, another appeal to the country was impending. At the beginning of 1837, HB produced a figurative prospect of the situation, as “A New Instance of the Mute—ability of Human Affairs.” The British Constitution, that fabled “admiration of surrounding nations,” and “monument of the collective wisdom of generations,” is at last moribund: the fatal hour has arrived, and the chamber of mourning is presented to view. Mounted upon sable trestles, and covered with a rich pall, is the coffin which contains the defunct, according to the plate, “Died 1837, of the prevailing Influenza, the British Constitution of 1688, aged 149 years;” the mutes, with trappings of woe, stationed on either side of the coffin, are Lord John Russell and Spring Rice.
In March, 1837, HB gave the public a version of that appeal to the constituencies, then becoming more imminent: “Going to the Fair with It. A cant phrase for doing anything in an extravagant way—known, it is presumed, to most persons.” The three performers are in the thick of the fair, within the circle of booths; one tent has the sign of the “King’s Head,” with the Union Jack flying, another mounts the sign of “The Mitre.” Dan O’Connell is seated on the ground as a conjuror, with a paraphernalia of swords, rings, and balls—“Irish titles and appropriation clause” among the former. He is performing the “great sword-swallowing trick,” with a blade marked “Repeal.” Spring Rice, dressed as a tumbler, is balancing a block on a stick which rests on his chin. The chief attraction, the only 381 performance which is absorbing the wonder of the entire spectators, is that of the acrobat, Lord John Russell, who is sustaining himself in the air raised on a single support, marked, “Irish Corporation Bill.” John Bull, who occupies the central position, cannot disguise his interest in the feat: “Well done, little ’un; you’ve got up a surprising height—take care how you let yourself down.” The Duke of Wellington is counselling John Bull: “These tricks are decidedly dangerous, and should not be encouraged.” Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley are in conference, as retired professors of conjuring. “This is the great trick now—the stilts are quite discarded.” A bishop is observing, “That man balances very inequitably.”
On the other side are grouped various critics of the performance. Lord Ebrington considers the trick “wonderful, even more astonishing than the Stilts.” Sir William Molesworth declares, “They deserve encouragement, but they don’t go half as far as they ought.” Hume also thinks, “it is very well as far as it goes!” Lord Brougham, wearing his distinguishing plaid trousers, is in conference with Mr. Roebuck as to starting an opposition show: “What do you think if we were to set up a little concern of our own: you would make a very nice little Tumbler, and I—you know, am an old hand that way!” Sir Francis Burdett, who had given some surprising performances in his time, is leaving the fair, declaring, “I can’t stand it any longer;” while his associate, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, advises him to wait a while, “Don’t go yet; the best of the sport is to come!”
The struggles, twists, and contortions of ministers to keep in place, and the involutions of “Ins and Outs,” were ably parodied, a few months before the dissolution, as the “Fancy Ball—Jim Crow Dance and Chorus” (April 17, 1837); in which the most prominent movers of both parties are travestied in fancy costumes, out-at-elbows, and with blackened faces—the likenesses admirably preserved; and executing a reel worthy of “Chimney Sweeps’ Day;” the 382 whole arranged to the then-popular air of “Jump Jim Crow,” introduced at that time by an actor named Rice—the forerunner of the “Christy Minstrels” of a later generation. The central figures are—O’Connell, who is making a contemptuous gesture, and his partner, Lord Melbourne; Wellington and Peel are vis-à-vis; Stanley and Graham are jigging gaily together, so are Lords Abinger and Lyndhurst; Sir Francis Burdett and General de Lacy Evans are figuring back-to-back in approved Irish-jig style; and Spring Rice is getting on well to a lively measure along with Lord John Russell.
Sir Francis Burdett—the “seven-stringed Jack” and admirer of the French revolution of Gillray’s cartoons, the fiery Radical of Cruikshank’s early flashing squibs—after a career of remarkable prominence as a zealous innovator and friend of reform, quixotically riding full tilt against abuses of all kinds, was exhibiting himself, in the session about to close his old career, as a convert to fine full-bodied Tory principles. HB has pictorially given the contests the famous baronet had waged with the mighty Dan O’Connell, whose “repealing” proclivities seem finally to have opened Burdett’s eyes as to the desirability of preserving the integrity of the kingdom. His highly characteristic speech at the Westminster hustings is the best exposition of his changed opinions. In his picture of “A Fine Old English Gentleman, One of the Olden Time” (May 10, 1837), Doyle has commemorated the baronet’s final accession to the country party, by drawing Sir Francis in his familiar guise—blue coat, 383 tightly buttoned, with swallow tails, white vest and ample white cravat, white cords, and top-boots,—seated, a prisoner in his own apartments, suffering from an attack of gout. A picture of the Tower, hung on the wall, indicates a previous episode of imprisonment, when Burdett became an inmate of that edifice (April 6, 1810); he was the last political prisoner confined there. It was felt that the baronet’s connection with Westminster was about to be severed; however, he offered himself for re-election, that his old constituents might pronounce upon his action.
The candidature of Mr. Leader formed the subject of several of Doyle’s suggestive sketches. In “Following the Leader” (May 12, 1837), HB has given a fanciful version of the candidate’s supporters impressed as boardsmen. O’Connell heads the file, with a placard “Leader for Westminster.” Lord Melbourne is advertising “Leader and Reform of the House of Lords.” Lord John Russell, as a “sandwich” man, announces “Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot;” Lord Palmerston’s board declares, “I am a Tory, and was always a Tory.” Sir William Molesworth, Hume, and others bring up the rear, with “Leader for Westminster” placards. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel are surveying the demonstration from a distance, “These, I suppose, are some of the Pismires!”
“May Day in 1837” is another ingenious version of the political situation. The figure enclosed in the green, which is surmounted by the crown, is the king, William IV.; he is getting nervous at his situation: “I have got into a warm berth, it must be owned; indeed, it grows rather Hellish.” Melbourne makes a handsome “my lord,” and Russell’s figure just suits “my lady.” Lord Morpeth is a serviceable clown. The whole dance is performed to the drum accompaniment of Dan O’Connell. Spring Rice, as chancellor of the exchequer, is going round to John Bull for the supplies, much to the national prototype’s surprise: 384“You little spooney! How came you to be entrusted with the ladle, eh?” Sir Francis Burdett, still in his sweep’s disguise, is stalking off from the concern: “These ’ere fellers grow so werry wulgar that a gentlemen can’t keep company with them no longer.”
It was on this occasion that Sir Francis Burdett,—finally forsaking those Radical principles upon which he had been returned in the first instance for Westminster in 1807—for which important city he had sat until 1837,—appealed to the constituency which had elected him for thirty years, and, with that chivalrous spirit which distinguished his nature, challenged the votes of his supporters as to how far his changed politics might enlist their approval, and invited his friends to pronounce their verdict on his conduct. Upon the baronet’s appeal to his constituents, in the character of “a fine old English gentleman, all on the Tory side,” when, in May, 1837, he resigned his membership for Westminster as a Radical, and offered himself as a Tory candidate, he was opposed by John Temple Leader, a prominent Radical politician. Party feeling was considerably intensified, and ungenerous efforts were made by his late Radical colleagues to inflict the mortification of a defeat upon the reformed baronet. The famous agitator, Daniel O’Connell, whose collision with Burdett was among the chief causes of his changed opinions, exerted himself to the utmost to bring about the discomfiture of his opponent, who, in return, dealt scathing contempt upon the arch-agitator. Many political satires and squibs were produced on this occasion, and, in a literary and artistic point of view, one feature of great interest associated with this incident was the appearance of an electioneering caricature by the author of “Vanity Fair.” The Marquis of Wharton, Swift, Burns, Sir Hanbury Williams, Canning, Moore, and many eminent poets, writers, and statesmen have originated electioneering ballads, and Thackeray has associated his name with a pictorial squib; in 1837, he was, as part-proprietor and contributor, associated with the unfortunate venture (as 385 regards the inroad its subsequent failure made on his fortune), the Constitutional and Public Ledger—a daily journal, of ultra-liberal views; and as its programme included extension of popular franchise, vote by ballot, equal civil rights, religious liberty, and short parliaments, it may be imagined that the political creed which he at that time professed inclined Thackeray to look with disfavour upon the converted Burdett as an apostate from his faith: he has expressed this view in a political satire addressed to the electors of Westminster. The picture, a quarto leaf, was presented with the Guide (May 13, 1837). It represents Sir Francis Burdett and his opponent, Leader, on the hustings, as “The Rivals; or, Old Tory Glory and Young Liberal Glory.” Sir Francis is represented as decrepit, and a martyr to the gout—another attribute of a “fine old English gentleman”—from which the baronet suffered much in later life; his foot is swathed in flannel, and crutches support him to stand; his coat is worn inside out, and a glory round his head alludes to an expression of “pismire voters” he had applied to the following of his antagonists. Beneath the picture is a further explanation of the satirist’s meaning:—
“Historical truth has compelled the artist to portray the physical infirmities which keep Sir Francis from all duties except that of dining at the Pavilion; but our readers will recollect that that infirmity is the gout—one which mankind seem, by common consent, to have determined never to regard with compassion.... A picture of the Tower is seen in the background; and Sir Francis, with a ‘glory’ of ‘pismires’ round his head, is depicted as hobbling away in his turned coat from the recollections, as from the principles, of his youth.”
In spite of his sudden conversion, the electors of Westminster held their respected member in too much veneration to inflict upon him the ignominy of rejection; the wielder of the “Herculean club,” depicted as the foremost leader among the “plebs” by George Cruikshank, who has described the object of his shafts as “the eloquent and noble Sir Francis Burdett,” was placed at the head of the 386 poll by a majority of five hundred votes over his antagonist, Leader, who had come forward as the Radical champion to oppose his return. Sir Francis Burdett is so prominent a personage in the annals of electioneering, as well as in those of parliamentary history, that a specimen of his eloquence may not be out of place; especially as the speech which he made to his constituents after the declaration of the poll by the high bailiff of Westminster is an admirable example of the orations which may be considered appropriate to these memorable occasions on the part of the successful candidate. Sir Francis rested his firm attitude on his antipathy to see the British empire dismembered: history repeats itself, and it was on the question of “Repeal of the Union” that he broke with his party.
“Gentlemen, Electors of the City and Liberties of Westminster—
“It now becomes my pleasing task to return you my most sincere and grateful thanks for the high honour which you have again conferred upon me. In the first place, I have to thank you for the arrangements that you have made, and for the consideration you have manifested in regard to the present state of my health, and for the relief your attention has afforded me from those duties which would have been painful and difficult on this great and important occasion, and which has rendered my part in the struggle comparatively easy and full of satisfaction. (Cheers.) Permit me to congratulate you upon the noble, the patriotic, the independent efforts you have made, and through you, gentlemen, to congratulate the people at large upon the glorious triumph of the English constitution, which has been achieved against the vain and futile efforts of Radicalism and democracy. Gentlemen, I congratulate you upon the firm determination you have shown to maintain all the great and inestimable institutions of this country against the efforts of her enemies. (Loud cheers, with faint hisses.) The task which I have now to perform is both short and pleasant, and I shall not now detain you, after the triumph you have achieved and the victory you have won, merely to indulge my own feelings of exultation and of gratification; but this I will say, that the electors of Westminster have by the result of their noble and patriotic exertions set an example to the people of England, to be looked up to and 387 followed; and in every part of this great nation I make no doubt but that this brilliant example will have the happy effect of sending good men, who love their country and venerate her constitution, to unite for their defence, and at the same time to defeat the machinations and conspiracies of the bad. (Loud applause.) I will not dwell on these subjects, but this much I will observe, that you are much indebted even to your enemies for the signal triumph you have so nobly and so gloriously achieved. (Great cheering.) The malignity and malice of some persons have done much to aid the cause of the constitution; but I should say that if there is one individual to whom you are more indebted than any other, that person certainly was Mr. Daniel O’Connell. (Loud cheers and groans.) The attacks of that individual have tended to serve the cause which they were designed to injure. Gentlemen, the big beggarman of Ireland (renewed cheers) has mistaken the good sense and patriotism of the people of England. He has intruded himself with his uncalled-for advice upon the electors of Westminster, and with (as it now turns out) his disregarded threats. He has intruded that advice and those suggestions in an Irish letter, couched in a strain more Irish than Irish itself (loud laughter), and containing in every point that mixture of blarney and bully, the former of which has only excited the disgust, and the latter the contempt of the electors of Westminster. (Loud cheers, groans, and laughter.) I know not what influence that letter may be said to have had upon His Majesty’s ministers; but this I know, that the people of England, and especially the electors of Westminster, were made of sterner stuff. Whatever His Majesty’s ministers may think proper to do, what course they may choose to pursue, we have shown our determination to maintain and support the English constitution and to resist to the uttermost the dismemberment of the British empire, notwithstanding that Mr. Daniel O’Connell is our declared and determined foe. (Loud cheers, with shouts of disapprobation from the ‘Leader’ party.) In addition, I will merely say that you view as I do the attempt to control your opinions lately made by the great popish priest-ridden paid patriot of Ireland. (Great applause and sensation.) And I will add this, that I wish such persons would declare and destroy themselves as he has done; no danger could then be apprehended, as I think it would be on all occasions safer to have such persons my foes than my friends. (Cheers, and yellings from the ‘Leader’ party.) Gentlemen, with these observations I shall take my leave. The sun shines upon our principles and our affections at this moment; but there is a still brighter sunshine in every honest English heart at the triumph achieved by you and the example you have set to the rest of England. (Cheers.) Wishing you all good and happiness, and full of the devotion I owe you electors of Westminster and to the friends to the cause of England and the constitution, I now take my leave. (Renewed cheering, which continued for several minutes, during which time the hon. baronet 388 bowed to the meeting and retired from the hustings, accompanied as he came, by a large body of his friends and supporters.)”
The situation of Mr. Leader was illustrated by a parody of Sir E. Landseer’s picture of “The Dog and the Shadow;” the bone is Bridgwater (which seat he relinquished to contest Westminster)—the latter is inscribed on the shadow.
The sequel of the Westminster contest was given by HB as a “Race for the Westminster Stakes between an Old Thoro’bred and a Young Cock-tail—weight for age—the old ’un winning in a canter” (May 22, 1837). Lord Russell, Wellington, and others are assembled as spectators in a booth to the right. Lord Castlereagh, the jockey, is bringing in easily the high-mettled racer with Burdett’s face. Roebuck is vainly whipping and spurring “Leader,” the second horse. Hume and O’Connell are highly excited at the defeat of their favourite.
The question of a Repeal of the Union was one of a momentous order, and accordingly a considerable interest seems to have attended Burdett’s change of sides. Doyle has given a capital version of the story in “Taking up a Fare. ‘All the World’s a Stage’” (May 24, 1837). The coach represented is “Peel’s Stager;” Sir James Graham is ostler; Sir Robert Peel, as “whip,” is raising up his reins and addressing the box passenger, William IV., “We begin to load up capital well,” alluding to Burdett, the fresh customer. “You don’t say so,” remarks the king. Peel continues his reminiscences of the new inside passenger. “He as is now getting in—was formerly a great ally of the ‘Comet.’74 He has since travelled occasionally with the ‘Mazeppa’75 people; but, for some time back, I have missed him off the road entirely.” The Duke of Wellington, who is making everything secure, and Lord Lyndhurst are in the “boot.” Sir Francis Burdett, still lamed with the gout, is about to enter the coach; the door is held for him by Lord Stanley: “I should know your face: didn’t you once drive the ‘Darby Dilly?’ What are you doing now?” 389 Lord Stanley (whom HB, in a former cartoon, had drawn upsetting the “Darby Dilly” in question) is touching his hat to Sir Francis, and replying, “At present, Sir, I’m with these people; but since ‘the Dilly’ was done up I haven’t had no regular engagement. I sometimes drives the ‘Conservative’ up a stage and sometimes take it down.” Lord Castlereagh appears as Burdett’s tiger.
Burdett, the ex-Radical champion, still in his congenial character of “Don Quixote,” is next shown attacking the “Lion of Democracy.” The picture of this adventure is entitled “The Last and Highest Point at which the Unheard-of Courage of Don Quixote ever did, or could arrive, with the Happy Conclusion.” “An Old Song to a New Tune” (June 17, 1837), shows the Whig wherry reduced to make great exertions to keep ahead; of the six rowers, the faces of Palmerston, Duncannon, and Melbourne are alone shown; Lord John Russell is steering. The passengers are John Bull, with an uneasy expression, seated beside the king, who is evidently upset by the motion, and looks very unwell. The parody runs—
Leader’s fate over the Westminster contest (June 17, 1837) is summed up as “A Dead Horse—a Sorry Subject,—what was once a Leader in the Bridgwater Coach; supposed to have been driven to Death by his Cruel Masters.” Hume is driving off the defeated in a knacker’s cart.
“We, the People of England” (July 1837), exhibits Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Wakley as the “Three Tailors of Tooley Street,” all three sitting cross-legged; the former, slate in hand, is working out one of his grand historic “tottles.”
The candidature of General Evans for Westminster is summed up as “Reorganizing the Legion” (24 July, 1837). 390 The boardmen all appear in ragged regimentals, as the remnant of the Spanish Legion, and a very woebegone set they seem; the fugleman, wearing a cocked hat, has a pictorial placard of a leader taking to flight, with the legend, “I run;” the posters appear chiefly designed to canvass “Murray for Westminster;” and General Evans is himself trying to make the file straight with his malacca cane, while crying, “Eyes right.”
Sir Francis Burdett had, in his altered politics, fought, conquered, and made his final bow at the hustings of Westminster, he being at the time in indifferent health; his return for Wiltshire was the next point of interest. How far this change of constituency suited the baronet’s own constitution is displayed by HB, who had previously exhibited the subject of his sportive humour under his gouty infirmity. “Grinding Young” (July 25, 1837) is the title of a new application of an old fancy; Burdett, broken by age and debility, with his foot swathed in flannel, showing the gouty foe triumphant, is hobbling with a crutch up the ladder which leads from “Westminster” to the wonderful mill; and, presto! an agriculturist turns the handle, and forth from the hopper emerges the baronet in his familiar guise, spick, span, and spruce, with the elastic smartness and activity of youth, he is stepping out into “North Wilts.”
An ingenious election skit appeared on Lord Durham’s appeal to the local constituency: it is entitled, “The Newest Universal Medicine” (July 27, 1837). Lord Durham appears as a compounder of quack nostrums; he wears an apron, and is standing at a counter, stirring with a pestle a mortar containing his novel mixture. Beneath it is his “Letter to the Electors of Durham,” and around are the varied ingredients of his “Universal Panacea”—such as “Conservative Opiate,” “Radical Alcohol,” with “Whig Alkali;” while all sorts of colours are ready to hand, indigo, and orange, light blue, mustard (Durham), and verdigris. While mixing his pills, Lord Durham is exclaiming 391 “Now to extinguish that Quack Morison!” A large box stands ready for the medicament, addressed to “Daniel O’Connell, Esq., M.P., General Association and Trades-Union, Dublin;” a smaller box is directed to the Bishop of Exeter. On a chair stands a small collection of the quack compounds and remedies in boxes of various hues, and addressed to the Times, Standard, Globe, and Morning Chronicle, indicative of Lord Durham’s versatile talents and scribbling propensities.
A touching allegory for a rejected candidate was furnished by HB over these same elections. “As You like It” (July 31, 1837). The wounded and solitary deer which has come down to the brook, presents the lachrymose countenance of Roebuck; the shaft which has caused his tears is marked “Bath.” Lord John Russell, as the “Melancholy Jacques,” is, from the other side of the water, soliloquizing over the Roebuck’s fate.
Dr. Bowring is favoured with a place in Doyle’s portrait-gallery, as “The Rejected of Kilmarnock” (August 21, 1837).
Another defeat at the general election forms food for HB’s playful irony. This time it is Joseph Hume rejected by Middlesex: “Figurative Representation of the Late Catastrophe” (August 31, 1837). The Middlesex balloon is sailing majestically out of reach; the gentleman thrown out is descending at a fine pace; Joseph Hume’s parachute is blown inside out, and he is ejaculating in his fall, “Now, unless some friendly dunghill receives me, I am lost for ever.” Below him are the green plains of Erin, and the spot on which the discomfited aeronaut is descending is shown to be Kilkenny.
