_THE POLITICAL SKETCHES OF_ HB.
The years 1830-32 were full of political trouble; men's minds were
unsettled; progress was the order of the day, and a reform in the
election of the members who represented or who were supposed to
represent the political opinions of the English constituencies was not
only loudly called for, but had (as we have seen) for a very long time
past been imperatively demanded. The question was shelved from time to
time, but sooner or later it must be settled, and as Liberals and
Conservatives alike will be amused and astounded at the state of English
parliamentary representation half a century ago, we propose just to
glance at matters as they existed in 1830.
The Marquis of Blandford was a somewhat notable character in those days.
He had been a violent opponent of the Catholic Relief Bill; but from the
moment that measure was carried had become as fiery and reckless a
reformer.[108] On the 18th of February, 1830, he proposed that a
committee should be chosen by ballot to take a review of all boroughs
and cities in the kingdom, and report to the Secretary of State for the
Home Department those among them which had fallen into decay, or had in
any manner forfeited their right to representation on the principles of
the English constitution as anciently recognised by national and
parliamentary usage. The Home Secretary was to be bound immediately to
act on this report, and to relieve all such places from the burthen of
sending members to parliament in future, and the vacancies were to be
supplied by towns which had hitherto been unrepresented. All
parliamentary representatives were to be elected by persons "paying scot
and lot." He further proposed to extend the right of voting to all
copyholders and leaseholders, and to place the representation of
Scotland on an equal footing with that of England. The members were to
be chosen from the inhabitants of the places for which they were
returned, and were to be paid for their services according as they were
borough or county members. The former were to receive two guineas a day
each, and county members four guineas; why the latter were to be
estimated at double the value of the former does not seem clear. Mr.
Brougham, although ready to vote for this somewhat extraordinary
measure, "because much of what it proposed to do was good," recommended
that a merely general resolution that reform was necessary should be
substituted in its place. Lord Althorp moved an amendment accordingly on
the terms suggested; but both the amendment and the original motion were
negatived.
On the third reading of what was then known as the "East Retford" bill,
the first attempt was made in parliament by O'Connell to introduce a new
principle into the representative system of the country, viz., that the
votes of the electors should be taken by ballot. Only twenty-one members
voted for O'Connell's motion, among whom the names now most familiar to
us are those of Lord Althorp, Sir Francis Burdett, and Mr. Hume.
The most ultra-Conservative, however, of our day, who thinks that the
representation of the people has already been carried far enough, will
scarcely credit the fact, that in those days constituencies such as
Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham were absolutely unrepresented. Yet
such was the case. The motion for transferring the franchise of East
Retford to Birmingham having been lost, Lord John Russell, on the 23rd
of February, brought the matter of the great unrepresented
constituencies before parliament by moving for leave to bring in a bill
"to enable Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham to return members to the
House of Commons." It seems scarcely credible to us now-a-days, that
this reasonable motion was _negatived_ by 188 to 140.
On the 28th of May, O'Connell brought in a wilder scheme. He moved for
leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial parliaments, universal
suffrage, and vote by ballot; the simple foundation of his system being
that every man who pays a tax or is liable to serve in the militia is
entitled to have a voice in the representation of the country. Only
thirteen members were found to join him in a house of 332. Lord John
Russell, who took advantage of this motion to introduce certain
resolutions of his own, embracing a wider scheme of reform than that
included in his former programme, could not consent to any part of
O'Connell's scheme. Dismissing the subject of triennial parliaments as a
subject of comparative unimportance, and passing on to the other
propositions, universal suffrage and vote by ballot, he contended that
both were incompatible with the principles of the English Constitution.
Mr. Brougham, while he thought that the duration of parliaments might be
shortened with considerable advantage, provided that other measures for
removing improper influence were adopted, declared himself both against
universal suffrage and against vote by ballot; and he entered into a
full statement of the grounds on which he held that the secresy of
voting supposed to be attained by the ballot would produce most
mischievous consequences without securing the object which it professed
to have in view. The resolutions moved by Lord John Russell (after
O'Connell's motion had been negatived) were as follows: (1) "That it was
expedient the number of representatives in the House should be
increased;" (2) "That it was expedient to give members to the large and
manufacturing towns, and additional members to counties of great wealth
and population." Under the second of the resolutions, it was proposed to
divide large and populous counties, such as Yorkshire for instance, into
two divisions, and to give to each of them two members. Among the towns
proposed to be benefited were such important centres as Macclesfield,
Stockport, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Brighton, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton,
Sunderland, Manchester, Bury, Bolton, Dudley, Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield,
North and South Shields; while it was stated that the same principle
would apply to extend the representation to cities of such importance as
Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. All the resolutions, however
(comprising a third which we have considered it unnecessary to refer
to), were negatived by the amazing majority of 213 to 117. The fact that
this was a much larger majority than that which had thrown out the
previous and more limited proposal for extending the franchise to three
only of the manufacturing towns, will suffice to show the spirit in
which the unreformed parliament of 1830 was accustomed to receive any
suggestion of improvement and reform, reasonable or otherwise.
It may perhaps seem strange that at this stirring period there was an
absolute dearth of political caricaturists, but the fact we have already
attempted to account for. George Cruikshank, the finest caricaturist of
his day, as well as his brother Robert, neither of whom can be described
as purely political satirists, had now practically retired from the
practice of the art, and were employed on work of a totally different
character. Political caricature languished; indeed, if we perhaps except
William Heath, oftentimes better known by his artistic pseudonym of
"Paul Pry," there was not a political caricaturist of any note in
1829-30.
At this juncture there arose a graphic satirist--if indeed we are
justified in so terming him--of genuine originality. Before 1829, he had
been known only as a miniature painter of some celebrity; but he
possessed a taste for satiric art, and had essayed several subjects of
political character which he treated in a style and manner differing
altogether from the mode in which satirical pictures had hitherto been
treated. These he showed to Maclean, one of the great caricature
publishers of the day, who had sufficient discernment and prescience to
recognise in them the work of a man of unquestionable original ability.
He prevailed on the artist to publish these specimens, and their
success was so genuine and unmistakable that both publisher and artist
decided to continue them. Thus commenced a series of political pictures
which ultimately numbered almost a thousand, and ran an uninterrupted
course of prosperity for a period of upwards of two and twenty years.
The enormous success and reputation which the "sketches," as they were
called, achieved, was due not only to the cleverness and originality of
the artist himself, but also in a great measure to the mystery which
attended their publication and appearance. Both parties concerned in
their production preserved an inviolable secrecy on the subject of the
identity of the artist and the place whence the "sketches" originated.
Mr. Buss tells us,[109] "the drawings were called for in a mysterious
hackney coach, mysteriously deposited in a mysterious lithographic
printing office, and as mysteriously printed and mysteriously stored
until the right day of publication." The HB mystery was most religiously
preserved for a great number of years, both by the artist and the
publisher. The initials afforded no clue to those not immediately
concerned in preserving the secret; and yet in this very original
monogram lay the key to the whole of the mystery. The origin of this
signature was simply the junction of two I's and two D's (one above the
other), thus converting the double initials into HB. The single initials
were those of John Doyle, father of the late Richard Doyle, who
afterwards made his own mark as a comic artist in the pages of _Punch_
and elsewhere.
The "sketches" of HB were a complete innovation upon pictorial satire.
The idea of satirizing political subjects and public men without the
exaggeration or vulgarity which the caricaturists had more or less
inherited from Gillray, was entirely new to the public, and took with
them immensely; and herein lies their peculiarity, that whilst the
subjects are treated with a distinctly sarcastic humour, there is an
absence of anything approaching to exaggeration, and the likenesses of
the persons represented are most faithfully preserved. Whilst claiming
for himself the character of a pictorial satirist, the artist is all
throughout anxious to impress upon you the fact that he repudiates the
notion of being considered a caricaturist in the Johnsonian meaning of
the word. This _idea_ seems also to have struck Thackeray, who, writing
at the time when the sketches were appearing, says of him, "You never
hear any laughing at 'H.B.'; his pictures are a great deal too genteel
for that,--polite points of wit, which strike one as exceedingly clever
and pretty, and cause one to smile in a quiet, gentlemanlike kind of
way."[110] Throughout the series of sketches we know but of one instance
where the artist suffers any comparison to be established between
himself and the political caricaturists who had preceded him, and that
is the one entitled _Bombardment Extraordinary_ (having reference to the
indictment for libel against the _Morning Journal_, which was shortly
followed by the collapse of that paper), which is treated to the full as
coarsely as Gillray himself might desire. The fact of this being among
the earliest sketches would seem to show that the artist had not then
quite made up his mind whether to follow in the footsteps of his great
predecessor or not. We think the result must have convinced him that,
whilst having distinct merits of his own as a satirist, and indeed as an
artist, he was very far behind Gillray; and the rest of the sketches
seem to show that their designer had made up his mind that no middle
course was possible;--in other words, that he must be HB or nothing.