Daniel O’Connell pretty generally seems the master of the situation in the impressions we get of the big Liberator in Doyle’s admirable and genially humorous cartoons. In another aspect of the 1837 election, published at the same date, the great Dan is installed as passenger and traffic manager at the metropolitan head-quarters of the new 392 railway. “Great Western General Booking Office” (August 31st) shows those gentlemen who have been so unfortunate as to miss their seats besieging O’Connell for fresh places, “Gentlemen,” he cries, with good-natured desire to assist all, “we are all full; but, if you will only wait for the next train, we shall, I have no doubt, be able to accommodate you all with seats.” The best-known of the rejected ones are clamouring round the counter: “I am afraid we are thrown out for the present,” says one; while Dr. Bowring “the rejected of Kilmarnock,” is of opinion, “It seems there is a screw loose somewhere in their principal engine.” Roebuck stands first of the unfortunates; his slight luggage is “at the end of his stick;” Hume, carpet-bag in hand, has secured a ticket, and is departing—evidently with grave misgivings—to Kilkenny. Emerson Tennent and Sir James Graham are standing at the door of the office.
The ultimate reception of Hume by Kilkenny is set forth by the same hand: “Shooting Rubbish” (August 31, 1837). Dan O’Connell, habited as an Irish peasant, has brought Hume on a hay-trolley to a thatched cabin marked “Kilkenny;” he is gently lowered on to a heap by the wayside, where, according to a notice-board, “Rubbish may be shot.” “I think,” says Dan, “that is letting you down nice and easy.” Hume is grateful for the opportune assistance: “Thank ye, friend; should you ever have occasion to come to the North, I’ll endeavour to do as much for you.”
Parliament was not summoned until November 15, 1837; in the interval, Doyle produced two or three ingenious cartoons summarizing the situation. One of the best of these represents the field of contest like the preceding versions; it is entitled, “Retzsch’s Extraordinary Design of Satan playing at Chess with Man for his Soul, copied by HB in his freest manner” (September 29, 1837). The Great Dan takes the place of the evil one, the skull and cross-bones are mounted as his ensign, and he is evidently master of the board. “Man” is personated by Lord Melbourne, who is evidently in perplexity as to his next move. Britannia is 393 personifying man’s good angel, and she is pitifully regarding the loser.
“A Game at Chess (again): the Queen in Danger” is another version of the situation in the recess. This appeared October 20, 1837, with the quotation, “A change came o’er the spirit of my dream.” The youthful sovereign is matched against Lord Palmerston. The Queen’s political tutor and adviser, Lord Melbourne, is standing behind the chair of his royal mistress. Lord Palmerston has put the Queen in jeopardy; Her Majesty is evidently anxious, but fails to master the right move. Melbourne sees the situation, and looks on with some excitement, but is enjoined by Palmerston to refrain from prompting his royal pupil’s play.
This situation is further exemplified in two later cartoons: “Susannah and the Elders” (October 27, 1837), in which the Queen is riding between Lords Melbourne and Palmerston; the spot appears to be Brighton, near the Pavilion, then a royal residence. The other version is borrowed from the popular farce, “High Life below Stairs (inverted), as lately performed at Windsor by Her Majesty’s servants” (October 31, 1837). The Queen is seen, seated on a sofa, but partly screened from view by a curtain. Lord Melbourne, who makes a handsome “my lord duke,” is monopolizing the youthful beauty; he observes to Lord Palmerston, who is also in livery, with a cockade—“Stand off; you are a Commoner. Nothing under nobility approaches Kitty.” Lord Palmerston is not overawed by these exclusive pretensions; as a representative of the Commons, he seizes his advantage,—“And what becomes of your dignity, if we refuse the supplies?”
A pungent epitome of the incidents of electioneering is thus set forth by an anonymous poetaster:—
One of the best pictures of a country election is due to the muse of John Sterling; a few stanzas will not be found out of place:— 395
Meanwhile the “Red” candidate, Frank Vane, has providentially “dropped down from the skies,” primarily for the benefit of the rival attorney Spark:—
A bargain for organizing opposition is arranged between these twain:—
396
Next comes the personal canvassing by Squire Mogg, and the purchase of votes by direct flattery and indirect bribery:—
Now as to the bribery. After purchasing a superabundance of everything he was likely to use (such as a hundredweight of soap), the candidate plunges into eccentricities recognized on these occasions:—
All these oddities, besides fifteen old almanacks, white mice, and other worthless articles, were secured to enlist suffrages, and purchased at similarly extravagant rates; a familiar subterfuge for stultifying the Bribery Act:—
“The Rights of Women; or, a View of the Hustings with Female Suffrage, 1853.” George Cruikshank, whose hand was turned to the illustration of nearly every event which occurred in his long career, had produced election satires like his contemporaries at the beginning of the century. Later on, we find him turning his somewhat waning vigour to utilize the agitation for “Female Enfranchisement,” which, as a branch of “Women’s Rights,” appears to have 397 come before the public in 1852-3. A fanciful and farcical prospect of the hustings when lady voters should rule the day presents the rival aspirants pictured as “The Ladies’ Candidate” and “The Gentlemen’s Candidate.” The latter is quite left to desolation. “Screw-driver, the Great Political Economist,” beyond his boardmen, stands alone. Although a placard is mounted advising the electoral community not to vote for “Ignorant puppies,” the “Champion of the Fair” seems to have a lively time of it; Cupid, or his representative, upholds the appeal, “Vote for Darling and Parliamentary Balls Once a Week;” the committee and supporters of Sir Charles are ladies, apparelled in the height of the fashions for 1852. Behind the tigerish candidate for parliamentary honours is a group of melancholy troubadours, travestied much as Cruikshank and Thackeray used to depict those worthy guitar-strummers at the now-obsolete “Beulah Spa.” Great unanimity prevails in the mob; not only are the newly enfranchised fair ones giving their own votes, they go farther, and coerce the sterner sex, for all the well-regulated males are brought forward, under the influence of beauty, to record their votes for the chosen of the ladies. On the extreme left is seen one forlorn individual who has evidently lingering doubts of Sir Charles’s programme, or an inclination to support the political economist, “Ugly Old Stingy;” but his wife is forcibly arguing him into an obedient frame of mind. The voters all carry bouquets and wear extensive favours. “Husband and Wife” voters are arrived first at the poll; and, following a mounted champion “in armour clad” with a heart for his device, comes the last section of “Sweetheart Voters,” the “male things” docilely following the mistresses of their affections. “The Friends of Sir Charles Darling are Requested to Meet this Evening at the Assembly Rooms—the Hon. Mrs. Manley in the Chair. Tea and Coffee at 7 o’clock.” Even Cruikshank’s imagination had not risen to the elevation of lady candidates for senatorial as well as electoral honours, or he would doubtless 398 have favoured the public with some original (pictorial) views on this question.
The general election which took place in July, 1857, found two famous men in the annals of literature contesting for senatorial honours, when W. M. Thackeray and his friend James Hannay were hopefully canvassing, on opposite political platforms, two constituencies, the former for Oxford, the latter for Dumfries, which his father, the Scotch banker, had unsuccessfully fought in the Conservative interest at the successive general elections of 1832 and 1835.
James Hannay again discovered, in 1857, that the electors of Dumfries remained consistent to Whig principles. The novelist and essayist was beaten at the hustings; but he has left something more characteristic than the average of parliamentary orations in the delightful essay upon “Electioneering,” contributed to the Quarterly Review, with the writing of which the defeated candidate immediately consoled himself for his recent disappointment.
The canvassing rejoiced Hannay’s enthusiastic temperament. The varieties of the genus voter are so infinite that his eye for character was constantly studying original types; he discovered that the work is hard, and that the qualities a good canvasser must combine are as various as the dispositions he has to encounter.
“He must have unwearied activity, imperturbable good temper, popular manners, and a wonderful memory. Every person who has made a trial of electioneering can testify to the exhaustion and fatigue of the first canvass, the swarm of new faces seen and flitting through the mind in strange confusion, the impossibility of distinguishing between the voter who had a leaning to you, but doubted your fidelity to the Maynooth Grant, and his next-door neighbour who was coming round to you against his former prejudice, because of your freedom from religious bigotry. The mental eye wearies of the kaleidoscope that has been turning before it for hours. The hand aches with incessant shaking. The head aches with incessant observation. You fling yourself wearied at nightfall into an easy chair in your committee-room, and plunge eagerly into sherry and soda-water. You could lie down and sleep like a general after a battle. But your committee is 399 about to meet, as a staring blue bill on the hotel wall informs the public; and a score of people have news for you. Tomkins, the hatter, is wavering—a man who can influence four or five; the enemy have set going a story that you beat your wife, and you must have a placard out showing that you are a bachelor. A gang are drinking champagne at the Blue Boar (one of the enemy’s houses), fellows whose potations are usually of the poorest kind; your opinion is wanted on a new squib; the manager of the theatre is below, waiting to see if you will patronize his theatre with an early ‘bespeak night,’ and whether you will have ‘Black-Eyed Susan,’ or ‘Douglas;’ a deputation of proprietors of donkeys wants to hear your views on the taxation of French asses’ milk. Who, under such circumstances, can retain in his memory all the details of the canvass of the day?”
However galling the temporary disappointment experienced by Hannay and Thackeray respectively, their readers had no reason to regret that, as the great novelist wrote, philosophically accepting his defeat, “they were sent back to take their places with their pens and ink at their desks, and leave their successful opponents to a business which they understood better.” The test of tact and temper was certainly applied to the two novelists when competing for seats in the Commons.
Thackeray aspired to take the place in Parliament for the city of Oxford which his friend Neate, at the time Professor of Political Economy in that university, had lost for an alleged contravention of the Corrupt Practices Act, thus described by Thackeray at the hustings: “He was found guilty of twopennyworth of bribery which he never committed.” This was Thackeray’s ostensible motive for his candidature: “A Parliament which has swallowed so many camels, strained at that little gnat, and my friend, your representative, the very best man you could find to represent you, was turned back, and you were left without a man. I cannot hope, I never thought, to equal him; I only came forward at a moment when I felt it necessary that some one professing his principles, and possessing your confidence, should be ready to step into the gap which he had made.”
The author of the electioneering squib directed for 400 “Young Liberal Glory” as against “Old Tory Glory” in 1837, was, twenty years later, found consistently advocating the Liberal principles which had inspired his early writings in the Constitutional. Thackeray appeared as an advocate of the ballot, was “for having people amused after they had done their worship on a Sunday;” while, “as for triennial Parliaments, if the constituents desire them, I am for them.”
The following passages from his address enlightened the electors of Oxford upon Thackeray’s political convictions:—
“I would use my best endeavours not merely to enlarge the constituencies, but to popularize the Government of this country. With no feeling but that of goodwill towards those leading aristocratic families who are administering the chief offices of the State, I believe it could be benefited by the skill and talent of persons less aristocratic, and that the country thinks so likewise.... The usefulness of a member of Parliament is best tested at home; and should you think fit to elect me as your representative, I promise to use my utmost endeavour to increase and advance the social happiness, the knowledge, and the power of the people.”
One point in his speech at the hustings, a characteristic allusion to the paramount influence of the Marlborough dukes, for many generations masters of the Oxford elections, was in the true Titmarshian vein, and worthy of the occasion:—“I hear that not long since—in the memory of many now alive—this independent city was patronized by a great university, and that a great duke, who lived not very far from here, at the time of the election used to put on his boots, and ride down and order the freemen of Oxford to elect a member for him.” By a curious coincidence, not altogether reassuring, Thackeray’s reputation at Oxford had somehow failed to reach the majority with whom he was thrown into contact, as one of his committee-men has assured the writer. They mainly asserted that “he could not speak,” to which the candidate retorted “he knew that, but he could write.” Unaccountable as it appears, the fame of his writings had not, in those days, penetrated to any extent this short distance, as the novelist 401 learned by direct and disenchanting experience. He said, in his valedictory remarks, “Perhaps I thought my name was better known than it is.” This illusion, natural in itself, ought to have been dispelled by a former revelation of unsuspected ignorance, which, though unflattering to the author, had, as related by the sufferer, its ludicrous side. Thackeray had betaken himself to Oxford on a previous occasion, with the intention of addressing his lectures on “The English Humorists” to the rising youth at Alma Mater, and, as it was necessary to obtain the licence of the university authorities, he waited upon the chancellor’s resident deputy, who received him blandly.
“Pray, what can I do to serve you, sir?” inquired the functionary. “My name is Thackeray.” “So I see by this card.” “I seek permission to lecture within the precincts.” “Ah! you are a lecturer. What subjects do you undertake—religious or political?” “Neither; I am a literary man.” “Have you written anything?” “Yes; I am the author of ‘Vanity Fair.’” “I presume a Dissenter. Has that anything to do with John Bunyan’s book?” “Not exactly. I have also written ‘Pendennis.’” “Never heard of those works; but no doubt they are proper books.” “I have also contributed to Punch.” “Punch! I have heard of that. Is it not a ribald publication?”
On his reception in Oxford in the character of a canvasser, Thackeray addressed the electors with sturdy independence, beyond electioneering persuasive beguilements:—“You know whether I have acted honestly towards you; and you on the other side will say whether I ever solicited a vote when I knew that vote was promised to my opponent; or whether I have not always said, ‘Sir, keep your word. Here is my hand on it. Let us part good friends.’” Although beaten by the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell, Thackeray retained his good humour, energetically enjoining the extension of courtesy to his successful opponent and to the opposition party. A cry of “Bribery” being raised against them, he continued: “Don’t cry out bribery. If you know of it, prove it; but, as I am innocent of bribery myself, I do not choose to fancy that other men are not equally loyal and honest.” 402 He attributed his defeat to the advanced views he avowed—and which, as he asserted, “he would not blink to be made a duke or a marquis to-morrow”—on the question of “allowing a man to have harmless pleasures when he had done his worship on Sundays. I expected to have a hiss, but they have taken a more dangerous shape—the shape of slander. Those gentlemen who will take the trouble to read my books—and I should be glad to have as many of you for subscribers as will come forward—will be able to say whether there is anything in them that should not be read by any one’s children, or my own, or by any Christian man.”
The most characteristic anecdote which has survived of this interesting incident in Thackeray’s experience as an “electioneerer,” exhibits him in a thoroughly John Bull attitude. While looking out of the hotel window, amused at the humours of the scene, in which he was only the second performer, a passing crowd, from hooting, proceeded to rough-handling, and the supporters of Mr. Cardwell, being in the minority against their assailants, would have been badly maltreated, but for Thackeray’s starting up in the greatest possible excitement, and, rushing downstairs, notwithstanding the efforts to detain him of more hardened electioneers, who evidently were of opinion that a trifling correction of the opposite party might be beneficial pour encourager les autres; he was not to be deterred, but, expressing in strong language his opinion of such unmanly behaviour, he hurled himself into the thick of the fray; and, awful spectacle for his party! his tall form—Thackeray, be it remembered, stood upwards of 6ft. 2in.—was next seen towering above the crowd, dealing about him right and left with frantic energy in defence of his opponent’s partisans and in defiance of his own friends. 403
In 1854, an important Act was passed consolidating and amending previous Acts relating to this offence, from 7 Will. 3 (1695) to 5 and 6 Vict. c. 184.
| Messrs. Sykes and Rumbold fined and imprisoned for bribery | 14 March, 1776 |
| Messrs. Davidson, Parsons, and Hopping, imprisoned for bribery at Ilchester | 28 April, 1804 |
| Mr. Swan, M.P. for Penryn, fined and imprisoned, and Sir Manasseh Lopez sentenced to a fine of £10,000 and two years’ imprisonment for bribery at Grampound | Oct. 1819 |
| The members for Dublin and Liverpool unseated | 1831 |
| The friends of Mr. Knight, candidate for Cambridge, convicted of bribery | 20 Feb. 1835 |
| Elections for Ludlow and Cambridge made void | 1840 |
| Sudbury disfranchised, 1848; St. Alban’s also | 1852 |
| Elections at Derby and other places declared void for bribery | 1853 |
| Corrupt Practices Act passed | 1854 |
| In the case of Cooper versus Slade it was ruled that the payment of travelling expenses was bribery | 17 April, 1858 |
| Gross bribery practised at Gloucester, Wakefield, and Berwick | 1859 |
| Mr. William H. Leatham convicted of bribery at Wakefield | 19 July, 1860 |
| Government commissions of inquiry respecting bribery, sat at Great Yarmouth, Totnes, Lancaster, and Reigate, and disgraceful disclosures were made | Aug.-Nov. 1866 |
| The boroughs were disfranchised by the Reform Bill, passed | 5 Aug. 1867 |
| The Parliamentary Elections Act enacted that election petitions should be tried by a court appointed for the purpose, passed | 31 July, 1868 |
| First trials under this Act: Mr. Roger Eykyn (at Windsor) was declared duly elected, 15 Jan., and Sir H. Stracey (at Norwich) was unseated | 18 Jan. 1869 |
| Dr. Kinglake, Mr. Fenelly, and others, were sentenced to be fined for bribery in parliamentary elections | 10 May, 1870 |
| Beverley, Bridgwater, Sligo, and Cashel disfranchised for bribery and corruption | 1870 |
| Much corruption during the elections of April. Members for Oxford, Chester, Boston, and other places unseated | 1880 |
| Stringent bill against bribery brought in by Sir Henry James, attorney-general | 7 Jan. 1881 |
404
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.
1
About.—The Fellah: An Egyptian Novel. By Edmond About. Translated by Sir Randal Roberts. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Adams (W. Davenport), Works by:
A Dictionary of the Drama. Being a comprehensive Guide to the Plays, Playwrights, Players, and Playhouses of the United Kingdom and America, from the Earliest to the Present Times. Crown 8vo, half-bound, 12s. 6d.
Latter-Day Lyrics. Edited by W. Davenport Adams. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Quips and Quiddities. Selected by W. Davenport Adams. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Advertising, A History of, from the Earliest Times. Illustrated by Anecdotes, Curious Specimens, and Notices of Successful Advertisers. By Henry Sampson. Crown 8vo, with Coloured Frontispiece and Illustrations, cloth gilt, 7s. 6d.
Agony Column (The) of “The Times,” from 1800 to 1870. Edited, with an Introduction, by Alice Clay. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Aidë (Hamilton), Works by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Carr of Carrlyon.
Confidences.
Alexander (Mrs.), Novels by:
Maid, Wife, or Widow? Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Valerie’s Fate. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Allen (Grant), Works by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
The Evolutionist at Large. Second Edition, revised.
Vignettes from Nature.
Colin Clout’s Calendar.
Strange Stories. With Frontispiece by George Du Maurier. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 6s.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Philistia: A Novel. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Babylon: A Novel. With 12 Illusts. by P. Macnab. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
For Maimie’s Sake: A Tale of Love and Dynamite. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 6s.
In all Shades: A Novel. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Architectural Styles, A Handbook of. Translated from the German of A. Rosengarten, by W. Collett-Sandars. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, with 639 Illustrations, 7s. 6d.
Artemus Ward:
Artemus Ward’s Works: The Works of Charles Farrer Browne, better known as Artemus Ward. With Portrait and Facsimile. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Artemus Ward’s Lecture on the Mormons. With 32 Illustrations. Edited, with Preface, by Edward P. Hingston. Crown 8vo, 6d.
The Genial Showman: Life and Adventures of Artemus Ward. By Edward P. Hingston. With a Frontispiece. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 3s. 6d.
Art (The) of Amusing: A Collection of Graceful Arts, Games, Tricks, Puzzles, and Charades. By Frank Bellew. With 300 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo cloth extra, 4s. 6d. 2
Ashton (John), Works by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
A History of the Chap-Books of the Eighteenth Century. With nearly 400 Illustrations, engraved in facsimile of the originals.
Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne. From Original Sources. With nearly 100 Illustrations.
Humour, Wit, and Satire of the Seventeenth Century. With nearly 100 Illustrations.
English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon the First. With 120 Illustrations from Originals. Two Vols., demy 8vo, cloth extra, 28s.
Bacteria.—A Synopsis of the Bacteria and Yeast Fungi and Allied Species. By W. B. Grove, B.A. With 87 Illusts. Crown 8vo, cl. extra, 3s. 6d.
Bankers, A Handbook of London; together with Lists of Bankers from 1677. By F. G. Hilton Price. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Bardsley (Rev. C.W.), Works by:
Crown 8vo., cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations. Third Ed., revised.
Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature.
Bartholomew Fair, Memoirs of. By Henry Morley. With 100 Illusts. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Beaconsfield, Lord: A Biography. By T. P. O’Connor, M.P. Sixth Edition, with a New Preface. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Beauchamp.—Grantley Grange: A Novel. By Shelsley Beauchamp. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Beautiful Pictures by British Artists: A Gathering of Favourites from our Picture Galleries. In Two Series. All engraved on Steel in the highest style of Art. Edited, with Notices of the Artists, by Sydney Armytage, M.A. Imperial 4to, cloth extra, gilt and gilt edges, 21s. per Vol.
Bechstein.—As Pretty as Seven, and other German Stories. Collected by Ludwig Bechstein. With Additional Tales by the Brothers Grimm, and 100 Illusts. by Richter. Small 4to, green and gold, 6s. 6d.; gilt edges, 7s. 6d.
Beerbohm.—Wanderings in Patagonia; or, Life among the Ostrich Hunters. By Julius Beerbohm. With Illusts. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Belgravia for 1886.—One Shilling Monthly. Illustrated by P. Macnab.—The first Chapters of Mohawks, a New Novel by M. E. Braddon, Author of “Lady Audley’s Secret,” appeared in the January Number, and the Story will be continued throughout the year. This Number contained also the Opening Chapters of a New Novel entitled That other Person; and several of those short stories for which Belgravia is famous.—A New Story, entitled Holy Matrimony, by Mrs. Cashel Hoey, with Illusts. by P. Macnab, will be begun in the Number for Jan., 1887,
⁂ Now ready, the Volume for July to October 1886, cloth extra, gilt edges, 7s. 6d.; Cases for binding Vols., 2s. each.
Belgravia Annual for Christmas, 1886. Demy 8vo, with Illustrations, 1s.
Bennett (W.C., LL.D.), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. each.
A Ballad History of England.
Songs for Sailors.
Besant (Walter) and James Rice, Novels by. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s. each; cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Ready-Money Mortiboy,
With Harp and Crown.
This Son of Vulcan.
My Little Girl.
The Case of Mr. Lucraft.
The Golden Butterfly.
By Celia’s Arbour.
The Monks of Thelema.
’Twas in Trafalgar’s Bay.
The Seamy Side.
The Ten Years’ Tenant.
The Chaplain of the Fleet.
Besant (Walter), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s. each; cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
All Sorts and Conditions of Men: An Impossible Story. With Illustrations by Fred. Barnard.
The Captains’ Room, &c. With Frontispiece by E. J. Wheeler.
All in a Garden Fair. With 6 Illusts. By H. Furniss.
Dorothy Forster. With Frontispiece By Charles Green.
Uncle Jack, and other Stories.
Children of Gibeon: A Novel. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
The World Went Very Well Then. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
The Art of Fiction. Demy 8vo, 1s. 3
Betham-Edwards (M.), Novels by. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s. each.
Felicia.
Kitty.
Bewick (Thos.) and his Pupils. By Austin Dobson. With 95 Illustrations. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 10s. 6d.
Birthday Books:—
The Starry Heavens: A Poetical Birthday Book. Square 8vo, handsomely bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Birthday Flowers: Their Language and Legends. By W. J. Gordon. Beautifully Illustrated in Colours by Viola Boughton. In illuminated cover, crown 4to, 6s.
The Lowell Birthday Book. With Illusts. Small 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Blackburn’s (Henry) Art Handbooks. Demy 8vo, Illustrated, uniform in size for binding.
Academy Notes, separate years, from 1875 to 1885, each 1s.
Academy Notes, 1886. With numerous Illustrations. 1s.
Academy Notes, 1875-79. Complete in One Vol., with nearly 600 Illusts. in Facsimile. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 6s.
Academy Notes, 1880-84. Complete in One Volume, with about 700 Facsimile Illustrations. Cloth limp, 6s.
Grosvenor Notes, 1877. 6d.
Grosvenor Notes, separate years, from 1878 to 1885, each 1s.
Grosvenor Notes, 1886. With numerous Illustrations. 1s.
Grosvenor Notes, 1877-82. With upwards of 300 Illustrations. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 6s.
Pictures at South Kensington. With 70 Illusts. 1s.
The English Pictures at the National Gallery. 114 Illustrations. 1s.
The Old Masters at the National Gallery. 128 Illustrations. 1s. 6d.
A Complete Illustrated Catalogue to the National Gallery. With Notes by H. Blackburn, and 242 Illusts. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 3s.
Illustrated Catalogue of the Luxembourg Gallery. Containing about 250 Reproductions after the Original Drawings of the Artists. Edited by F. G. Dumas. Demy 8vo, 3s. 6d.
The Paris Salon, 1885. With about 300 Facsimile Sketches. Edited by F. G. Dumas. Demy 8vo, 3s.
The Paris Salon, 1886. With about 300 Illusts. Edited by F. G. Dumas. Demy 8vo, 3s.
The Art Annual, 1883-4. Edited by F. G. Dumas. With 300 full-page Illustrations. Demy 8vo, 5s.
Blake (William): Etchings from his Works. By W. B. Scott. With descriptive Text. Folio, half-bound boards, India Proofs, 21s.
Boccaccio’s Decameron; or, Ten Days’ Entertainment. Translated into English, with an Introduction by Thomas Wright, F.S.A. With Portrait and Stothard’s beautiful Copperplates, Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 7s. 6d.
Bowers’ (G.) Hunting Sketches:
Oblong 4to, half-bound boards, 21s. each.
Canters in Crampshire.
Leaves from a Hunting Journal. Coloured in facsimile of the originals.
Boyle (Frederick), Works by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Camp Notes: Stories of Sport and Adventure in Asia, Africa, and America.
Savage Life: Adventures of a Globe Trotter.
Chronicles of No-Man’s Land. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Braddon (M. E.)—Mohawks, a Novel, by Miss Braddon, Author of “Lady Audley’s Secret,” was begun in Belgravia for January, and will be continued throughout the year. Illustrated by P. Macnab. 1s. Monthly.
Brand’s Observations on Popular Antiquities, chiefly Illustrating the Origin of our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies, and Superstitions. With the Additions of Sir Henry Ellis. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, with numerous Illustrations, 7s. 6d.
Bret Harte, Works by:
Bret Harte’s Collected Works. Arranged and Revised by the Author. Complete in Five Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
Vol. I. Complete Poetical and Dramatic Works. With Steel Portrait, and Introduction by Author.
Vol. II. Earlier Papers—Luck of Roaring Camp, and other Sketches—Bohemian Papers—Spanish and American Legends.
Vol. III. Tales of the Argonauts—Eastern Sketches.
Vol. IV. Gabriel Conroy.
Vol. V. Stories—Condensed Novels, &c. 4
The Select Works of Bret Harte, in Prose and Poetry. With Introductory Essay by J. M. Bellew, Portrait of the Author, and 50 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Bret Harte’s Complete Poetical Works. Author’s Copyright Edition. Beautifully printed on hand-made paper and bound in buckram. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Gabriel Conroy: A Novel. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
An Heiress of Red Dog, and other Stories. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
The Twins of Table Mountain. Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s.
Luck of Roaring Camp, and other Sketches. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Jeff Briggs’s Love Story. Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s.
Flip. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Californian Stories (including The Twins of Table Mountain, Jeff Briggs’s Love Story, &c.) Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Maruja: A Novel. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
The Queen of the Pirate Isle. With 25 original Drawings by Kate Greenaway, Reproduced in Colours by Edmund Evans. Small 4to, boards, 5s.
Brewer (Rev. Dr.), Works by:
The Reader’s Handbook of Allusions, References, Plots, and Stories. Fifth Edition, revised throughout, with a New Appendix, containing a Complete English Bibliography. Cr. 8vo, 1,400 pp., cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Authors and their Works, with the Dates: Being the Appendices to “The Reader’s Handbook,” separately printed. Cr. 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic, and Dogmatic. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.; half-bound, 9s.
Brewster (Sir David), Works by:
More Worlds than One: The Creed of the Philosopher and the Hope of the Christian. With Plates. Post 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
The Martyrs of Science: Lives of Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. With Portraits. Post 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Letters on Natural Magic. A New Edition, with numerous Illustrations, and Chapters on the Being and Faculties of Man, and Additional Phenomena of Natural Magic, by J. A. Smith. Post 8vo, cl. ex., 4s. 6d.
Briggs, Memoir of Gen. John. By Major Evans Bell. With a Portrait. Royal 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Brillat-Savarin.—Gastronomy as a Fine Art. By Brillat-Savarin. Translated by R. E. Anderson, M.A. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Buchanan’s (Robert) Works: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
Ballads of Life, Love, and Humour. Frontispiece by Arthur Hughes.
Undertones.
London Poems.
The Book of Orm.
White Rose and Red: A Love Story.
Idylls and Legends of Inverburn.
Selected Poems of Robert Buchanan. With a Frontispiece by T. Dalziel.
The Hebrid Isles: Wanderings in the Land of Lorne and the Outer Hebrides. With Frontispiece by William Small.
A Poet’s Sketch-Book: Selections from the Prose Writings of Robert Buchanan.
The Earthquake; or, Six Days and a Sabbath. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Robert Buchanan’s Complete Poetical Works. With Steel-plate Portrait. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s. each.
The Shadow of the Sword.
A Child of Nature. With a Frontispiece.
God and the Man. With Illustrations by Fred. Barnard.
The Martyrdom of Madeline. With Frontispiece by A. W. Cooper.
Love Me for Ever. With a Frontispiece by P. Macnab.
Annan Water.
The New Abelard.
Foxglove Manor.
Matt: A Story of a Caravan.
The Master of the Mine. With a Frontispiece by W. H. Overend. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Edited by Rev. T. Scott. With 17 Steel Plates by Stothard engraved by Goodall, and numerous Woodcuts. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 7s. 6d.
Burnett (Mrs.), Novels by:
Surly Tim, and other Stories. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s. each.
Kathleen Mavourneen.
Lindsay’s Luck.
Pretty Polly Pemberton. 5
Burton (Captain), Works by:
To the Gold Coast for Gold: A Personal Narrative. By Richard F. Burton and Verney Lovett Cameron. With Maps and Frontispiece. Two Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 21s.
The Book of the Sword: Being a History of the Sword and its Use in all Countries, from the Earliest Times. By Richard F. Burton. With over 400 Illustrations. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 32s.
Burton (Robert):
The Anatomy of Melancholy. A New Edition, complete, corrected and enriched by Translations of the Classical Extracts. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Melancholy Anatomised: Being an Abridgment, for popular use, of Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Byron (Lord):
Byron’s Childe Harold. An entirely New Edition of this famous Poem, with over One Hundred new Illusts. by leading Artists. (Uniform with the Illustrated Editions of “The Lady of the Lake” and “Marmion.”) Elegantly and appropriately bound, small 4to, 16s.
Byron’s Letters and Journals. With Notices of his Life. By Thomas Moore. A Reprint of the Original Edition, newly revised, with Twelve full-page Plates. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 7s. 6d.
Byron’s Don Juan. Complete in One Vol., post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Caine (T. Hall), Novels by:
The Shadow of a Crime. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
A Son of Hagar. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Cameron (Comdr.), Works by:
To the Gold Coast for Gold: A Personal Narrative. By Richard F. Burton and Verney Lovett Cameron. With Frontispiece and Maps. Two Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 21s.
The Cruise of the “Black Prince” Privateer, Commanded by Robert Hawkins, Master Mariner. By Commander V. Lovett Cameron, R.N., C.B., D.C.L. With Frontispiece and Vignette by P. Macnab. Crown 8vo, cl. ex., 5s.
Cameron (Mrs. H. Lovett), Novels by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Juliet’s Guardian.
Deceivers Ever.
Carlyle (Thomas):
On the Choice of Books. By Thomas Carlyle. With a Life of the Author by R. H. Shepherd. New and Revised Edition, post 8vo, cloth extra, Illustrated, 1s. 6d.
The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1834 to 1872. Edited by Charles Eliot Norton. With Portraits. Two Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra. 24s.
Chapman’s (George) Works: Vol. I. contains the Plays complete, including the doubtful ones. Vol. II., the Poems and Minor Translations, with an Introductory Essay by Algernon Charles Swinburne. Vol. III., the Translations of the Iliad and Odyssey. Three Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 18s.; or separately, 6s. each.
Chatto & Jackson.—A Treatise on Wood Engraving, Historical and Practical. By Wm. Andrew Chatto and John Jackson. With an Additional Chapter by Henry G. Bohn; and 450 fine Illustrations. A Reprint of the last Revised Edition. Large 4to, half-bound, 28s.
Chaucer:
Chaucer for Children: A Golden Key. By Mrs. H. R. Haweis. With Eight Coloured Pictures and numerous Woodcuts by the Author. New Ed., small 4to, cloth extra, 6s.
Chaucer for Schools. By Mrs. H. R. Haweis. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Chronicle (The) of the Coach: Charing Cross to Ilfracombe. By J. D. Champlin. With 75 Illustrations by Edward L. Chichester. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
City (The) of Dream: A Poem. Fcap. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Clodd.—Myths and Dreams. By Edward Clodd, F.R.A.S., Author of “The Childhood of Religions,” &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Cobban.—The Cure of Souls: A Story. By J. Maclaren Cobban. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Coleman.—Curly: An Actor’s Story. By John Coleman. Illustrated by J. C. Dollman. Crown 8vo, 1s. cloth, 1s. 6d.
Collins (Mortimer), Novels by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Sweet Anne Page.
Transmigration.
From Midnight to Midnight.
A Fight with Fortune. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. 6
Collins (Mortimer & Frances), Novels by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Blacksmith and Scholar.
The Village Comedy.
You Play Me False.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Sweet and Twenty.
Frances.
Collins (Wilkie), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, Illustrated, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated bds., 2s. each; cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Antonina. Illust. by Sir John Gilbert.
Basil. Illustrated by Sir John Gilbert and J. Mahoney.
Hide and Seek. Illustrated by Sir John Gilbert and J. Mahoney.
The Dead Secret. Illustrated by Sir John Gilbert.
Queen of Hearts. Illustrated by Sir John Gilbert.
My Miscellanies. With a Steel-plate Portrait of Wilkie Collins.
The Woman in White. With Illustrations by Sir John Gilbert and F. A. Fraser.
The Moonstone. With Illustrations by G. Du Maurier and F. A. Fraser.
Man and Wife. Illust. by W. Small.
Poor Miss Finch. Illustrated by G. Du Maurier and Edward Hughes.
Miss or Mrs.? With Illustrations by S. L. Fildes and Henry Woods.
The New Magdalen. Illustrated by G. Du Maurier and C. S. Reinhardt.
The Frozen Deep. Illustrated by G. Du Maurier and J. Mahoney.
The Law and the Lady. Illustrated by S. L. Fildes and Sydney Hall.
The Two Destinies.
The Haunted Hotel. Illustrated by Arthur Hopkins.
The Fallen Leaves.
Jezebel’s Daughter.
The Black Robe.
Heart and Science: A Story of the Present Time.
“I Say No.”
The Evil Genius: A Novel. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Collins (C. Allston).—The Bar Sinister: A Story. By C. Allston Collins. Post 8vo, illustrated bds., 2s.
Colman’s Humorous Works: “Broad Grins,” “My Nightgown and Slippers,” and other Humorous Works, Prose and Poetical, of George Colman. With Life by G. B. Buckstone, and Frontispiece by Hogarth. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 7s. 6d.
Convalescent Cookery: A Family Handbook. By Catherine Ryan. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Conway (Moncure D.), Works by:
Demonology and Devil-Lore. Two Vols., royal 8vo, with 65 Illusts., 28s.
A Necklace of Stories. Illustrated by W. J. Hennessy. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Cook (Dutton), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
Hours with the Players. With a Steel Plate Frontispiece.
Nights at the Play: A View of the English Stage.
Leo: A Novel. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Paul Foster’s Daughter. crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Copyright.—A Handbook of English and Foreign Copyright in Literary and Dramatic Works. By Sidney Jerrold, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Cornwall.—Popular Romances of the West of England; or, The Drolls, Traditions, and Superstitions of Old Cornwall. Collected and Edited by Robert Hunt, F.R.S. New and Revised Edition, with Additions, and Two Steel-plate Illustrations by George Cruikshank. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Craddock.—The Prophet of the Great Smoky Mountains. By Charles Egbert Craddock. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Creasy.—Memoirs of Eminent Etonians: with Notices of the Early History of Eton College. By Sir Edward Creasy, Author of “The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World.” Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, with 13 Portraits, 7s. 6d.
Cruikshank (George):
The Comic Almanack. Complete in Two Series: The First from 1835 to 1843; the Second from 1844 to 1853. A Gathering of the Best Humour of Thackeray, Hood, Mayhew, Albert Smith, A’Beckett, Robert Brough, &c. With 2,000 Woodcuts and Steel Engravings by Cruikshank, Hine, Landells, &c. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, two very thick volumes, 7s. 6d. each. 7
The Life of George Cruikshank. By Blanchard Jerrold, Author of “The Life of Napoleon III.,” &c. With 84 Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edition, enlarged, with Additional Plates, and a very carefully compiled Bibliography. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Robinson Crusoe. A beautiful reproduction of Major’s Edition, with 37 Woodcuts and Two Steel Plates by George Cruikshank, choicely printed. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Cumming (C. F. Gordon), Works by:
Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 8s. 6d. each.
In the Hebrides. With Autotype Facsimile and numerous full-page Illustrations.
In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains. With numerous Illustrations.
Via Cornwall to Egypt. With a Photogravure Frontispiece. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Cussans.—Handbook of Heraldry; with Instructions for Tracing Pedigrees and Deciphering Ancient MSS., &c. By John E. Cussans. Entirely New and Revised Edition, illustrated with over 400 Woodcuts and Coloured Plates. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Cyples.—Hearts of Gold: A Novel. By William Cyples. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Daniel.—Merrie England in the Olden Time. By George Daniel. With Illustrations by Robt. Cruikshank. Crown 8vo, cloth extra. 3s. 6d.
Daudet.—The Evangelist; or, Port Salvation. By Alphonse Daudet. Translated by C. Harry Meltzer. With Portrait of the Author. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Davenant.—What shall my Son be? Hints for Parents on the Choice of a Profession or Trade for their Sons. By Francis Davenant, M.A. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Davies (Dr. N. E.), Works by: Crown 8vo, 1s. each; cloth limp, 1s. 6d. each.
One Thousand Medical Maxims.
Nursery Hints: A Mother’s Guide.
Aids to Long Life. Crown 8vo, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Davies’ (Sir John) Complete Poetical Works, including Psalms I. to L. in Verse, and other hitherto Unpublished MSS., for the first time Collected and Edited, with Memorial-Introduction and Notes, by the Rev. A. B. Grosart, D.D. Two Vols., crown 8vo, cloth boards, 12s.
De Maistre.—A Journey Round My Room. By Xavier de Maistre. Translated by Henry Attwell. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
De Mille.—A Castle in Spain: A Novel. By James De Mille. With a Frontispiece. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Derwent (Leith), Novels by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Our Lady of Tears.
Circe’s Lovers.
Dickens (Charles), Novels by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Sketches by Boz.
Pickwick Papers.
Nicholas Nickleby.
Oliver Twist.
The Speeches of Charles Dickens 1841-1870. With a New Bibliography, revised and enlarged. Edited and Prefaced by Richard Herne Shepherd. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.—Also a Smaller Edition, in the Mayfair Library. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
About England with Dickens. By Alfred Rimmer. With 57 Illustrations by C. A. Vanderhoof, Alfred Rimmer, and others. Sq. 8vo, cloth extra, 10s. 6d.
Dictionaries:
A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic, and Dogmatic. By the Rev. E. C. Brewer, LL.D. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.; hf.-bound, 9s.