The faithfulness of the likenesses of the persons who appear in these
"sketches" is simply marvellous. Not only has the artist preserved the
features of the subjects of his satires, but he has caught their
attitude--their manner, almost their tricks and habits,--and the
drawings being, as we have said, wholly free from exaggeration, the very
men stand before you, often, it is true, in absurd and ridiculous
positions. The persons who figure in these lithographs comprise among
names of note many whose reputations were too ephemeral to preserve
them from oblivion. On the other hand, amongst the various groups we
recognise Prince Talleyrand, the Dukes of Cumberland, Gloucester,
Wellington, and Sussex, George the Fourth, William the Fourth, Louis
Philippe, her present Majesty, Lord Brougham, Colonel Sibthorpe, Count
Pozzo di Borgo, Daniel O'Connell, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel,
Mr. Hume, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston, Sir Francis Burdett, Mr.
Roebuck, Sir James Graham. Persons with no political reputation or
connection are occasionally introduced to serve the purposes of the
artist: doing duty for him in this manner we find the Rev. Edward
Irving; Townsend the "runner," of Bow Street notoriety; George Robins,
the auctioneer; Liston, the comedian; and others.
Ever on the alert for comic subjects, John Doyle was remarkably prompt
and ready to catch an idea. Frequently these ideas were suggested to him
by a phrase--a sentence--a few words in a speech; occasionally he takes
a hint from his Lempriere; whilst not unfrequently his happiest
conceptions are derived from a character or scene in one of the popular
operas or farces of the time. Thus, in one of the debates on the Reform
Bill in the House of Lords, some very high words passed between Lords
Grey and Kenyon, the latter applying the words "abandoned" and
"atrocious" to the conduct of the former, who on his part declared in
reply that he threw back the expressions with scorn and indignation. In
the midst of the confusion the Duke of Cumberland rose, and implored
their lordships to tranquillize themselves and proceed with the debate
in a temperate and orderly manner, advice which, after taking time to
cool, they thought it prudent to follow. The farce of "I'll Be Your
Second" was then running at the Olympic, Mr. Liston taking the part of
"Placid," who, having a pecuniary interest in one of the characters who
has a weakness for duelling, is kept in a state of nervous anxiety, and
constantly interposes with the question, "Can't this affair be
arranged?" In one of his "sketches," HB gives us _A Scene from the Farce
of "I'll Be Your Second,"_ in which the Duke of Cumberland is
represented as Placid, endeavouring to arrange matters amicably between
my Lords Kenyon and Grey.
DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
The duke himself was one of the most unpopular personages of his time,
and evinced on his part a contempt for public opinion which did nothing
to lessen the prejudice with which he was generally regarded. We dislike
a man none the less for knowing that he is conscious of and indifferent
to our good or bad opinion; and so it was with the Duke of Cumberland.
He followed his pleasure (field sports amongst the rest) with a serene
and happy indifference to all that the world might think or say about
him. This characteristic of his Royal Highness is satirized in another
of the "sketches," where he is supposed to sing "My Dog and My Gun," as
"Hawthorn," in the then popular opera of "Love in a Village." His Royal
Highness made himself a remarkable character in those smooth-faced days
by wearing a profusion of whisker and moustache perfectly white. A
rumour somehow got abroad and was circulated in the tittle-tattle
newspapers of the time, that at the instance of some fair lady he had
shaved off these martial appendages. The cavalry for some unexplained
reason were the only branch of the service who were then permitted to
wear moustaches, and in one of his sketches, the artist places the
smooth-shaved duke in the midst of his brother officers, who regard him
with the greatest horror and amazement.
The Ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of Wellington had entered
office under express declaration that they would forthwith apply
themselves to the reform of the representation of the people; and
accordingly, on the 1st of March, 1831, a bill for that purpose was
actually introduced by Lord John Russell; but the strength and violence
of the opposition which could still be mustered against it may be judged
by the fact, that the second reading was carried by the hopeless
majority of _one_ in the fullest house that had ever been assembled. A
dissolution took place shortly afterwards, and the avowed intention of
such dissolution had been to obtain from the people at the general
election (which followed) a House of Commons pledged to support the
Reform Bill; indeed, the only test by which candidates were tried, was
their expressed pledge to support this particular measure. On the 24th
of June, 1831, Lord John Russell again moved for leave to bring in a
bill to amend the representation of England, and the difference in the
result obtained by the election is conclusively shown by the fact, that
the votes for the second reading were 367 against 231. On the 13th of
July it passed into Committee, and on the 7th of September, the bill as
amended in Committee was reported to the House; the majority in favour
of the motion for passing it was found to be 109, the ayes being 345,
and the noes 236.
THE REFORM BILL THROWN OUT BY THE LORDS.
The Reform Bill next day was carried up to the Lords by Lord John
Russell, attended by about a hundred of its staunchest supporters in the
lower House. These gentlemen appear to have adopted the unusual mode of
exciting the attention of the peers and giving to the function they were
performing a striking and theatrical character, by accompanying the
delivery of the bill to the Lord Chancellor with their own
characteristic "Hear, hear." A cry of "order" recalled them to a sense
of the presence in which they stood. In Doyle's contemporary sketch of
_Bringing up our Bill_, this incident is referred to. Lord Chancellor
Brougham stands at the bar of the House to receive it from the hands of
the member who leads the deputation (Lord John Russell); behind him we
see Lord Althorp, the Marquis of Chandos, and the Right Hon. John Wilson
Croker, who exchange signs with their fingers, showing that the
proceeding does not altogether meet with their approval. In the
background may be seen Sir Charles Wetherell, hated of the reformers of
Bristol, looking as opposed to the measure as ever; the bill, as we
know, was thrown out by the Lords in October, by a majority of 41. The
same month, its enthusiastic advocate, the Rev. Sydney Smith, at a
reform meeting at Taunton, compared the attempt of the House of Lords to
stop the progress of reform to a certain fictitious Dame Partington of
Sidmouth, who had essayed during the progress of the great storm to
arrest the progress of the Atlantic with her broom. "The Atlantic was
roused," said the wit; "Mrs. Partington's spirit was up; but I need not
tell you that the contest was unequal. The Atlantic Ocean beat Mrs.
Partington." Immediately after this speech appeared the sketch of _Dame
Partington and the Ocean of Reform_, in which the character of the
apocryphal and obstinate dame is sustained by that vigorous opponent of
the Reform Bill, his grace the Duke of Wellington.
A DEAD LOCK.
As the Lords had thrown out the Reform Bill, it was necessary to begin
_de novo_. Accordingly, on the 12th of December, Lord John Russell again
moved for leave to bring in a new Reform Bill, which passed the third
reading by a majority of 116 on the 23rd of March, 1832, and its second
reading in the House of Peers, by a majority of nine, on the 14th of
April. Then the fighting and opposition became once more as strenuous
and as sustained as ever. On a subsequent division the ministry were
left in a minority of thirty-five, whereupon Earl Grey proceeded to the
king, and tendered to his Majesty the alternative either of arming the
ministers with the powers they deemed necessary to carry through their
bill (which really meant a power to create whatever new peers they might
deem requisite for the purpose), or of accepting their own immediate
resignation. In the course of the following day the king informed his
lordship that he had determined to accept his resignation rather than
have recourse to the only alternative which had been proposed to him;
and accordingly, on the 9th, Earl Grey announced in the House of Lords,
and Lord Althorp in the Commons, that the ministry was at an end, and
simply held office till their successors should be appointed. The Duke
of Wellington attempted to form an administration, and failed--and his
failure left matters, the ministers, and the perplexed monarch, of
course exactly "as they were."