The Reader’s Handbook of Allusions, References, Plots, and Stories. By the Rev. E. C. Brewer, LL.D. Fifth Edition, revised throughout, with a New Appendix, containing a Complete English Bibliography. Crown 8vo, 1,400 pages, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Authors and their Works, with the Dates. Being the Appendices to “The Reader’s Handbook,” separately printed. By the Rev. Dr. Brewer. Crown 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 8
Familiar Allusions: A Handbook of Miscellaneous Information; including the Names of Celebrated Statues, Paintings, Palaces, Country Seats, Ruins, Churches, Ships, Streets, Clubs, Natural Curiosities, and the like. By Wm. A. Wheeler and Charles G. Wheeler. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Short Sayings of Great Men. With Historical and Explanatory Notes. By Samuel A. Bent, M.A. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
A Dictionary of the Drama: Being a comprehensive Guide to the Plays, Playwrights, Players, and Playhouses of the United Kingdom and America, from the Earliest to the Present Times. By W. Davenport Adams. A thick volume, crown 8vo, half-bound, 12s. 6d.
The Slang Dictionary: Etymological, Historical, and Anecdotal. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. 6d.
Women of the Day: A Biographical Dictionary. By Frances Hays. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Words, Facts, and Phrases: A Dictionary of Curious, Quaint, and Out-of-the-Way Matters. By Eliezer Edwards. New and Cheaper Issue. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d.; hf.-bd., 9s.
Diderot.—The Paradox of Acting. Translated, with Annotations, from Diderot’s “Le Paradoxe sur le Comédien,” by Walter Herries Pollock. With a Preface by Henry Irving. Cr. 8vo, in parchment, 4s. 6d.
Dobson (W. T.), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Literary Frivolities, Fancies, Follies, and Frolics.
Poetical Ingenuities and Eccentricities.
Doran.—Memories of our Great Towns; with Anecdotic Gleanings concerning their Worthies and their Oddities. By Dr. John Doran, F.S.A. With 38 Illustrations. New and Cheaper Ed., cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d.
Drama, A Dictionary of the. Being a comprehensive Guide to the Plays, Playwrights, Players, and Playhouses of the United Kingdom and America, from the Earliest to the Present Times. By W. Davenport Adams. (Uniform with Brewer’s “Reader’s Handbook.”) Crown 8vo, half-bound, 12s. 6d.
Dramatists, The Old. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., Vignette Portraits, 6s. per Vol.
Ben Jonson’s Works. With Notes Critical and Explanatory, and a Biographical Memoir by Wm. Gifford. Edit. by Col. Cunningham. 3 Vols.
Chapman’s Works. Complete in Three Vols. Vol. I. contains the Plays complete, including doubtful ones; Vol. II., Poems and Minor Translations, with Introductory Essay by A. C. Swinburne; Vol. III., Translations of the Iliad and Odyssey.
Marlowe’s Works. Including his Translations. Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by Col. Cunningham. One Vol.
Massinger’s Plays. From the Text of William Gifford. Edited by Col. Cunningham. One Vol.
Dyer.—The Folk-Lore of Plants. By Rev. T. F. Thiselton Dyer, M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Early English Poets. Edited, with Introductions and Annotations, by Rev. A. B. Grosart, D.D. Crown 8vo, cloth boards, 6s. per Volume.
Fletcher’s (Giles, B.D.) Complete Poems. One Vol.
Davies’ (Sir John) Complete Poetical Works. Two Vols.
Herrick’s (Robert) Complete Collected Poems. Three Vols.
Sidney’s (Sir Philip) Complete Poetical Works. Three Vols.
Herbert (Lord) of Cherbury’s Poems. Edited, with Introduction, by J. Churton Collins. Crown 8vo, parchment, 8s.
Edwardes (Mrs. A.), Novels by:
A Point of Honour. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Archie Lovell. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Eggleston.—Roxy: A Novel. By Edward Eggleston. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Emanuel.—On Diamonds and Precious Stones: their History, Value, and Properties; with Simple Tests for ascertaining their Reality. By Harry Emanuel, F.R.G.S. With numerous Illustrations, tinted and plain. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 6s.
Englishman’s House, The: A Practical Guide to all interested in Selecting or Building a House, with full Estimates of Cost, Quantities, &c. By C. J. Richardson. Third Edition. Nearly 600 Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d. 9
English Merchants: Memoirs in Illustration of the Progress of British Commerce. By H. R. Fox Bourne. With Illusts. New and Cheaper Edit. revised. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Ewald (Alex. Charles, F.S.A.), Works by:
The Life and Times of Prince Charles Stuart, Count of Albany, commonly called the Young Pretender. From the State Papers and other Sources. New and Cheaper Edition, with a Portrait, crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Stories from the State Papers. With an Autotype Facsimile. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Studies Re-studied: Historical Sketches from Original Sources. Demy 8vo cloth extra, 12s.
Eyes, The.—How to Use our Eyes, and How to Preserve Them. By John Browning, F.R.A.S., &c. Fourth Edition. With 55 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth, 1s.
Fairholt.—Tobacco: Its History and Associations; with an Account of the Plant and its Manufacture, and its Modes of Use in all Ages and Countries. By F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. With upwards of 100 Illustrations by the Author. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Familiar Allusions: A Handbook of Miscellaneous Information; including the Names of Celebrated Statues, Paintings, Palaces, Country Seats, Ruins, Churches, Ships, Streets, Clubs, Natural Curiosities, and the like. By William A. Wheeler, Author of “Noted Names of Fiction;” and Charles G. Wheeler. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Faraday (Michael), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d. each.
The Chemical History of a Candle: Lectures delivered before a Juvenile Audience at the Royal Institution. Edited by William Crookes, F.C.S. With numerous Illustrations.
On the Various Forces of Nature, and their Relations to each other: Lectures delivered before a Juvenile Audience at the Royal Institution. Edited by William Crookes, F.C.S. With numerous Illustrations.
Farrer.—Military Manners and Customs. By J. A. Farrer, Author of “Primitive Manners and Customs,” &c. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Fin-Bec.—The Cupboard Papers: Observations on the Art of Living and Dining. By Fin-Bec. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Fitzgerald (Percy), Works by:
The Recreations of a Literary Man; or, Does Writing Pay? With Recollections of some Literary Men, and a View of a Literary Man’s Working Life. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
The World Behind the Scenes. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Little Essays: Passages from the Letters of Charles Lamb. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Bella Donna.
Never Forgotten.
The Second Mrs. Tillotson.
Polly.
Seventy-five Brooke Street.
The Lady of Brantome.
Fletcher’s (Giles, B.D.) Complete Poems: Christ’s Victorie in Heaven, Christ’s Victorie on Earth, Christ’s Triumph over Death, and Minor Poems. With Memorial-Introduction and Notes by the Rev. A. B. Grosart, D.D. Cr. 8vo, cloth bds., 6s.
Fonblanque.—Filthy Lucre: A Novel. By Albany de Fonblanque. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Francillon (R. E.), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s. each.
One by One.
Queen Cophetua.
A Real Queen.
Olympia. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Esther’s Glove. Fcap. 8vo, 1s.
French Literature, History of. By Henry Van Laun. Complete in 3 Vols., demy 8vo, cl. bds., 7s. 6d. each.
Frere.—Pandurang Hari; or, Memoirs of a Hindoo. With a Preface by Sir H. Bartle Frere, G.C.S.I., &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Friswell.—One of Two: A Novel. By Hain Friswell. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Frost (Thomas), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Circus Life and Circus Celebrities.
The Lives of the Conjurers.
The Old Showmen and the Old London Fairs.
Fry’s (Herbert) Royal Guide to the London Charities, 1886-7. Showing their Name, Date of Foundation, Objects, Income, Officials, &c. Published Annually. Cr. 8vo, cloth, 1s. 6d. 10
Gardening Books: Post 8vo, 1s, each; cl. limp, 1s. 6d. each.
A Year’s Work in Garden and Greenhouse: Practical Advice to Amateur Gardeners as to the Management of the Flower, Fruit, and Frame Garden. By George Glenny.
Our Kitchen Garden: The Plants we Grow, and How we Cook Them. By Tom Jerrold.
Household Horticulture: A Gossip about Flowers. By Tom and Jane Jerrold. Illustrated.
The Garden that Paid the Rent. By Tom Jerrold.
My Garden Wild, and What I Grew there. By F. G. Heath. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.; gilt edges, 6s.
Garrett.—The Capel Girls: A Novel. By Edward Garrett. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Gentleman’s Magazine (The) for 1886. One Shilling Monthly. In addition to the Articles upon subjects in Literature, Science, and Art, for which this Magazine has so high a reputation, “Science Notes,” by W. Mattieu Williams, F.R.A.S., and “Table Talk,” by Sylvanus Urban, appear monthly.
⁂ Now ready, the Volume for January to June, 1886, cloth extra, price 8s. 6d.; Cases for binding, 2s. each.
Gentleman’s Annual (The) for Christmas, 1886. Containing a Complete Novel, “Wife or No Wife?” by T. W. Speight, Author of “The Mysteries of Heron Dyke.” Demy 8vo, 1s.
German Popular Stories. Collected by the Brothers Grimm, and Translated by Edgar Taylor. Edited, with an Introduction, by John Ruskin. With 22 Illustrations on Steel by George Cruikshank. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. 6d.; gilt edges, 7s. 6d.
Gibbon (Charles), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Robin Gray.
For Lack of Gold.
What will the World Say?
In Honour Bound.
Queen of the Meadow.
Braes of Yarrow.
The Flower of the Forest.
A Heart’s Problem.
The Golden Shaft.
Of High Degree.
Fancy Free.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
For the King.
In Pastures Green.
In Love and War.
By Mead and Stream.
Heart’s Delight. [Preparing.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Loving a Dream.
A Hard Knot.
Gilbert (William), Novels by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Dr. Austin’s Guests.
The Wizard of the Mountain.
James Duke, Costermonger.
Gilbert (W. S.), Original Plays by: In Two Series, each complete in itself, price 2s. 6d. each.
The First Series contains—The Wicked World—Pygmalion and Galatea—Charity—The Princess—The Palace of Truth—Trial by Jury.
The Second Series contains—Broken Hearts—Engaged—Sweethearts—Gretchen—Dan’l Druce—Tom Cobb—H.M.S. Pinafore—The Sorcerer—The Pirates of Penzance.
Eight Original Comic Operas. Written by W. S. Gilbert. Containing: The Sorcerer—H.M.S. “Pinafore”—The Pirates of Penzance—Iolanthe—Patience—Princess Ida—The Mikado—Trial by Jury. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Glenny.—A Year’s Work in Garden and Greenhouse: Practical Advice to Amateur Gardeners as to the Management of the Flower, Fruit, and Frame Garden. By George Glenny. Post 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Godwin.—Lives of the Necromancers. By William Godwin. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Golden Library, The:
Square 16mo (Tauchnitz size), cloth limp, 2s. per volume.
Bayard Taylor’s Diversions of the Echo Club.
Bennett’s (Dr. W. C.) Ballad History of England.
Bennett’s (Dr.) Songs for Sailors.
Byron’s Don Juan.
Godwin’s (William) Lives of the Necromancers.
Holmes’s Autocrat of the Breakfast Table. Introduction by Sala.
Holmes’s Professor at the Breakfast Table.
Hood’s Whims and Oddities. Complete. All the original Illustrations.
Irving’s (Washington) Tales of a Traveller.
Jesse’s (Edward) Scenes and Occupations of a Country Life.
Lamb’s Essays of Elia. Both Series Complete in One Vol.
Leigh Hunt’s Essays: A Tale for a Chimney Corner, and other Pieces. With Portrait, and Introduction by Edmund Ollier. 11
Mallory’s (Sir Thomas) Mort d’Arthur: The Stories of King Arthur and of the Knights of the Round Table. Edited by B. Montgomerie Ranking.
Pascal’s Provincial Letters. A New Translation, with Historical Introduction and Notes, by T. M’Crie, D.D.
Pope’s Poetical Works. Complete.
Rochefoucauld’s Maxims and Moral Reflections. With Notes, and Introductory Essay by Sainte-Beuve.
St. Pierre’s Paul and Virginia, and The Indian Cottage. Edited, with Life, by the Rev. E. Clarke.
Golden Treasury of Thought, The: An Encyclopædia of Quotations from Writers of all Times and Countries. Selected and Edited by Theodore Taylor. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt and gilt edges, 7s. 6d.
Graham.—The Professor’s Wife: A Story. By Leonard Graham. Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s.
Greeks and Romans, The Life of the, Described from Antique Monuments. By Ernst Guhl and W. Koner. Translated from the Third German Edition, and Edited by Dr. F. Hueffer. 545 Illusts. New and Cheaper Edit., demy 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d.
Greenaway (Kate) and Bret Harte.—The Queen of the Pirate Isle. By Bret Harte. With 25 original Drawings by Kate Greenaway, Reproduced in Colours by E. Evans. Sm. 4to, bds., 5s.
Greenwood (James), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
The Wilds of London.
Low-Life Deeps: An Account of the Strange Fish to be Found There.
Dick Temple: A Novel. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Guyot.—The Earth and Man; or, Physical Geography in its relation to the History of Mankind. By Arnold Guyot. With Additions by Professors Agassiz, Pierce, and Gray; 12 Maps and Engravings on Steel, some Coloured, and copious Index. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 4s. 6d.
Hair (The): Its Treatment in Health, Weakness, and Disease. Translated from the German of Dr. J. Pincus. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Hake (Dr. Thomas Gordon), Poems by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
New Symbols.
Legends of the Morrow.
The Serpent Play.
Maiden Ecstasy. Small 4to, cloth extra, 8s.
Hall.—Sketches of Irish Character. By Mrs. S. C. Hall. With numerous Illustrations on Steel and Wood by Maclise, Gilbert, Harvey, and G. Cruikshank. Medium 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 7s. 6d.
Halliday.—Every-day Papers. By Andrew Halliday. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Handwriting, The Philosophy of. With over 100 Facsimiles and Explanatory Text. By Don Felix de Salamanca. Post 8vo, cl. limp, 2s. 6d.
Hanky-Panky: A Collection of Very Easy Tricks, Very Difficult Tricks, White Magic, Sleight of Hand, &c. Edited by W. H. Cremer. With 200 Illusts. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Hardy (Lady Duffus).—Paul Wynter’s Sacrifice: A Story. By Lady Duffus Hardy. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Hardy (Thomas).—Under the Greenwood Tree. By Thomas Hardy, Author of “Far from the Madding Crowd.” With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Harwood.—The Tenth Earl. By J. Berwick Harwood. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Haweis (Mrs. H. R.), Works by:
The Art of Dress. With numerous Illustrations. Small 8vo, illustrated cover, 1s.; cloth limp, 1s. 6d.
The Art of Beauty. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, Coloured Frontispiece and Illusts. 6s.
The Art of Decoration. Square 8vo, handsomely bound and profusely Illustrated, 10s. 6d.
Chaucer for Children: A Golden Key. With Eight Coloured Pictures and numerous Woodcuts. New Edition, small 4to, cloth extra, 6s.
Chaucer for Schools. Demy 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. 12
Haweis (Rev. H. R.).—American Humorists. Including Washington Irving, Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Russell Lowell, Artemus Ward, Mark Twain, and Bret Harte. By the Rev. H. R. Haweis, M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Hawthorne(Julian), Novels by. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Garth.
Ellice Quentin.
Prince Saroni’s Wife.
Fortune’s Fool.
Sebastian Strome.
Dust.
Beatrix Randolph.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Miss Cadogna.
Love—or a Name.
Mrs. Gainsborough’s Diamonds. Fcap. 8vo, illustrated cover, 1s.
Hays.—Women of the Day: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Contemporaries. By Frances Hays. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Heath (F. G.).— My Garden Wild, and What I Grew There. By Francis George Heath, Author of “The Fern World,” &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.; cl. gilt, gilt edges, 6s.
Helps (Sir Arthur), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Animals and their Masters.
Social Pressure.
Ivan de Biron: A Novel. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Heptalogia (The); or, The Seven against Sense. A Cap with Seven Bells. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Herrick’s (Robert) Hesperides, Noble Numbers, and Complete Collected Poems. With Memorial-Introduction and Notes by the Rev. A. B. Grosart, D.D., Steel Portrait, Index of First Lines, and Glossarial Index, &c. Three Vols., crown 8vo, cloth, 18s.
Hesse-Wartegg (Chevalier Ernst von), Works by:
Tunis: The Land and the People. With 22 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
The New South-West: Travelling Sketches from Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Northern Mexico. With 100 fine Illustrations and Three Maps. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 14s.
Herbert.—The Poems of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Edited, with Introduction, by J. Churton Collins. Crown 8vo, bound in parchment, 8s.
Hindley (Charles), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Tavern Anecdotes and Sayings: Including the Origin of Signs, and Reminiscences connected with Taverns, Coffee Houses, Clubs, &c. With Illustrations.
The Life and Adventures of a Cheap Jack. By One of the Fraternity. Edited by Charles Hindley.
Hoey.—The Lover’s Creed. By Mrs. Cashel Hoey. With Frontispiece by P. Macnab. New and Cheaper Edit. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Holmes (O. Wendell), Works by:
The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. Illustrated by J. Gordon Thomson. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.—Another Edition in smaller type, with an Introduction by G. A. Sala. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
The Professor at the Breakfast-Table; with the Story of Iris. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Holmes.—The Science of Voice Production and Voice Preservation: A Popular Manual for the Use of Speakers and Singers. By Gordon Holmes, M.D. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Hood (Thomas):
Hood’s Choice Works, in Prose and Verse. Including the Cream of the Comic Annuals. With Life of the Author, Portrait, and 200 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Hood’s Whims and Oddities. Complete. With all the original Illustrations. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Hood (Tom), Works by:
From Nowhere to the North Pole: A Noah’s Arkæological Narrative. With 25 Illustrations by W. Brunton and E. C. Barnes. Square crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt edges, 6s.
A Golden Heart: A Novel. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Hook’s (Theodore) Choice Humorous Works, including his Ludicrous Adventures, Bons Mots, Puns and Hoaxes. With a New Life of the Author, Portraits, Facsimiles, and Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, gilt, 7s. 6d. 13
Hooper.—The House of Raby: A Novel. By Mrs. George Hooper. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Hopkins.—“’Twixt Love and Duty:” A Novel. By Tighe Hopkins. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Horne.—Orion: An Epic Poem, in Three Books. By Richard Hengist Horne. With Photographic Portrait from a Medallion by Summers. Tenth Edition, crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s.
Howell.—Conflicts of Capital and Labour, Historically and Economically considered: Being a History and Review of the Trade Unions of Great Britain. By Geo. Howell M.P. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Hunt.—Essays by Leigh Hunt. A Tale for a Chimney Corner, and other Pieces. With Portrait and Introduction by Edmund Ollier. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Hunt (Mrs. Alfred), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Thornicroft’s Model.
The Leaden Casket.
Self-Condemned.
That other Person. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Indoor Paupers. By One of Them. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Ingelow.—Fated to be Free: A Novel. By Jean Ingelow. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Irish Wit and Humour, Songs of. Collected and Edited by A. Perceval Graves. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Irving—Tales of a Traveller. By Washington Irving. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Jay (Harriett), Novels by:
The Dark Colleen. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
The Queen of Connaught. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Janvier.—Practical Keramics for Students. By Catherine A. Janvier. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Jefferies (Richard), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
Nature near London.
The Life of the Fields.
The Open Air.
Jennings (Hargrave).—The Rosicrucians: Their Rites and Mysteries. With Chapters on the Ancient Fire and Serpent Worshippers. By Hargrave Jennings. With Five full-page Plates and upwards of 300 Illustrations. A New Edition, crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Jennings (H. J.), Works by:
Curiosities of Criticism. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Lord Tennyson: A Biographical Sketch. With a Photograph-Portrait. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Jerrold (Tom), Works by: Post 8vo, 1s. each; cloth, 1s. 6d. each.
The Garden that Paid the Rent.
Household Horticulture: A Gossip about Flowers. Illustrated.
Our Kitchen Garden: The Plants we Grow, and How we Cook Them.
Jesse.—Scenes and Occupations of a Country Life. By Edward Jesse. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Jeux d’Esprit. Collected and Edited by Henry S. Leigh. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Jones (Wm., F.S.A.), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
Finger-Ring Lore: Historical, Legendary, and Anecdotal. With over Two Hundred Illustrations.
Credulities, Past and Present; including the Sea and Seamen, Miners, Talismans, Word and Letter Divination, Exorcising and Blessing of Animals, Birds, Eggs, Luck, &c. With an Etched Frontispiece.
Crowns and Coronations: A History of Regalia in all Times and Countries. With One Hundred Illustrations.
Jonson’s (Ben) Works. With Notes Critical and Explanatory, and a Biographical Memoir by William Gifford. Edited by Colonel Cunningham. Three Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 18s.; or separately, 6s. each. 14
Josephus, The Complete Works of. Translated by Whiston. Containing both “The Antiquities of the Jews” and “The Wars of the Jews.” Two Vols., 8vo, with 52 Illustrations and Maps, cloth extra, gilt, 14s.
Kempt.—Pencil and Palette: Chapters on Art and Artists. By Robert Kempt. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Kershaw.—Colonial Facts and Fictions: Humorous Sketches. By Mark Kershaw. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.; cloth, 2s. 6d.
King (R. Ashe), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
A Drawn Game.
“The Wearing of the Green.”
Kingsley (Henry), Novels by:
Oakshott Castle. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Number Seventeen. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Knight.—The Patient’s Vade Mecum: How to get most Benefit from Medical Advice. By William Knight, M.R.C.S., and Edward Knight, L.R.C.P. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Lamb (Charles):
Lamb’s Complete Works, in Prose and Verse, reprinted from the Original Editions, with many Pieces hitherto unpublished. Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by R. H. Shepherd. With Two Portraits and Facsimile of Page of the “Essay on Roast Pig.” Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Essays of Elia. Complete Edition. Post 8vo, cloth extra, 2s.
Poetry for Children, and Prince Dorus. By Charles Lamb. Carefully reprinted from unique copies. Small 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Little Essays: Sketches and Characters. By Charles Lamb. Selected from his Letters by Percy Fitzgerald. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Lares and Penates, or, The Background of Life. By Florence Caddy. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Larwood (Jacob), Works by:
The Story of the London Parks. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Forensic Anecdotes.
Theatrical Anecdotes.
Lane’s Arabian Nights, &c.:
The Thousand and One Nights: commonly called, in England, “The Arabian Nights’ Entertainments.” A New Translation from the Arabic, with copious Notes, by Edward William Lane. Illustrated by many hundred Engravings on Wood, from Original Designs by Wm. Harvey. A New Edition, from a Copy annotated by the Translator, edited by his Nephew, Edward Stanley Poole. With a Preface by Stanley Lane-Poole. Three Vols., demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
Arabian Society in the Middle Ages: Studies from “The Thousand and One Nights.” By Edward William Lane, Author of “The Modern Egyptians,” &c. Edited by Stanley Lane-Poole. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Life in London; or, The History of Jerry Hawthorn and Corinthian Tom. With the whole of Cruikshank’s Illustrations, in Colours, after the Originals. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Linton (E. Lynn), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Witch Stories.
The True Story of Joshua Davidson.
Ourselves: Essays on Women.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Patricia Kemball.
The Atonement of Leam Dundas.
The World Well Lost.
Under which Lord?
With a Silken Thread.
The Rebel of the Family.
“My Love!”
Ione.
Longfellow: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
Longfellow’s Complete Prose Works. Including “Outre Mer,” “Hyperion,” “Kavanagh,” “The Poets and Poetry of Europe,” and “Driftwood.” With Portrait and Illustrations by Valentine Bromley.
Longfellow’s Poetical Works. Carefully Reprinted from the Original Editions. With numerous fine Illustrations on Steel and Wood.
Long Life, Aids to: A Medical, Dietetic, and General Guide in Health and Disease. By N. E. Davies, L.R.C.P. Crown 8vo, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d. 15
Lucy.—Gideon Fleyce: A Novel. By Henry W. Lucy. Crown 8vo, cl. ex., 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Lusiad (The) of Camoens. Translated into English Spenserian Verse by Robert Ffrench Duff. Demy 8vo, with Fourteen full-page Plates, cloth boards, 18s.
Macalpine.—Teresa Itasca, and other Stories. By Avery Macalpine. Crown 8vo, bound in canvas, 2s. 6d.
McCarthy (Justin, M.P.), Works by:
A History of Our Own Times, from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the General Election of 1880. Four Vols. demy 8vo, cloth extra, 12s. each.—Also a Popular Edition, in Four Vols. cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 6s. each.
A Short History of Our Own Times. One Vol., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
History of the Four Georges. Four Vols. demy 8vo, cloth extra, 12s. each.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Dear Lady Disdain. The Waterdale Neighbours.
My Enemy’s Daughter.
A Fair Saxon.
Linley Rochford.
Miss Misanthrope.
Donna Quixote.
The Comet of a Season.
Maid of Athens.
Camiola: A Girl with a Fortune. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
“The Right Honourable:” A Romance of Society and Politics. By Justin McCarthy, M.P., and Mrs. Campbell-Praed. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
McCarthy (Justin H., M.P.), Works by:
An Outline of the History of Ireland, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Cr. 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
A History of Ireland from the Union to the Introduction of Mr. Gladstone’s Bill. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
England under Gladstone, 1880-85. Second Edition, revised and brought down to the Fall of the Gladstone Administration. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Doom! An Atlantic Episode. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Our Sensation Novel. Edited by Justin H. McCarthy. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Hafiz in London. Choicely printed. Small 8vo, gold cloth, 3s. 6d.
MacDonald (George, LL.D.), Works by:
Works of Fancy and Imagination. Pocket Edition, Ten Volumes, in handsome cloth case, 21s. Vol. 1 Within and Without. The Hidden Life.—Vol. 2. The Disciple. The Gospel Women. A Book of Sonnets. Organ Songs.—Vol. 3. Violin Songs. Songs of the Days and Nights. A Book of Dreams. Roadside Poems. Poems for Children. Vol. 4. Parables. Ballads. Scotch Songs.—Vols. 5 and 6. Phantastes: A Faerie Romance.—Vol. 7. The Portent.—Vol. 8. The Light Princess. The Giant’s Heart. Shadows.—Vol. 9. Cross Purposes. The Golden Key. The Carasoyn. Little Daylight.—Vol. 10. The Cruel Painter. The Wow o’ Rivven. The Castle. The Broken Swords. The Gray Wolf. Uncle Cornelius.
The Volumes are also sold separately in Grolier-pattern cloth, 2s. 6d. each.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Paul Faber, Surgeon. With a Frontispiece by J. E. Millais.
Thomas Wingfold, Curate. With a Frontispiece by C. J. Staniland.
Macdonell.—Quaker Cousins: A Novel. By Agnes Macdonell. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Macgregor.—Pastimes and Players. Notes on Popular Games. By Robert Macgregor. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Maclise Portrait-Gallery (The) of Illustrious Literary Characters; with Memoirs—Biographical, Critical, Bibliographical, and Anecdotal—illustrative of the Literature of the former half of the Present Century. By William Bates, B.A. With 85 Portraits printed on an India Tint. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. 16
Mackay.—Interludes and Undertones: or, Music at Twilight. By Charles Mackay, LL.D. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Macquoid (Mrs.), Works by: Square 8vo, cloth extra, 10s. 6d. each.
In the Ardennes. With 50 fine Illustrations by Thomas R. Macquoid.
Pictures and Legends from Normandy and Brittany. With numerous Illustrations by Thomas R. Macquoid.
About Yorkshire. With 67 Illustrations by T. R. Macquoid.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
Through Normandy. With 90 Illustrations by T. R. Macquoid.
Through Brittany. With numerous Illustrations by T. R. Macquoid.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
The Evil Eye, and other Stories.
Lost Rose.
Magician’s Own Book (The): Performances with Cups and Balls, Eggs, Hats, Handkerchiefs, &c. All from actual Experience. Edited by W. H. Cremer. With 200 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Magic Lantern (The), and its Management: including full Practical Directions for producing the Limelight, making Oxygen Gas, and preparing Lantern Slides. By T. C. Hepworth. With 10 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Magna Charta. An exact Facsimile of the Original in the British Museum, printed on fine plate paper, 3 feet by 2 feet, with Arms and Seals emblazoned in Gold and Colours. 5s.
Mallock (W. H.), Works by:
The New Republic; or, Culture, Faith and Philosophy in an English Country House. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.; Cheap Edition, illustrated boards, 2s.
The New Paul and Virginia; or, Positivism on an Island. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Poems. Small 4to, in parchment, 8s.
Is Life worth Living? Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Mallory’s (Sir Thomas) Mort d’Arthur: The Stories of King Arthur and of the Knights of the Round Table. Edited by B. Montgomerie Ranking. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Marlowe’s Works. Including his Translations. Edited, with Notes and Introductions, by Col. Cunningham. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Marryat (Florence), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Open! Sesame!
Written in Fire
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
A Harvest of Wild Oats.
A Little Stepson.
Fighting the Air.
Masterman.—Half a Dozen Daughters: A Novel. By J. Masterman. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Mark Twain, Works by:
The Choice Works of Mark Twain. Revised and Corrected throughout by the Author. With Life, Portrait, and numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Innocents Abroad; or, The New Pilgrim’s Progress: Being some Account of the Steamship “Quaker City’s” Pleasure Excursion to Europe and the Holy Land. With 234 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.—Cheap Edition (under the title of “Mark Twain’s Pleasure Trip”), post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Roughing It, and The Innocents at Home. With 200 Illustrations by F. A. Fraser. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Gilded Age. By Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner. With 212 Illustrations by T. Coppin. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. With 111 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.—Cheap Edition, post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
The Prince and the Pauper. With nearly 200 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
A Tramp Abroad. With 314 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.—Cheap Edition, post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
The Stolen White Elephant, &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. 17
Life on the Mississippi. With about 300 Original Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. With 174 Illustrations by E. W. Kemble. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.—Cheap Edition, post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Massinger’s Plays. From the Text of William Gifford. Edited by Col. Cunningham. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Matthews.—A Secret of the Sea, &c. By Brander Matthews. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.; cloth, 2s. 6d.
Mayfair Library, The:
Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. per Volume.
A Journey Round My Room. By Xavier de Maistre. Translated by Henry Attwell.
Latter-Day Lyrics. Edited by W. Davenport Adams.
Quips and Quiddities. Selected by W. Davenport Adams.
The Agony Column of “The Times,” from 1800 to 1870. Edited, with an Introduction, by Alice Clay.
Melancholy Anatomised: A Popular Abridgment of “Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy.”
Gastronomy as a Fine Art. By Brillat-Savarin.
The Speeches of Charles Dickens.
Literary Frivolities, Fancies, Follies, and Frolics. By W. T. Dobson.
Poetical Ingenuities and Eccentricities. Selected and Edited by W. T. Dobson.
The Cupboard Papers. By Fin-Bec.
Original Plays by W. S. Gilbert. First Series. Containing: The Wicked World—Pygmalion and Galatea—Charity—The Princess—The Palace of Truth—Trial by Jury.
Original Plays by W. S. Gilbert. Second Series. Containing: Broken Hearts—Engaged—Sweethearts—Gretchen—Dan’l Druce—Tom Cobb—H.M.S. Pinafore—The Sorcerer—The Pirates of Penzance.
Songs of Irish Wit and Humour. Collected and Edited by A. Perceval Graves.
Animals and their Masters. By Sir Arthur Helps.
Social Pressure. By Sir A. Helps.
Curiosities of Criticism. By Henry J. Jennings.
The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. By Oliver Wendell Holmes. Illustrated by J. Gordon Thomson.
Pencil and Palette. By Robert Kempt.
Little Essays: Sketches and Characters. By Chas. Lamb. Selected from his Letters by Percy Fitzgerald.
Forensic Anecdotes; or, Humour and Curiosities of the Law and Men of Law. By Jacob Larwood.
Theatrical Anecdotes. By Jacob Larwood.
Jeux d’Esprit. Edited by Henry S. Leigh.
True History of Joshua Davidson. By E. Lynn Linton.
Witch Stories. By E. Lynn Linton.
Ourselves: Essays on Women. By E. Lynn Linton.
Pastimes and Players. By Robert Macgregor.
The New Paul and Virginia. By W. H. Mallock.
New Republic. By W. H. Mallock.
Puck on Pegasus. By H. Cholmondeley-Pennell.
Pegasus Re-Saddled. By H. Cholmondeley-Pennell. Illustrated by George Du Maurier.
Muses of Mayfair. Edited by H. Cholmondeley-Pennell.
Thoreau: His Life and Aims. By H. A. Page.
Puniana. By the Hon. Hugh Rowley.
More Puniana. By the Hon. Hugh Rowley.
The Philosophy of Handwriting. By Don Felix de Salamanca.
By Stream and Sea. By William Senior.
Old Stories Re-told. By Walter Thornbury.
Leaves from a Naturalist’s Note-Book. By Dr. Andrew Wilson.
Mayhew.—London Characters and the Humorous Side of London Life. By Henry Mayhew. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
Medicine, Family.—One Thousand Medical Maxims and Surgical Hints, for Infancy, Adult Life, Middle Age, and Old Age. By N. E. Davies, L.R.C.P. Lond. Cr. 8vo, 1s.; cl., 1s. 6d. 18
Merry Circle (The): A Book of New Intellectual Games and Amusements. By Clara Bellew. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Mexican Mustang (On a), through Texas, from the Gulf to the Rio Grande. A New Book of American Humour. By Alex. E. Sweet and J. Armoy Knox, Editors of “Texas Siftings.” With 265 Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Middlemass (Jean), Novels by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Touch and Go.
Mr. Dorillion.
Miller.—Physiology for the Young; or, The House of Life: Human Physiology, with its application to the Preservation of Health. For Classes and Popular Reading. With numerous Illusts. By Mrs. F. Fenwick Miller. Small 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Milton (J. L.), Works by:
Sm. 8vo, 1s. each; cloth ex., 1s. 6d. each.
The Hygiene of the Skin. A Concise Set of Rules for the Management of the Skin; with Directions for Diet, Wines, Soaps, Baths, &c.
The Bath in Diseases of the Skin.
The Laws of Life, and their Relation to Diseases of the Skin.
Molesworth (Mrs.).—Hathercourt Rectory. By Mrs. Molesworth, Author of “The Cuckoo Clock,” &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Murray (D. Christie), Novels by. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
A Life’s Atonement.
A Model Father.
Joseph’s Coat.
Coals of Fire.
By the Gate of the Sea.
Val Strange.
Hearts.
The Way of the World.
A Bit of Human Nature.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
First Person Singular: A Novel. With a Frontispiece by Arthur Hopkins.
Cynic Fortune: A Tale of a Man with a Conscience. With a Frontispiece by R. Caton Woodville.
North Italian Folk. By Mrs. Comyns Carr. Illustrated by Randolph Caldecott. Square 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Number Nip (Stories about), the Spirit of the Giant Mountains. Retold for Children by Walter Grahame. With Illustrations by J. Moyr Smith. Post 8vo, cl. extra, 5s.
Nursery Hints: A Mother’s Guide in Health and Disease. By N. E. Davies, L.R.C.P. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
O’Connor.—Lord Beaconsfield A Biography. By T. P. O’Connor, M.P. Sixth Edition, with a New Preface, bringing the work down to the Death of Lord Beaconsfield. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
O’Hanlon.—The Unforeseen: A Novel. By Alice O’Hanlon. New and Cheaper Edition. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Oliphant (Mrs.) Novels by:
Whiteladies. With Illustrations by Arthur Hopkins and H. Woods. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d. each.
The Primrose Path.
The Greatest Heiress in England.
O’Reilly.—Phœbe’s Fortunes: A Novel. With Illustrations by Henry Tuck. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
O’Shaughnessy (Arth.), Works by:
Songs of a Worker. Fcap. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Music and Moonlight. Fcap 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Lays of France. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 10s. 6d.
Ouida, Novels by. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Held in Bondage.
Strathmore.
Chandos.
Under Two Flags.
Cecil Castlemaine’s Gage.
Idalia.
Tricotrin.
Puck.
Folle Farine.
Two Little Wooden Shoes.
A Dog of Flanders.
Pascarel.
Signa.
In a Winter City.
Ariadne.
Friendship.
Moths.
Pipistrello.
A Village Commune.
Bimbi.
In Maremma.
Wanda.
Frescoes.
Princess Napraxine. 19
Othmar: A Novel. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Wisdom, Wit, and Pathos, selected from the Works of Ouida by F. Sydney Morris. Small crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Page (H. A.), Works by:
Thoreau: His Life and Aims: A Study. With a Portrait. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Lights on the Way: Some Tales within a Tale. By the late J. H. Alexander, B.A. Edited by H. A. Page. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Animal Anecdotes. Arranged on a New Principle. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days (A History of). Showing the State of Political Parties and Party Warfare at the Hustings and in the House of Commons from the Stuarts to Queen Victoria. Illustrated from the original Political Squibs, Lampoons, Pictorial Satires, and Popular Caricatures of the Time. By Joseph Grego, Author of “Rowlandson and his Works,” “The Life of Gillray,” &c. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, with a Frontispiece coloured by hand, and nearly 100 Illustrations, 16s. One Hundred Large Paper Copies (each numbered) have also been prepared, price 32s. each.
Pascal’s Provincial Letters. A New Translation, with Historical Introduction and Notes, by T. M’Crie, D.D. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Patient’s (The) Vade Mecum: How to get most Benefit from Medical Advice. By William Knight, M.R.C.S., and Edward Knight, L.R.C.P. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Paul Ferroll:
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Paul Ferroll: A Novel.
Why Paul Ferroll Killed his Wife.
Paul.—Gentle and Simple. By Margaret Agnes Paul. With a Frontispiece by Helen Paterson. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Payn (James), Novels by.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Lost Sir Massingberd.
The Best of Husbands.
Walter’s Word.
What He Cost Her.
Less Black than we’re Painted.
By Proxy.
Under One Roof.
Halves.
High Spirits.
Carlyon’s Year.
A Confidential Agent.
Some Private Views.
A Grape from a Thorn.
For Cash Only.
Kit: A Memory.
The Canon’s Ward.
From Exile.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
A Perfect Treasure.
Bentinck’s Tutor.
Fallen Fortunes.
A County Family.
A Woman’s Vengeance.
Cecil’s Tryst.
The Clyffards of Clyffe.
The Family Scapegrace.
The Foster Brothers.
Found Dead.
Gwendoline’s Harvest.
Humorous Stories.
Like Father, Like Son.
A Marine Residence.
Married Beneath Him.
Mirk Abbey.
Not Wooed, but Won.
Two Hundred Pounds Reward.
Murphy’s Master.
At Her Mercy.
In Peril and Privation: Stories of Marine Adventure Re-told. A Book for Boys. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
The Talk of the Town: A Novel. With Twelve Illustrations by Harry Furniss. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 3s. 6d.
The Fly on the Wheel: Humorous Papers. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Pears.—The Present Depression in Trade: Its Causes and Remedies. Being the “Pears” Prize Essays (of One Hundred Guineas). By Edwin Goadby and William Watt. With an Introductory Paper by Prof. Leone Levi, F.S.A., F.S.S. Demy 8vo, 1s.
Pennell (H. Cholmondeley), Works by:
Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Puck on Pegasus. With Illustrations.
Pegasus Re-Saddled. With Ten full-page Illusts. by G. Du Maurier.
The Muses of Mayfair. Vers de Société, Selected and Edited by H. C. Pennell.
Phelps (E. Stuart), Works by:
Post 8vo, 1s. each; cloth limp, 1s. 6d. each.
Beyond the Gates. By the Author of “The Gates Ajar.”
An Old Maid’s Paradise.
Burglars in Paradise.
Pirkis (Mrs. C. L.), Novels by:
Trooping with Crows. Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s.
Lady Lovelace. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Planché (J. R.), Works by:
The Pursuivant of Arms; or, Heraldry Founded upon Facts. With Coloured Frontispiece and 200 Illustrations. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Songs and Poems, from 1819 to 1879. Edited, with an Introduction, by his Daughter, Mrs. Mackarness. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Plutarch’s Lives of Illustrious Men. Translated from the Greek, with Notes Critical and Historical, and a Life of Plutarch, by John and William Langhorne. Two Vols., 8vo, cloth extra, with Portraits, 10s. 6d.
Poe (Edgar Allan):—
The Choice Works, in Prose and Poetry, of Edgar Allan Poe. With an Introductory Essay by Charles Baudelaire, Portrait and Facsimiles. Crown 8vo, cl. extra, 7s. 6d.
The Mystery of Marie Roget, and other Stories. Post 8vo. illust. bds., 2s.
Pope’s Poetical Works. Complete in One Vol. Post 8vo, cl. limp, 2s.
Praed (Mrs. Campbell-).—“The Right Honourable:” A Romance of Society and Politics. By Mrs. Campbell-Praed and Justin McCarthy, M.P. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Price (E. C.), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Valentina.