The excitement occasioned by the Lords was tremendous. At London,
Birmingham, Manchester, and other large centres, simultaneous meetings
were held to petition the Commons to stop the supplies. In the
metropolis placards were everywhere posted, recommending the union of
all friends of the cause; the enforcement of the public rights at all
hazards; and a universal resistance to the payment of taxes, rates,
tithes, and assessments; the country in fact was on the brink of
revolution. At the meetings of the political societies, even in the
leading journals, projects were openly discussed and recommended for
_organizing_ and _arming_ the people; the population of the large towns
was ready to be launched on the metropolis. "What was to be done--peers
or no peers? A cabinet sat nearly all day, and Lord Grey went once or
twice to the king. He, poor man, was at his wits' end, and tried an
experiment (not a very constitutional one) of his own by writing to a
number of peers, entreating them to withdraw their opposition to the
bill."[111] The letter to which Mr. Charles Greville refers is evidently
the following circular:--
"ST. JAMES'S PALACE, _May 17th, 1832_.
"MY DEAR LORD,--I am honoured with his Majesty's command to acquaint
your lordship, that all difficulties to the arrangements in progress
will be obviated by a declaration in the House to-night from a
sufficient number of peers, that in _consequence of the present state
of affairs_, they have come to the resolution of dropping their
further opposition to the Reform Bill, so that it may pass without
delay, and as nearly as possible in its present shape.
"I have the honour to be yours sincerely,
"HERBERT TAYLOR."
Such a request, coming from such a quarter, was not only weighty in
itself, but necessarily implied after all that had taken place, that his
Majesty suggested this course as the only means of avoiding the creation
of a large number of additional peers. The majority of the House were
thus placed in the unenviable position of being compelled to choose
whether they would see a hundred members added to the number of their
opponents to carry a measure which was hateful to them, or to abandon
for a time their rights, privileges, and duties as legislators. They
chose the latter alternative, and during the remainder of the discussion
on the bill, not more than between thirty and forty attended at any one
time. By this means, and this only, the bill was eventually carried.
On these grounds John Doyle appears to have founded his theory that
William the Fourth was a sincere convert to Reform.[112] In one of the
"sketches" he shows us his Majesty in the character of Johnny Gilpin
carried along at headlong speed by his unmanageable _grey_ steed
"Reform." He flies past the famous hostelry at Edmonton, where his wife
and her friends (represented by the Duke of Wellington and a party of
Tories) are anxiously awaiting his arrival. The turnpike-keeper (John
Bull) throws open the gate to let him pass, too delighted with the fun
to think of any personal expense to himself, and conscious that if the
gate is shut the inexpert horseman must come to unutterable grief. The
bottles dangling at Gilpin's waist are filled with "Birmingham froth"
and "Rotunda pop," in allusion to the stump oratory of the Birmingham
Political Union and the Rotunda in Blackfriars Road. Hume and O'Connell,
the ardent supporters of the bill, cheering with might and main, closely
follow John on horseback; while Sir Francis Burdett and Sir T. C.
Hobhouse, equally ardent advocates of Reform, join the cry on foot. The
frightened geese with coroneted heads represent, of course, the peers,
who had offered such determined opposition to the measure, while the old
apple woman rolling in the mud is no other than poor Lord Eldon. The
bird of ill-omen foretelling disaster is Mr. Croker, Secretary to the
Admiralty. Later on the same year (1832), we find his Majesty
represented as Mazeppa bound to the _grey_ steed Reform, several of the
Conservative members of either houses of Parliament doing duty as the
wolves and "fearful wild fowl" that accompany the rider in his perilous
course. In another satire, the king, supposed to have discovered his
mistake, figures as Sinbad the Sailor, vainly endeavouring to shake
himself free of the old man of the sea (Earl Grey), who however is too
firmly seated on his shoulders to be dislodged.