The Foreigners.
Mrs. Lancaster’s Rival.
Gerald. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Proctor (Richd. A.), Works by:
Flowers of the Sky. With 55 Illusts. Small crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d.
Easy Star Lessons. With Star Maps for Every Night in the Year, Drawings of the Constellations, &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Familiar Science Studies. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Saturn and its System. New and Revised Edition, with 13 Steel Plates. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 10s. 6d.
The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, and Temple. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Mysteries of Time and Space. With Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Universe of Suns, and other Science Gleanings. With numerous Illusts. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Wages and Wants of Science Workers. Crown 8vo, 1s. 6d.
Pyrotechnist’s Treasury (The); or, Complete Art of Making Fireworks. By Thomas Kentish. With numerous Illustrations. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 4s. 6d
Rabelais’ Works. Faithfully Translated from the French, with variorum Notes, and numerous characteristic Illustrations by Gustave Doré. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Rambosson.—Popular Astronomy. By J. Rambosson, Laureate of the Institute of France. Translated by C. B. Pitman. Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, numerous Illusts., and a beautifully executed Chart of Spectra, 7s. 6d.
Reade (Charles), Novels by: Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, illustrated, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s. each.
Peg Woffington. Illustrated by S. L. Fildes, A.R.A.
Christie Johnstone. Illustrated by William Small.
It is Never Too Late to Mend. Illustrated by G. J. Pinwell.
The Course of True Love Never did run Smooth. Illustrated by Helen Paterson.
The Autobiography of a Thief; Jack of all Trades; and James Lambert. Illustrated by Matt Stretch.
Love me Little, Love me Long. Illustrated by M. Ellen Edwards.
The Double Marriage. Illust. by Sir John Gilbert, R.A., and C. Keene.
The Cloister and the Hearth. Illustrated by Charles Keene.
Hard Cash. Illust. by F. W. Lawson.
Griffith Gaunt. Illustrated by S. L. Fildes, A.R.A., and Wm. Small.
Foul Play. Illust. by Du Maurier.
Put Yourself in His Place. Illustrated by Robert Barnes.
A Terrible Temptation. Illustrated by Edw. Hughes and A. W. Cooper.
The Wandering Heir. Illustrated by H. Paterson, S. L. Fildes, A.R.A., C. Green, and H. Woods, A.R.A.
A Simpleton. Illustrated by Kate Crauford.
A Woman-Hater. Illustrated by Thos. Couldery.
Singleheart and Doubleface: A Matter-of-fact Romance. Illustrated by P. Macnab.
Good Stories of Men and other Animals. Illustrated by E. A. Abbey, Percy Macquoid, and Joseph Nash.
The Jilt, and other Stories. Illustrated by Joseph Nash.
Readiana. With a Steel-plate Portrait of Charles Reade.
Reader’s Handbook (The) of Allusions, References, Plots, and Stories. By the Rev. Dr. Brewer. Fifth Edition, revised throughout, with a New Appendix, containing a Complete English Bibliography. Cr. 8vo, 1,400 pages, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. 21
Richardson.—A Ministry of Health, and other Papers. By Benjamin Ward Richardson, M.D., &c. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Riddell (Mrs. J. H.), Novels by:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Her Mother’s Darling.
The Prince of Wales’s Garden Party
Weird Stories.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
The Uninhabited House.
Fairy Water.
The Mystery in Palace Gardens.
Rimmer (Alfred), Works by: Square 8vo, cloth gilt, 10s. 6d. each.
Our Old Country Towns. With over 50 Illustrations.
Rambles Round Eton and Harrow. With 50 Illustrations.
About England with Dickens. With 58 Illustrations by Alfred Rimmer and C. A. Vanderhoof.
Robinson Crusoe: A beautiful reproduction of Major’s Edition, with 37 Woodcuts and Two Steel Plates by George Cruikshank, choicely printed. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (F. W.), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Women are Strange.
The Hands of Justice.
Robinson (Phil), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
The Poets’ Birds.
The Poets’ Beasts.
Poets’ Natural History.
Rochefoucauld’s Maxims and Moral Reflections. With Notes, and an Introductory Essay by Sainte-Beuve. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s.
Roll of Battle Abbey, The; or, A List of the Principal Warriors who came over from Normandy with William the Conqueror, and Settled in this Country, A.D. 1066-7. With the principal Arms emblazoned in Gold and Colours. Handsomely printed, 5s.
Rowley (Hon. Hugh), Works by: Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Puniana: Riddles and Jokes. With numerous Illustrations.
More Puniana. Profusely Illustrated.
Runciman (James), Stories by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each cloth limp, 2s. 6d. each.
Skippers and Shellbacks.
Grace Balmaign’s Sweetheart.
Schools and Scholars.
Russell (W. Clark), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Round the Galley-Fire.
On the Fo’k’sle Head: A Collection of Yarns and Sea Descriptions.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. each.
In the Middle Watch.
A Voyage to the Cape.
Sala.—Gaslight and Daylight. By George Augustus Sala. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Sanson.—Seven Generations of Executioners: Memoirs of the Sanson Family (1688 to 1847). Edited by Henry Sanson. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex. 3s. 6d.
Saunders (John), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Bound to the Wheel.
One Against the World.
Guy Waterman.
The Lion in the Path.
The Two Dreamers.
Saunders (Katharine), Novels by. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Joan Merryweather.
Margaret and Elizabeth.
The High Mills.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s 6d. each.
Heart Salvage.
Sebastian.
Gideon’s Rock.
Science Gossip: An Illustrated Medium of Interchange for Students and Lovers of Nature. Edited by J. E. Taylor, F.L.S., &c. Devoted to Geology, Botany, Physiology, Chemistry, Zoology, Microscopy, Telescopy, Physiography, &c. Price 4d. Monthly; or 5s. per year, post free. Vols. I. to XIV. may be had at 7s. 6d. each; and Vols. XV. to XXI. (1885), at 5s. each. Cases for Binding, 1s. 6d. each.
Scott (Sir Walter), Poems by:
Marmion. With over 100 new Illustrations by leading Artists. Small 4to, cloth extra, 16s.
The Lay of the Last Minstrel. With over 100 new Illustrations by leading Artists. Sm. 4to, cl. ex., 16s.
“Secret Out” Series, The: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, profusely Illustrated, 4s. 6d. each.
The Secret Out: One Thousand Tricks with Cards, and other Recreations; with Entertaining Experiments in Drawing-room or “White Magic.” By W. H. Cremer. 300 Engravings. 22
The Pyrotechnist’s Treasury; or, Complete Art of Making Fireworks. By Thomas Kentish. With numerous Illustrations.
The Art of Amusing: A Collection of Graceful Arts, Games, Tricks, Puzzles, and Charades. By Frank Bellew. With 300 Illustrations.
Hanky-Panky: Very Easy Tricks, Very Difficult Tricks, White Magic Sleight of Hand. Edited by W. H. Cremer. With 200 Illustrations.
The Merry Circle: A Book of New Intellectual Games and Amusements. By Clara Bellew. Many Illusts.
Magician’s Own Book: Performances with Cups and Balls, Eggs, Hats, Handkerchiefs, &c. All from actual Experience. Edited by W. H. Cremer. 200 Illustrations.
Senior.—By Stream and Sea. By William Senior. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Seven Sagas (The) of Prehistoric Man. By James H. Stoddart, Author of “The Village Life.” Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Shakespeare:
The First Folio Shakespeare.—Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. Published according to the true Original Copies. London, Printed by Isaac Iaggard and Ed. Blount. 1623.—A Reproduction of the extremely rare original, in reduced facsimile, by a photographic process—ensuring the strictest accuracy in every detail. Small 8vo, half-Roxburghe, 7s. 6d.
The Lansdowne Shakespeare. Beautifully printed in red and black, in small but very clear type. With engraved facsimile of Droeshout’s Portrait. Post 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Shakespeare for Children: Tales from Shakespeare. By Charles and Mary Lamb. With numerous Illustrations, coloured and plain, by J. Moyr Smith. Cr. 4to, cl. gilt, 6s.
The Handbook of Shakespeare Music. Being an Account of 350 Pieces of Music, set to Words taken from the Plays and Poems of Shakespeare, the compositions ranging from the Elizabethan Age to the Present Time. By Alfred Roffe. 4to, half-Roxburghe, 7s.
A Study of Shakespeare. By Algernon Charles Swinburne. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 8s.
Sheridan:—
Sheridan’s Complete Works, with Life and Anecdotes. Including his Dramatic Writings, printed from the Original Editions, his Works in Prose and Poetry, Translations, Speeches, Jokes, Puns, &c. With a Collection of Sheridaniana. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, with 10 full-page Tinted Illustrations, 7s. 6d.
Sheridan’s Comedies: The Rivals, and The School for Scandal. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes to each Play, and a Biographical Sketch of Sheridan, by Brander Matthews. With Decorative Vignettes and 10 full-page Illusts. Demy 8vo, half-parchment, 12s. 6d.
Short Sayings of Great Men. With Historical and Explanatory Notes by Samuel A. Bent, M.A. Demy 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Sidney’s (Sir Philip) Complete Poetical Works, including all those in “Arcadia.” With Portrait, Memorial-Introduction, Notes, &c., by the Rev. A. B. Grosart, D.D. Three Vols., crown 8vo, cloth boards, 18s.
Signboards: Their History. With Anecdotes of Famous Taverns and Remarkable Characters. By Jacob Larwood and John Camden Hotten. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, with 100 Illustrations, 7s. 6d.
Sims (George R.), Works by:
How the Poor Live. With 60 Illusts. by Fred. Barnard. Large 4to, 1s.
Rogues and Vagabonds. Post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.; cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
The Ring o’ Bells. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.; cloth, 2s. 6d.
Sketchley.—A Match in the Dark. By Arthur Sketchley. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Slang Dictionary, The: Etymological, Historical, and Anecdotal. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt, 6s. 6d.
Smith (J. Moyr), Works by:
The Prince of Argolis: A Story of the Old Greek Fairy Time. Small 8vo, cloth extra, with 130 Illusts., 3s. 6d.
Tales of Old Thule. With numerous Illustrations. Cr. 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s.
The Wooing of the Water Witch: A Northern Oddity. With numerous Illustrations. Small 8vo, cl. ex., 6s. 23
Society in London. By A Foreign Resident. New and Cheaper Edition, Revised, with an Additional Chapter on Society among the Middle and Professional Classes. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Spalding.—Elizabethan Demonology: An Essay in Illustration of the Belief in the Existence of Devils, and the Powers possessed by Them. By T. A. Spalding, LL.B. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 5s.
Spanish Legendary Tales. By Mrs. S. G. C. Middlemore, Author of “Round a Posada Fire.” Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Speight (T. W.), Novels by:
The Mysteries of Heron Dyke. With a Frontispiece by M. Ellen Edwards. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated bds., 2s.
A Barren Title. Cr. 8vo, 1s.; cl., 1s. 6d.
Wife or No Wife? Being the Gentleman’s Annual for 1886. Demy 8vo, 1s.
Spenser for Children. By M. H. Towry. With Illustrations by Walter J. Morgan. Crown 4to, with Coloured Illustrations, cloth gilt, 6s.
Staunton.—Laws and Practice of Chess; Together with an Analysis of the Openings, and a Treatise on End Games. By Howard Staunton. Edited by Robert B. Wormald. New Edition, small cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Stedman.—The Poets of America. With full Notes in Margin, and careful Analytical Index. By Edmund Clarence Stedman, Author of “Victorian Poets.” Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 9s.
Sterndale.—The Afghan Knife: A Novel. By Robert Armitage Sterndale. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Stevenson (R. Louis), Works by:
Travels with a Donkey in the Cevennes. Fifth Ed. Frontispiece by W. Crane. Post 8vo, cl. limp, 2s. 6d.
An Inland Voyage. With Front. by W. Crane. Post 8vo, cl. lp., 2s. 6d.
Familiar Studies of Men and Books. Second Edit. Crown 8vo, cl. ex., 6s.
New Arabian Nights. Crown 8vo, cl. extra, 6s.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
The Silverado Squatters. With Frontispiece. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 6s. Cheap Edition, post 8vo, picture cover, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Prince Otto: A Romance. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
The Merry Men, and other Tales and Fables. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 6s. Shortly.
St. John.—A Levantine Family. By Bayle St. John. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Stoddard.—Summer Cruising in the South Seas. By Charles Warren Stoddard. Illust, by Wallis Mackay. Crown 8vo, cl. extra, 3s. 6d.
Stories from Foreign Novelists. With Notices of their Lives and Writings. By Helen and Alice Zimmern. Frontispiece. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
St. Pierre.—Paul and Virginia, and The Indian Cottage. By Bernardin St. Pierre. Edited, with Life, by Rev. E. Clarke. Post 8vo, cl. lp., 2s.
Strutt’s Sports and Pastimes of the People of England; including the Rural and Domestic Recreations, May Games, Mummeries, Shows, &c., from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. With 140 Illustrations. Edited by William Hone. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Suburban Homes (The) of London: A Residential Guide to Favourite London Localities, their Society, Celebrities, and Associations. With Notes on their Rental, Rates, and House Accommodation. With Map of Suburban London. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d.
Swift’s Choice Works, in Prose and Verse. With Memoir, Portrait, and Facsimiles of the Maps in the Original Edition of “Gulliver’s Travels.” Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Swinburne (Algernon C.), Works by:
Atalanta in Calydon. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Chastelard. A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, 7s.
Poems and Ballads. First Series. Fcap. 8vo, 9s. Cr. 8vo, same price.
Poems and Ballads. Second Series. Fcap. 8vo, 9s. Cr. 8vo, same price.
Notes on Poems and Reviews. 8vo, 1s.
Songs before Sunrise. Cr. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Bothwell: A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, 12s. 6d.
George Chapman: An Essay. Crown 8vo, 7s.
Songs of Two Nations. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Essays and Studies. Crown 8vo, 12s.
Erechtheus: A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Note of an English Republican on the Muscovite Crusade. 8vo, 1s.
Note on Charlotte Bronte. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
A Study of Shakespeare. Cr. 8vo, 8s.
Songs of the Springtides. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Studies in Song. Crown 8vo, 7s.
Mary Stuart: A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, 8s.
Tristram of Lyonesse, and other Poems. Crown 8vo, 9s. 24 A Century of Roundels. Small 4to, 8s.
A Midsummer Holiday, and other Poems. Crown 8vo, 7s.
Marino Faliero: A Tragedy. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
A Study of Victor Hugo. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Miscellanies. Crown 8vo, 12s.
Symonds.—Wine, Women and Song: Mediæval Latin Students’ Songs. Now first translated into English Verse, with Essay by J. Addington Symonds. Small 8vo, parchment, 6s.
Syntax’s (Dr.) Three Tours: In Search of the Picturesque, in Search of Consolation, and in Search of a Wife. With the whole of Rowlandson’s droll page Illustrations in Colours and a Life of the Author by J. C. Hotten. Med. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Taine’s History of English Literature. Translated by Henry Van Laun. Four Vols., small 8vo, cloth boards, 30s.—Popular Edition, Two Vols., crown 8vo, cloth extra, 15s.
Taylor’s (Bayard) Diversions of the Echo Club: Burlesques of Modern Writers. Post 8vo, cl. limp, 2s.
Taylor (Dr. J. E., F.L.S.), Works by. Crown 8vo, cloth ex., 7s. 6d. each.
The Sagacity and Morality of Plants: A Sketch of the Life and Conduct of the Vegetable Kingdom. Coloured Frontispiece and 100 Illust.
Our Common British Fossils, and Where to Find Them: A Handbook for Students. With 331 Illustrations.
Taylor’s (Tom) Historical Dramas: “Clancarty,” “Jeanne Darc,” “’Twixt Axe and Crown,” “The Fool’s Revenge,” “Arkwright’s Wife,” “Anne Boleyn,” “Plot and Passion.” One Vol., cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
⁂ The Plays may also be had separately, at 1s. each.
Tennyson (Lord): A Biographical Sketch. By H. J. Jennings. With a Photograph-Portrait. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Thackerayana: Notes and Anecdotes. Illustrated by Hundreds of Sketches by William Makepeace Thackeray, depicting Humorous Incidents in his School-life, and Favourite Characters in the books of his every-day reading. With Coloured Frontispiece. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 7s. 6d.
Thomas (Bertha), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Cressida.
Proud Maisie.
The Violin-Player.
Thomas (M.).—A Fight for Life: A Novel. By W. Moy Thomas. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Thomson’s Seasons and Castle of Indolence. With a Biographical and Critical Introduction by Allan Cunningham, and over 50 fine Illustrations on Steel and Wood. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt edges, 7s. 6d.
Thornbury (Walter), Works by:
Haunted London. Edited by Edward Walford, M.A. With Illustrations by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
The Life and Correspondence of J. M. W. Turner. Founded upon Letters and Papers furnished by his Friends and fellow Academicians. With numerous Illusts. in Colours, facsimiled from Turner’s Original Drawings. Cr. 8vo, cl. extra, 7s. 6d.
Old Stories Re-told. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Tales for the Marines. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Timbs (John), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
The History of Clubs and Club Life in London. With Anecdotes of its Famous Coffee-houses, Hostelries, and Taverns. With many Illusts.
English Eccentrics and Eccentricities: Stories of Wealth and Fashion, Delusions, Impostures, and Fanatic Missions, Strange Sights and Sporting Scenes, Eccentric Artists, Theatrical Folk, Men of Letters, &c. With nearly 50 Illusts.
Trollope (Anthony), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
The Way We Live Now.
Kept In the Dark.
Frau Frohmann.
Mr. Scarborough’s Family.
The Land-Leaguers.
Marion Fay.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
The Golden Lion of Granpere.
John Caldigate.
American Senator.
Trollope( Frances E.), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Like Ships upon the Sea.
Mabel’s Progress.
Anne Furness.
Trollope (T. A.).—Diamond Cut Diamond, and other Stories. By T. Adolphus Trollope. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. 25
Trowbridge.—Farnell’s Folly: A Novel. By J. T. Trowbridge. Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Turgenieff.—Stories from Foreign Novelists. By Ivan Turgenieff, and others. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Tytler (C. C. Fraser-).—Mistress Judith: A Novel. By C. C. Fraser-Tytler. Cr. 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illust. boards, 2s.
Tytler (Sarah), Novels by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
What She Came Through.
The Bride’s Pass.
Saint Mungo’s City.
Beauty and the Beast. With a Frontispiece by P. Macnab.
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Noblesse Oblige. With Illustrations by F. A. Fraser.
Citoyenne Jacqueline. Illustrated by A. B. Houghton.
The Huguenot Family. With Illusts.
Lady Bell. Front. by R. Macbeth.
Buried Diamonds: A Novel. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Van Laun.—History of French Literature. By H. Van Laun. Three Vols., demy 8vo, cl. bds., 7s. 6d. each.
Villari.—A Double Bond: A Story. By Linda Villari. Fcap. 8vo, picture cover, 1s.
Walford (Edw., M.A.), Works by:
The County Families of the United Kingdom. Containing Notices of the Descent, Birth, Marriage, Education, &c., of more than 12,000 distinguished Heads of Families, their Heirs Apparent or Presumptive, the Offices they hold or have held, their Town and Country Addresses, Clubs, &c. Twenty-sixth Annual Edition, for 1886, cloth gilt, 50s.
The Shilling Peerage (1886). Containing an Alphabetical List of the House of Lords, Dates of Creation, Lists of Scotch and Irish Peers, Addresses, &c. 32mo, cloth, 1s. Published annually.
The Shilling Baronetage (1886). Containing an Alphabetical List of the Baronets of the United Kingdom, short Biographical Notices, Dates of Creation, Addresses, &c. 32mo, cloth, 1s.
The Shilling Knightage (1886). Containing an Alphabetical List of the Knights of the United Kingdom, short Biographical Notices, Dates of Creation, Addresses, &c. 32mo, cl., 1s. The Shilling House of Commons (1886). Containing a List of all the Members of Parliament, their Town and Country Addresses, &c. New Edition, embodying the results of the recent General Election. 32mo, cloth. 1s. Published annually.
The Complete Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage, and House of Commons (1886). In One Volume, royal 32mo, cloth extra, gilt edges, 5s.
Haunted London. By Walter Thornbury. Edited by Edward Walford, M.A. With Illustrations by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
Walton and Cotton’s Complete Angler; or, The Contemplative Man’s Recreation; being a Discourse of Rivers, Fishponds, Fish and Fishing, written by Izaak Walton; and Instructions how to Angle for a Trout or Grayling in a clear Stream, by Charles Cotton. With Original Memoirs and Notes by Sir Harris Nicolas, and 61 Copperplate Illustrations. Large crown 8vo, cloth antique, 7s. 6d.
Walt Whitman, Poems by. Selected and edited, with an Introduction, by William M. Rossetti. A New Edition, with a Steel Plate Portrait. Crown 8vo, printed on handmade paper and bound in buckram, 6s.
Wanderer’s Library, The:
Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
Wanderings in Patagonia; or, Life among the Ostrich-Hunters. By Julius Beerbohm. Illustrated.
Camp Notes: Stories of Sport and Adventure in Asia, Africa, and America. By Frederick Boyle.
Savage Life. By Frederick Boyle.
Merrie England in the Olden Time. By George Daniel. With Illustrations by Robt. Cruikshank.
Circus Life and Circus Celebrities. By Thomas Frost.
The Lives of the Conjurers. By Thomas Frost.
The Old Showmen and the Old London Fairs. By Thomas Frost.
Low Life Deeps. An Account of the Strange Fish to be found there. By James Greenwood.
The Wilds of London. By James Greenwood.
Tunis: The Land and the People. By the Chevalier de Hesse-Wartegg. With 22 Illustrations.
The Life and Adventures of a Cheap Jack. By One of the Fraternity. Edited by Charles Hindley.
The World Behind the Scenes. By Percy Fitzgerald. 26
Tavern Anecdotes and Sayings: Including the Origin of Signs, and Reminiscences connected with Taverns, Coffee Houses, Clubs, &c. By Charles Hindley. With Illusts.
The Genial Showman: Life and Adventures of Artemus Ward. By E. P. Hingston. With a Frontispiece.
The Story of the London Parks. By Jacob Larwood. With Illusts.
London Characters. By Henry Mayhew. Illustrated.
Seven Generations of Executioners: Memoirs of the Sanson Family (1688 to 1847). Edited by Henry Sanson.
Summer Cruising in the South Seas. By C. Warren Stoddard. Illustrated by Wallis Mackay.
Warner.—A Roundabout Journey. By Charles Dudley Warner, Author of “My Summer in a Garden.” Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Warrants, &c.:—
Warrant to Execute Charles I. An exact Facsimile, with the Fifty-nine Signatures, and corresponding Seals. Carefully printed on paper to imitate the Original, 22 in. by 14 in. Price 2s.
Warrant to Execute Mary Queen of Scots. An exact Facsimile, including the Signature of Queen Elizabeth, and a Facsimile of the Great Seal. Beautifully printed on paper to imitate the Original MS. Price 2s.
Magna Charta. An exact Facsimile of the Original Document in the British Museum, printed on fine plate paper, nearly 3 feet long by 2 feet wide, with the Arms and Seals emblazoned in Gold and Colours. Price 5s.
The Roll of Battle Abbey; or, A List of the Principal Warriors who came over from Normandy with William the Conqueror, and Settled in this Country, A.D. 1066-7. With the principal Arms emblazoned in Gold and Colours. Price 5s.
Wayfarer, The: Journal of the Society of Cyclists. Published Quarterly. Price 1s. Number 1, for October, is now ready.
Weather, How to Foretell the, with the Pocket Spectroscope. By F. W. Cory, M.R.C.S. Eng., F.R. Met. Soc., &c. With 10 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth, 1s. 6d.
Westropp.—Handbook of Pottery and Porcelain; or, History of those Arts from the Earliest Period. By Hodder M. Westropp. With numerous Illustrations, and a List of Marks. Crown 8vo, cloth limp, 4s. 6d.
Whistler’s (Mr.) “Ten o’clock.” Uniform with his “Whistler v. Ruskin: Art and Art Critics.” Cr. 8vo, 1s. [Shortly.
Williams (W. Mattieu, F.R.A.S.), Works by:
Science Notes. See the Gentleman’s Magazine. 1s. Monthly.
Science in Short Chapters. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d.
A Simple Treatise on Heat. Crown 8vo, cloth limp, with Illusts., 2s. 6d.
The Chemistry of Cookery. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Wilson (Dr. Andrew, F.R.S.E.), Works by:
Chapters on Evolution: A Popular History of the Darwinian and Allied Theories of Development. Third Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, with 259 Illustrations, 7s. 6d.
Leaves from a Naturalist’s Notebook. Post 8vo, cloth limp, 2s. 6d.
Leisure-Time Studies, chiefly Biological. Third Edit., with New Preface. Cr. 8vo, cl. ex., with Illusts.,, 6s.
Studies in Life and Sense. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 6s.
Common Accidents, and How to Treat them. By Dr. Andrew Wilson and others. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 1s.; cloth limp, 1s. 6d.
Winter (J. S.), Stories by:
Cavalry Life. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Regimental Legends. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d.; post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s.
Women of the Day: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Contemporaries. By Frances Hays. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 5s.
Wood.—Sabina: A Novel. By Lady Wood. Post 8vo, illust. bds., 2s.
Words, Facts, and Phrases: A Dictionary of Curious, Quaint, and Out-of-the-Way Matters. By Eliezer Edwards. New and cheaper issue, cr. 8vo, cl. ex., 7s. 6d.; half-bound, 9s.
Wright (Thomas), Works by: Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 7s. 6d. each.
Caricature History of the Georges. (The House of Hanover.) With 400 Pictures, Caricatures, Squibs, Broadsides, Window Pictures, &c.
History of Caricature and of the Grotesque in Art, Literature, Sculpture, and Painting. Profusely Illustrated by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A.
Yates (Edmund), Novels by: Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
Castaway.
The Forlorn Hope.
Land at Last. 27
WILKIE COLLINS’S NEW NOVEL.
The Evil Genius: A Novel. By Wilkie Collins, Author of “The Woman in White.” Three Vols., crown 8vo.
WALTER BESANT’S NEW NOVEL.
Children of Gibeon: A Novel. By Walter Besant, Author of “All Sorts and Conditions of Men,” “Dorothy Forster,” &c. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
ANOTHER NEW NOVEL BY WALTER BESANT.
The World Went Very Well Then. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
MRS. HUNT’S NEW NOVEL.
That other Person: A Novel. By Mrs. Alfred Hunt, Author of “Thornicroft’s Model,” “The Leaden Casket,” &c. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
GRANT ALLEN’S NEW NOVEL.
In all Shades: A Novel. By Grant Allen, Author of “Strange Stories,” “Philistia,” “Babylon,” &c. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
HALL CAINE’S NEW NOVEL.
A Son of Hagar: A Novel. By T. Hall Caine, Author of “The Shadow of a Crime,” &c. Three Vols., crown 8vo.
Popular Stories by the Best Authors. Library Editions, many Illustrated, crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3s. 6d. each.
BY MRS. ALEXANDER.
Maid, Wife, or Widow?
BY GRANT ALLEN.
Philistia.
BY W. BESANT & JAMES RICE.
Ready-Money Mortiboy.
My Little Girl.
The Case of Mr. Lucraft.
This Son of Vulcan.
With Harp and Crown.
The Golden Butterfly.
By Celia’s Arbour.
The Monks of Thelema.
’Twas in Trafalgar’s Bay.
The Seamy Side.
The Ten Years’ Tenant.
The Chaplain of the Fleet.
BY WALTER BESANT.
All Sorts and Conditions of Men.
The Captains’ Room.
All in a Garden Fair.
Dorothy Forster.
Uncle Jack.
BY ROBERT BUCHANAN.
A Child of Nature.
God and the Man.
The Shadow of the Sword.
The Martyrdom of Madeline.
Love Me for Ever.
Annan Water.
Matt.
The Master of the Mine.
The New Abelard.
Foxglove Manor.
BY HALL CAINE. The Shadow of a Crime.
BY MRS. H. LOVETT CAMERON.
Deceivers Ever.
Juliet’s Guardian.
BY MORTIMER COLLINS.
Sweet Anne Page.
Transmigration.
From Midnight to Midnight.
MORTIMER & FRANCES COLLINS.
Blacksmith and Scholar.
The Village Comedy.
You Play me False.
BY WILKIE COLLINS.
Antonina.
Basil.
Hide and Seek.
The Dead Secret.
Queen of Hearts.
My Miscellanies.
Woman in White.
The Moonstone.
Man and Wife.
Poor Miss Finch.
Miss or Mrs. ?
New Magdalen.
The Frozen Deep.
The Law and the Lady.
The Two Destinies.
Haunted Hotel.
The Fallen Leaves.]
Jezebel’s Daughter.
The Black Robe.
Heart and Science.
I Say No.
BY DUTTON COOK.
Paul Foster’s Daughter.
BY WILLIAM CYPLES.
Hearts of Gold.
BY ALPHONSE DAUDET.
The Evangelist; or, Port Salvation.
BY JAMES DE MILLE.
A Castle in Spain.
BY J. LEITH DERWENT
Our Lady of Tears.
Circe’s Lovers.
BY M. BETHAM-EDWARDS.
Felicia.
Kitty.
BY MRS. ANNIE EDWARDES.
Archie Lovell.
BY R. E. FRANCILLON.
Queen Cophetua.
One by One.
Prefaced by Sir BARTLE FRERE.
Pandurang Hari.
A Real Queen.
BY EDWARD GARRETT.
The Capel Girls. 28
BY CHARLES GIBBON.
Robin Gray.
For Lack of Gold.
What will the World Say?
In Honour Bound.
Queen of the Meadow.
The Flower of the Forest.
A Heart’s Problem.
The Braes of Yarrow.
The Golden Shaft.
Of High Degree.
Fancy Free.
Loving a Dream.
A Hard Knot.
BY THOMAS HARDY.
Under the Greenwood Tree.
BY JULIAN HAWTHORNE.
Garth.
Ellice Quentin.
Sebastian Strome.
Prince Saroni’s Wife.
Dust.
Fortune’s Fool.
Beatrix Randolph.
Miss Cadogna.
Love—or a Name.
BY SIR A. HELPS.
Ivan de Biron.
BY MRS. CASHEL HOEY.
The Lover’s Creed.
BY MRS. ALFRED HUNT.
Thornicroft’s Model.
The Leaden Casket.
Self-Condemned.
BY JEAN INGELOW.
Fated to be Free.
BY HARRIETT JAY.
The Queen of Connaught.
BY R. ASHE KING.
A Drawn Game.
“The Wearing of the Green.”
BY HENRY KINGSLEY.
Number Seventeen.
BY E. LYNN LINTON.
Patricia Kemball.
Atonement of Leam Dundas.
The World Well Lost.
Under which Lord?
With a Silken Thread.
The Rebel of the Family.
“My Love!”
Ione.
BY HENRY W. LUCY.
Gideon Fleyce.
BY JUSTIN McCARTHY, M.P.
The Waterdale Neighbours.
My Enemy’s Daughter.
Linley Rochford.
A Fair Saxon.
Dear Lady Disdain.
Miss Misanthrope.
Donna Quixote.
The Comet of a Season.
Maid of Athens.
Camiola.
BY GEORGE MACDONALD.
Paul Faber, Surgeon.
Thomas Wingfold, Curate.
BY MRS. MACDONELL.
Quaker Cousins.
BY FLORENCE MARRYAT.
Open! Sesame!
Written in Fire.
BY D. CHRISTIE MURRAY.
Life’s Atonement.
Joseph’s Coat.
A Model Father.
Coals of Fire.
Val Strange.
Hearts.
By the Gate of the Sea.
The Way of the World.
A Bit of Human Nature.
First Person Singular.
Cynic Fortune.
BY MRS. OLIPHANT.
Whiteladies.
BY MARGARET A. PAUL.
Gentle and Simple.
BY JAMES PAYN.
Lost Sir Massingberd.
Best of Husbands.
Halves.
Walter’s Word.
What He Cost Her.
Less Black than We’re Painted.
By Proxy.
High Spirits.
Under One Roof.
Carlyon’s Year.
A Confidential Agent.
From Exile.
A Grape from a Thorn.
For Cash Only.
Some Private Views.
Kit: A Memory.
The Canon’s Ward.
The Talk of the Town.
BY E. C. PRICE.
Valentina.
The Foreigners
Mrs. Lancaster’s Rival.
BY CHARLES READE.
It is Never Too Late to Mend.
Hard Cash.
Peg Woffington.
Christie Johnstone.
Griffith Gaunt.
Foul Play.
The Double Marriage.
Love Me Little, Love Me Long.
The Cloister and the Hearth.
The Course of True Love.
The Autobiography of a Thief.
Put Yourself in His Place.
A Terrible Temptation.
The Wandering Heir.
A Woman-Hater.
A Simpleton.
Readiana.
Singleheart and Doubleface.
The Jilt.
Good Stories of Men and other Animals.
BY MRS. J. H. RIDDELL.
Her Mother’s Darling.
Prince of Wales’s Garden-Party.
Weird Stories.
BY F. W. ROBINSON.
Women are Strange.
The Hands of Justice.
BY JOHN SAUNDERS.
Bound to the Wheel.
Guy Waterman.
Two Dreamers.
One Against the World.
The Lion in the Path. 29
BY KATHARINE SAUNDERS.
Joan Merryweather.
Margaret and Elizabeth.
Gideon’s Rock.
The High Mills.
Heart Salvage.
Sebastian.
BY T. W. SPEIGHT.
The Mysteries of Heron Dyke.
BY R. A. STERNDALE.
The Afghan Knife.
BY BERTHA THOMAS.
Proud Maisie.
The Violin-Player.
Cressida.
BY ANTHONY TROLLOPE.
The Way we Live Now.
Frau Frohmann.
Kept in the Dark.
Mr. Scarborough’s Family.
The Land-Leaguers.
Marion Fay.
BY FRANCES E. TROLLOPE.
Like Ships upon the Sea.
Anne Furness.
Mabel’s Progress.
BY IVAN TURGENIEFF, &c.
Stories from Foreign Novelists.
BY SARAH TYTLER.
What She Came Through.
The Bride’s Pass.
Saint Mungo’s City.
Beauty and the Beast.
Noblesse Oblige.
Citoyenne Jacqueline.
The Huguenot Family.
Lady Bell.
BY C. C. FRASER-TYTLER.
Mistress Judith.
BY J. S. WINTER.
Regimental Legends.
Post 8vo, illustrated boards, 2s. each.
BY EDMOND ABOUT.
The Fellah.
BY HAMILTON AÏDÉ.
Carr of Carrlyon.
Confidences.
BY MRS. ALEXANDER.
Maid, Wife, or Widow?
Valerie’s Fate.
BY GRANT ALLEN.
Strange Stories.
Philistia.
BY SHELSLEY BEAUCHAMP.
Grantley Grange.
BY W. BESANT & JAMES RICE.
Ready-Money Mortiboy.
With Harp and Crown.
This Son of Vulcan.
My Little Girl.
The Case of Mr. Lucraft.
The Golden Butterfly.
By Celia’s Arbour.
The Monks of Thelema.
’Twas in Trafalgar’s Bay.
The Seamy Side.
The Ten Years’ Tenant.
The Chaplain of the Fleet.
BY WALTER BESANT.
All Sorts and Conditions of Men.
The Captains’ Room.
All in a Garden Fair.
Dorothy Forster.
Uncle Jack.
BY FREDERICK BOYLE.
Camp Notes.
Savage Life.
Chronicles of No-man’s Land.
BY BRET HARTE.
An Heiress of Red Dog.
The Luck of Roaring Camp.
Californian Stories.
Gabriel Conroy.
Flip.
Maruja.
BY ROBERT BUCHANAN.
The Shadow of the Sword.
The Martyrdom of Madeline.
A Child of Nature.
Annan Water.
God and the Man.
The New Abelard.
Love Me for Ever.
Matt.
Foxglove Manor.
BY MRS. BURNETT.
Surly Tim.
BY HALL CAINE.
The Shadow of a Crime.
BY MRS. LOVETT CAMERON.
Deceivers Ever.
Juliet’s Guardian.
BY MACLAREN COBBAN.
The Cure of Souls.
BY C. ALLSTON COLLINS.
The Bar Sinister.
BY WILKIE COLLINS.
Antonina.
Queen of Hearts.
Basil.
My Miscellanies.
Hide and Seek.
Woman in White.
The Dead Secret.
The Moonstone. 30
Man and Wife.
Poor Miss Finch.
Miss or Mrs.?
New Magdalen.
The Frozen Deep.
Law and the Lady.
The Two Destinies.
Haunted Hotel.
The Fallen Leaves.
Jezebel’s Daughter.
The Black Robe.
Heart and Science.
“I Say No.”
BY MORTIMER COLLINS.
Sweet Anne Page.
Transmigration.
A Fight with Fortune.
From Midnight to Midnight.
MORTIMER & FRANCES COLLINS.
Sweet and Twenty.
Frances.
Blacksmith and Scholar.
The Village Comedy.
You Play me False.
BY DUTTON COOK.
Leo.
Paul Foster’s Daughter.
BY C. EGBERT CRADDOCK.
The Prophet of the Great Smoky Mountains.
BY WILLIAM CYPLES.
Hearts of Gold.
BY ALPHONSE DAUDET.
The Evangelist; or, Port Salvation.
BY JAMES DE MILLE.
A Castle in Spain.
BY J. LEITH DERWENT.
Our Lady of Tears.
Circe’s Lovers.
BY CHARLES DICKENS.
Sketches by Boz.
Pickwick Papers.
Oliver Twist.
Nicholas Nickleby.
BY MRS. ANNIE EDWARDES.
A Point of Honour.
Archie Lovell.
BY M. BETHAM-EDWARDS.
Felicia.
Kitty.
BY EDWARD EGGLESTON.
Roxy.
BY PERCY FITZGERALD.
Bella Donna.
Never Forgotten.
The Second Mrs. Tillotson.
Polly.
Seventy-five Brooke Street.
The Lady of Brantome.
BY ALBANY DE FONBLANQUE.
Filthy Lucre.
BY R. E. FRANCILLON.
Olympia.
One by One.
Queen Cophetua.
A Real Queen.
Prefaced by Sir H. BARTLE FRERE.
Pandurang Hari.
BY HAIN FRISWELL.
One of Two.
BY EDWARD GARRETT.
The Capel Girls.
Robin Gray.
For Lack of Gold.
What will the World Say?
In Honour Bound.
In Love and War.
For the King.
In Pastures Green.
Queen of the Meadow.
The Flower of the Forest
A Heart’s Problem.
The Braes of Yarrow.
The Golden Shaft.
Of High Degree.
Fancy Free.
By Mead and Stream.
BY WILLIAM GILBERT.
Dr. Austin’s Guests.
The Wizard of the Mountain.
James Duke.
BY JAMES GREENWOOD.
Dick Temple.
BY ANDREW HALLIDAY.
Every-Day Papers.
BY LADY DUFFUS HARDY.
Paul Wynter’s Sacrifice.
BY THOMAS HARDY.
Under the Greenwood Tree.
BY J. BERWICK HARWOOD.
The Tenth Earl.
BY JULIAN HAWTHORNE.
Garth.
Sebastian Strome.
Ellice Quentin.
Dust.
Prince Saroni’s Wife.
Fortune’s Fool.
Beatrix Randolph.
BY SIR ARTHUR HELPS.
Ivan de Biron.
BY MRS. CASHEL HOEY.
The Lover’s Creed.
BY TOM HOOD.
A Golden Heart.
BY MRS. GEORGE HOOPER.
The House of Raby.
BY MRS. ALFRED HUNT.
Thornicroft’s Model.
The Leaden Casket.
Self-Condemned.
BY JEAN INGELOW.
Fated to be Free.
BY HARRIETT JAY.
The Dark Colleen.
The Queen of Connaught.
BY MARK KERSHAW.
Colonial Facts and Fictions.
BY R. ASHE KING.
A Drawn Game.
“The Wearing of the Green.”
BY HENRY KINGSLEY.
Oakshott Castle.
BY E. LYNN LINTON.
Patricia Kemball.
The Atonement of Leam Dundas.
The World Well Lost.
Under which Lord? 31
With a Silken Thread.
The Rebel of the Family.
“My Love.”
Ione.
BY HENRY W. LUCY.
Gideon Fleyce.
BY JUSTIN MCCARTHY, M.P.
Dear Lady Disdain.
The Waterdale Neighbours.
My Enemy’s Daughter.
A Fair Saxon.
Linley Rochford.
Miss Misanthrope.
Donna Quixote.
The Comet of a Season.
Maid of Athens.
BY GEORGE MACDONALD.
Paul Faber, Surgeon.
Thomas Wingfold, Curate.
BY MRS. MACDONELL.
Quaker Cousins.
BY KATHARINE S. MACQUOID.
The Evil Eye.
Lost Rose.
BY W. H. MALLOCK.
The New Republic.
BY FLORENCE MARRYAT.
Open! Sesame!
A Harvest of Wild Oats.
A Little Stepson.
Fighting the Air.
Written in Fire.
BY J. MASTERMAN.
Half-a-dozen Daughters.
BY BRANDER MATTHEWS.
A Secret of the Sea.
BY JEAN MIDDLEMASS.
Touch and Go.
Mr. Dorillion.
BY D. CHRISTIE MURRAY.
A Life’s Atonement.
A Model Father.
Joseph’s Coat.
Coals of Fire.
By the Gate of the Sea.
Val Strange.
Hearts.
The Way of the World.
A Bit of Human Nature.
BY ALICE O’HANLON.
The Unforeseen.
BY MRS. OLIPHANT.
Whiteladies.
BY MRS. ROBERT O’REILLY.
Phœbe’s Fortunes.
BY OUIDA.
Held in Bondage.
Strathmore.
Chandos.
Under Two Flags.
Idalia.
Cecil Castlemaine’s Gage.
Tricotrin.
Puck.
Folle Farine.
A Dog of Flanders.
Pascarel.
Signa.
Princess Napraxine.
Two Little Wooden Shoes.
In a Winter City.
Ariadne.
Friendship.
Moths.
Pipistrello.
A Village Commune.
Bimbi.
In Maremma.
Wanda.
Frescoes.
BY MARGARET AGNES PAUL.
Gentle and Simple.
BY JAMES PAYN.
Lost Sir Massingberd.
A Perfect Treasure.
Bentinck’s Tutor.
Murphy’s Master.
A County Family.
At Her Mercy.
A Woman’s Vengeance.
Cecil’s Tryst.
Clyffards of Clyffe.
The Family Scapegrace.
Foster Brothers.
Found Dead.
Best of Husbands.
Walter’s Word.
Halves.
Fallen Fortunes.
What He Cost Her.
Humorous Stories.
Gwendoline’s Harvest.
£200 Reward.
Like Father, Like Son.
A Marine Residence.
Married Beneath Him.
Mirk Abbey.
Not Wooed, but Won.
Less Black than We’re Painted.
By Proxy.
Under One Roof.
High Spirits.
Carlyon’s Year.
A Confidential Agent.
Some Private Views.
From Exile.
A Grape from a Thorn.
For Cash Only.
Kit: A Memory.
The Canon’s Ward.
BY EDGAR A. POE.
The Mystery of Marie Roget.
BY E. C. PRICE.
Valentina.
The Foreigners.
Mrs. Lancaster’s Rival.
Gerald.
BY CHARLES READE.
It is Never Too Late to Mend Hard Cash.
Peg Woffington.
Christie Johnstone.
Griffith Gaunt.
Put Yourself in His Place.
The Double Marriage.
Love Me Little, Love Me Long.
Foul Play.
The Cloister and the Hearth.
The Course of True Love.
Autobiography of a Thief.
A Terrible Temptation.
The Wandering Heir.
A Simpleton.
Readiana.
A Woman-Hater.
The Jilt.
Singleheart and Doubleface.
Good Stories of Men and other Animals.
BY MRS. J. H. RIDDELL.
Her Mother’s Darling.
Prince of Wales’s Garden Party.
Weird Stories.
The Uninhabited House.
Fairy Water.
The Mystery in Palace Gardens.
BY F. W. ROBINSON.
Women are Strange.
The Hands of Justice. 32
BY JAMES RUNCIMAN.
Skippers and Shellbacks.
Grace Balmaign’s Sweetheart.
Schools and Scholars.
BY W. CLARK RUSSELL.
Round the Galley Fire.
On the Fo’k’sle Head.
BY BAYLE ST. JOHN.
A Levantine Family.
BY GEORGE AUGUSTUS SALA.
Gaslight and Daylight.
BY JOHN SAUNDERS.
Bound to the Wheel.
One Against the World.
Guy Waterman.
The Lion In the Path.
Two Dreamers.
BY KATHARINE SAUNDERS.
Joan Merryweather.
Margaret and Elizabeth.
The High Mills.
BY GEORGE R. SIMS.
Rogues and Vagabonds.
The Ring o’ Bells.
BY ARTHUR SKETCHLEY.
A Match In the Dark.
BY T. W. SPEIGHT.
The Mysteries of Heron Dyke.
BY R. A. STERNDALE.
The Afghan Knife.
BY R. LOUIS STEVENSON.
New Arabian Nights.
Prince Otto.
BY BERTHA THOMAS.
Cressida.
The Violin-Player.
Proud Maisie.
BY W. MOY THOMAS.
A Fight for Life.
BY WALTER THORNBURY.
Tales for the Marines.
BY T. ADOLPHUS TROLLOPE.
Diamond Cut Diamond.
BY ANTHONY TROLLOPE.
The Way We Live Now.
The American Senator.
Frau Frohmann.
Marlon Fay.
Kept in the Dark.
Mr. Scarborough’s Family.
The Land-Leaguers.
The Golden Lion of Granpere.
John Caldigate.
BY FRANCES ELEANOR TROLLOPE.
Like Ships upon the Sea.
Anne Furness.
Mabel’s Progress.
BY J. T. TROWBRIDGE.
Farnell’s Folly.
BY IVAN TURGENIEFF, &c.
Stories from Foreign Novelists.
BY MARK TWAIN.
Tom Sawyer.
A Pleasure Trip on the Continent of Europe.
A Tramp Abroad.
The Stolen White Elephant.
Huckleberry Finn.
BY C. C. FRASER-TYTLER.
Mistress Judith.
BY SARAH TYTLER.
What She Came Through.
The Bride’s Pass.
Saint Mungo’s City.
Beauty and the Beast.
BY J. S. WINTER.
Cavalry Life.
Regimental Legends.
BY LADY WOOD.
Sabina.
BY EDMUND YATES.
Castaway.
The Forlorn Hope.
Land at Last.
ANONYMOUS.
Paul Ferroll.
Why Paul Ferroll Killed his Wife.
POPULAR SHILLING BOOKS.
Jeff Briggs’s Love Story. By Bret Harte.
The Twins of Table Mountain. By Bret Harte.
Mrs. Gainsborough’s Diamonds. By Julian Hawthorne.
Kathleen Mavourneen. By Author of “That Lass o’ Lowrie’s.”
Lindsay’s Luck. By the Author of “That Lass o’ Lowrie’s.”
Pretty Polly Pemberton. By the Author of “That Lass o’ Lowrie’s.”
Trooping with Crows. By Mrs. Pirkis.
The Professor’s Wife. By Leonard Graham.
A Double Bond. By Linda Villari.
Esther’s Glove. By R. E. Francillon.
The Garden that Paid the Rent. By Tom Jerrold.
Curly. By John Coleman. Illustrated by J. C. Dollman.
Beyond the Gates. By E. S. Phelps.
An Old Maid’s Paradise. By E. S. Phelps.
Burglars in Paradise. By E. S. Phelps.
Doom: An Atlantic Episode. By Justin H. MacCarthy, M.P.
Our Sensation Novel. Edited by Justin H. MacCarthy, M.P.
A Barren Title. By T. W. Speight.
The Silverado Squatters. By R. Louis Stevenson.
J. OGDEN AND CO., PRINTERS, 29, 30 AND 31, GREAT SAFFRON HILL, E.C.
1 Vide Sheridan’s election expenses for Stafford.
2 1642. “The Inhabitants of the Citie of Bathe express their great greifes in that they have little company this summer, the poor guides are now necessitated to guide one another from the alehouse, lest they should lose their practice. Pluto’s cauldron (the hot bath) had never less purboyled fleshe in it to please the palate of his Courtiers. The poor Fiddlers are ready to hang themselves in their strings for a pastime, for want of other employments.” (Certaine Intelligences from Bath, 1642. Pamphlets. Coll. Geo. III. B.M.)
3 1431. “So there is owing to them for their appearance for 73 days 6s. and 8d. for each day” (i.e. for two members).
1441-2.—“And it was the same day ordered by assent of the whole congregation that the Burgesses chosen for Parliament shall be allowed each of them two shillings a day, and by no means any more.” (Extracts from the Proceedings of the Corporation of Lynn Regis, 1430 to 1731. Archæologia, vol. xxiv.)
4 William Prynne was one of the great authorities upon parliamentary history and statistics. All subsequent compilers, who have written upon the subject of constituencies, quoted from his “Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva.”
5 Andrew Marvell, who was made assistant-secretary to Milton, when he served the Protector, was, by Cromwell’s death, thrown out of employment. The burgesses of Hull, with whom he was deservedly popular, elected Marvell their representative to Parliament. The payment, of which so much has been made, for these services did not amount to a munificent retainer, the salary being fixed at two shillings a day for borough members; kindly remembrances in the form of acceptable gifts were, however, sent by constituents to those representatives who won their good wishes. Thus Marvell writes to the friends who sent him to parliament: “We must first give you thanks for the kind present you have pleased to send us, which will give occasion to us to remember you often; but the quantity is so great, that it might make sober men forgetful.”
6 Coleridge, “Northern Worthies.”
7 Campbell, “Lives of the Lord Chancellors.”
8 “DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM’S LITANY.
10 “The Petitioners, looking upon their adversaries as entirely devoted to the Court and the popish faction, gave them the name of Tories, a title given to the Irish robbers, villains, and cut-throats, since called Rapparees. (It will be remembered that James II. convened a Parliament in Dublin which attainted three thousand Protestants).
“The Abhorrers on their side, considering the Petitioners as men entirely in the principles of the reprobated parliament of 1640, and as Presbyterians, gave them the name of Whig, or ‘Sour-milk,’ formerly appropriated to the Scotch Presbyterians and rigid Covenanters.”
11 A second Convention Parliament met January 22, 1689, offered the Crown to William of Orange and Mary, February 13th, and dissolved a year later.
12 Published by the “Ballad Society.”
13 Alleged length of the petition for resummoning parliament.
14 This relates to Lord Shaftesbury’s Protestant Association, and his “green ribbon boys.”
15 H. Mildmay and J. L. Honeywood, members for Essex in Charles II.’s parliaments.
16 “Murdering Miles” Prance, the silversmith. Prance, the “Renegado,” one of the accusers of the popish Lords, and with Titus Oates, one of the discoverers of the popish conspiracy.
17 The popish Lords and the secretary of State, Lord Danby.
18 His name appears to have been Dancer, tanner and bailiff; he was also mayor at the time.
19 This ballad was written by Charles Blount, a prolific pamphleteer, second son of Sir Henry Blount, who attended Charles I. at Edge Hill.
20 In reply to the London and Wiltshire petitions against the vexatious prorogations—which Charles justified on the excuse “that the unsettled state of the nation made a longer interval necessary”—the king volunteered an audacious statement which was likely to astonish constitutional minds. He said that “he was the head of the Government, and the only judge of what was fit to be done in such cases, and that he would do that which he thought most for the good of himself and his people, desiring that they would not meddle with a matter that was so essential a part of his prerogative.” This brazen-faced assumption is so coloured by Carolian waggery, that we must fancy the Merry Monarch, if he saw the wit of his speech, making the reply in question with his “tongue in his cheek.”
21 Sir Thomas Mompesson had sat in the parliament in 1679 for New Sarum, and in the Oxford Parliament he sat for Old Sarum.
22 “The Presbyters.”
23 Thomas Thynne, whose estate was £9000 a year. He was an invaluable ally of the Duke of Monmouth. Assassinated by hired bravoes in the pay of Count Königsmarck, who was in love with the rich heiress, a widow, to whom poor Thynne was (by the influence of her friends) betrothed, be it said, against the inclination of the lady herself.
24 The celebrated Philippe de Comines (1445-1509). “L’on voit dans Comines, mieux que partout ailleurs, ce qu’étaient alors et les droits des rois et les privilèges des peuples. Il témoigne pour les Anglais, qui déjà savaient mieux que tout autre nation maintenir leurs libertés, une grande consideration.”
25 Frank Smith and Benjamin Harris, publishers of many tracts, satires, and so-called “libels” against the Court.
26 Commons Journals, March 26, 1681.
27 Lord Keeper and Chancellor.
28 The scapegoat, Fitz-Harris, who was promptly got rid of, for fear of revelations, being executed June 9, 1681.
29 That the Lords contested the claim of the Commons to impeach and condemn any one whom they might accuse of a crime was a grievance of the Lower House.
30 Mr. Samuel Lewen.
31 His seat was Long Ditton, near Kingston, which town had surrendered its charter to King Charles II. about a month before his death. King James appointed Sir Edward Evelyn one of the new corporation.
32 A Child was subsequently successful in getting returned for Middlesex. Child died in 1740, and was succeeded by Hugh Smithson, who later became known as the recipient of the honours of the Dukes of Northumberland.
33 The term “Tacker” was due to the chief member for Oxford University, William Bromley, having, in the session just closed, moved “That the Bill to prevent occasional nonconformity might be tacked to the Land Tax Bill.” The practice of tacking was condemned by the Lords, most of whom had signed a resolution to the effect they would never admit a “tack” to a money-bill. The party in the Commons strove vigorously to carry their point upon two bills being thus conjoined, whence they began to be known as “the Tackers.” In return, they stigmatized their opponents as “Sneakers.”
34 Tacks, otherwise Tackers, i.e. High-Church Tories, who were first so called from their efforts to tack the Occasional Conformity Bill on to a money bill, so that it could not be sent back by the Lords.
35 Jacobites.
36 “Memoirs of the Life of Thomas, Marquess of Wharton; to which is added his character by Sir Richard Steele.” London, 1715. 8vo.
37 Lord Grimston’s curious comedy, in five acts and in verse(!), “The Lawyer’s Fortune, or Love in a Hollow Tree,” was first published in 1704, as a quarto; being a foolish attempt, in fact, the merest trash, the author, it is said, suppressed it. The edition printed, as alleged, by the Duchess of Marlborough’s orders, is dated 1736. Besides the heading of an elephant performing on a rope, a satirical frontispiece was engraved, in which Lord Grimston is seen interrogating a sage, ensconced in the “hollow tree” of his play; a jackass is the most conspicuous object in the foreground; the animal wears a coronet, and is intended to typify the doltish author, who is farther ridiculed in a burlesque dedication “To the Right Sensible the Lord Flame.”
38 Queen Anne.
39 The Sacheverell riots.
40 “Catalogue of the Political and Personal Satires in the British Museum,” vol. iii.
41 “The Humours of an Election” seems to have inspired not only artists and balladists, but playwrights and opera composers also. “The Humours of the Town, a Dramatic Interlude,” referring to the contested election of 1774, is of this order. M.P. Andrews wrote “a new musical Interlude” under this title, 1774. “The Election,” a comedy in three acts, appeared in 1749; and “a new opera, called the Election,” was published in 1817. “The Country Election,” a farce in two acts, is due to D. J. Trusler, 1786; and “The Humours of an Election,” by F. Pilon, was published in 1780. Besides these and other plays, several poems were printed under this title, to some of which we have occasion to refer.
42 There were several variorum editions of this ballad, mostly amounting in substance to the same thing, “but with differences.” One entitled, “The Downfall of Sundon and Wager,” etc., commences with this verse:—
43 “Gentleman Harry” was Henry Pelham, the head of the Administration. He combined the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. His death occurred on the eve of the elections of 1754.
44 Sir John Soane secured these inimitable pictures from Mrs. Garrick.
45 Hogarth, in the first state of the engraving, has made the superscription in the youthful candidate’s letter to be Sir Commodity Taxem, Bart. Nichols is not correct in describing this gentleman as Thomas Potter. Lord Wenman and Sir James Dashwood were the Whig candidates; the Tory representatives were Lord Parker and Sir E. Turner.
46 In the original painting it is, “the Devil.”
47 Dr. Shebbeare, in his “6th Letter to the People of England,” audaciously abused the reigning dynasty, for which Lord Mansfield condemned him to stand in the pillory, to be imprisoned for three years, etc. Subsequently Lord Bute complimented him with a pension, which Shebbeare enjoyed to his death.
48 Marked “New Interest” in the original painting, which is necessarily easier to decipher than the engraving.
49 As concerned Churchill and the artist, they both departed, it may be said, “warring to the very verge of the grave,” in 1764. Less than a month before the painter’s death appeared Churchill’s familiar lines, treating his antagonist as already slain by his satire:—
Curiously enough, five weeks after these lines appeared, the poet was likewise gathered to those shades to which he had with sportive venom prematurely consigned his antagonist, in all probability without anticipating the literal fulfilment of his prophecy.
50 John Wilkes, Radical, 1290; George Cooke, Conservative, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, the unsuccessful Whig candidate, polled 807 votes.
51 A less dignified view is taken of the lord mayor’s officious intervention, in the Political Register, 1768, where it states he had degraded, by his personal interference, “the dignity of his office to that of a petty constable;” and in a letter referring to the royal and ministerial favours conferred in return “for his active and spirited behaviour,” the new state official is, in his capacity of merchant-tailor, thus addressed:—
“And now, my lord, as we are brother tailors, how could you be so unkind as not to join eight of us to your right honourable self (nine tailors proverbially making one man), when you were dubbed the other day a Privy Councillor.”
52 The “cornuted” effect of these peculiarly fashioned wigs, especially when seen from the back, is, perhaps, accountable—with the pun on the parson’s Christian name of Horne—for the quotation engraved above the plate in question,—“Mine horn shall be exalted, like the horn of an Unicorn (Psalm 93).”
53 The Duke of Grafton was first lord of the treasury, 1767 to 1780.
54 John Wilkes.
55 George Fletcher, executed 1746.
56 Samuel Turner and Sir Robert Ladbrooke were unstable, and a few months later, “ratted” and becoming subservient to Court influence, did their best to betray the liberties of the citizens confided to their championship.
57 A mark being equivalent to 13s. 4d.
58 According to the return of 1826 there were three hundred voters.
59 Sheridan, according to Lord Byron’s dictum, had produced the three best compositions of his age in their respective lines: the best comedy, “The School for Scandal;” the best parliamentary philippic, the “Begum speech” against Warren Hastings; and pronounced the finest funeral oration, the monody on Garrick.
60 A necessary qualification, members being, by supposition, expected to reside in the places they represented.
61 Wilkes’s Address to the Middlesex Electors.
62 Lord Thurlow, who was frequently twitted by the satirists upon his penchant for the fair sex.
63 Lord Bute’s secretary, the great dispenser of “back-stairs influence,” afterwards Lord Liverpool.
64 For the screen of Carlton House Palace, see “Coriolanus addressing the Plebeians,” 1820; p. 338.
65 The bard of the “New Chevy Chase,” being truly national, makes the descendant of the Russells and his other personages express themselves vernacularly in “Scotticisms” when under the influence of strong emotions.
66 The bishop.
67 “Charles Dix,” lately driven from France.
68 Whose ministry caused the Bourbon downfall.
69 Much as Gillray made his royal father scrutinizing and blinking at the presentment of Oliver Cromwell.
70 Mr. J. Calcraft (W) succeeded in distancing Henry Bankes (W), but only lived a few months to enjoy his victory; a fresh election took place in October, 1831, vice Calcraft deceased, when Lord Ashley (afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury) secured the vacant seat.
71 Hobhouse was rejected by his Westminster constituents.
72 This is a reprehensible pun, barely to be tolerated even on such occasions, upon the name of Sir John Elley (C), an unsuccessful candidate, who was beaten by eight votes: Sir J. de Beauvoir (W), the second member, polling 239 to Elley’s 231. John Ramsbottom (W), was returned for Windsor at the top of the poll at the general elections of 1832, 1835, and 1837.
73 Sir John de Beauvoir.
74 i.e. Napoleon Buonaparte.
75 See “Reform,” page 372.
76 “Radicals” for “rapids.”
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.