UNPOPULARITY OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
The Duke of Wellington's political convictions having prompted him to be
among one of the leading opponents to the Reform Bill, he narrowly
escaped serious injury at the hands of the London rabble. On the 18th of
June, 1832, having occasion to pay a visit to the Mint, a crowd of
several hundred roughs collected on Tower Hill to await his return; and
on making his appearance at the gate he was hissed and hooted by the
crowd, who followed him along the Minories yelling, hooting, and using
abusive language, their numbers and threatening demeanour momentarily
increasing. About half-way up the Minories he was met by Mr. Ballantine,
the Thames police magistrate, who asked him if he could render him any
assistance; but the cool, courageous soldier simply replied that he did
not mind what was going on. When his grace had got to about the middle
of Fenchurch Street, one of the cowardly ruffians rushed out of the
crowd, and seizing the bridle with one hand attempted to dismount the
duke with the other, in which he would have succeeded but for the
courageous conduct of the groom and a body of city police, who
opportunely made their appearance at the time. The mob had now grown as
numerous as it was cowardly; but by the exertions of the police, his
grace was escorted through it and along Cheapside without sustaining
personal injury. In Holborn, however, the rabble, growing bolder, began
to throw stones and filth, and the duke, followed by the _canaille_,
rode to the chambers of Sir Charles Wetherell, in Stone Buildings,
Lincoln's Inn, where he remained, till a body of police arrived from Bow
Street, by whom he was escorted in safety to Apsley House. To make the
outrage more disgraceful, if possible, it happened on the anniversary of
the crowning victory of Waterloo; the mob, forgetting in their
unreasoning wrath the priceless services the great soldier had rendered
to the nation, whilst the cowardly rascals who composed it were the very
persons who could by no possibility be benefited by the provisions of
the bill in which they professed to take so great an interest. On the
night of the illumination which followed the passing of the Act, they
broke the windows of his grace and other opponents of the measure; and
in one of the contemporary HB sketches, _Taking an Airing in Hyde Park_,
the duke is seen looking out of one of his broken window-panes. Before
the end of the year he was visited by serious illness, and the angry
feelings his opposition to the measure had provoked, and which had been
gradually subsiding, were suddenly followed by a complete reaction in
his favour. HB commemorates this in his sketch of _Auld Lang Syne_,
which shows the happy reconciliation between John Bull and the hero of
Waterloo.
DUEL BETWEEN THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AND LORD WINCHELSEA.
Consistently and conscientiously as the great duke had opposed what he
considered the revolutionary tendency of the Reform Bill, it must not be
forgotten that it is to him that the Catholics owe the benefits of the
Act of 1829, which relieved them of the disabilities under which they
had so long suffered; and it must not be forgotten too, that in this
measure he had not only to contend with his own repugnance to Catholic
emancipation, but also with that of his chief colleagues,--of the great
majority of the House of Lords, and of the king himself. With the latter
indeed his task had been a very difficult one; and it was only a few
days before the meeting of Parliament in the early part of 1829, that
the consent of George the Fourth had been obtained. Among the most
strenuous of the duke's opponents to the Catholic Relief Bill was the
Earl of Winchelsea, who, in the unreasoning bitterness of his anger,
shut his eyes to the injustice under which the Catholics had so long
suffered, and most unwarrantably charged his grace with an intention "to
introduce Popery into every department of the State." These words led to
a hostile meeting in Battersea Fields on the 21st of March, 1829. Lord
Winchelsea, after receiving the duke's fire, discharged his pistol in
the air, and there the affair ended, his second delivering a written
acknowledgment expressing his lordship's regret for having imputed
disgraceful motives to the conduct of the duke, in his pro-Catholic
exertions. Twelve months afterwards, on the 2nd of April, 1830, Richard
William Lambrecht was indicted at Kingston assizes for the murder of
Oliver Clayton, whom he had shot in a duel in Battersea Fields on the
preceding 8th of January. Lambrecht had a narrow escape, for the judge
in his summing up told the jury that if they were of opinion that the
accused met Clayton "on the ground with the intention, if the difference
could not be settled, of putting his life against Clayton's, and Mr.
Clayton's against his," the prisoner was guilty of wilful murder; and
the jury, finding on application to the learned judge that there were no
circumstances in the case to reduce the crime to manslaughter, by way
apparently of getting out of the difficulty, returned a verdict of _not
guilty_. This incident suggested the sketch entitled _A Hint to_
_Duellists_, in which the unsparing satirist places the duke in
Lambrecht's unenviable position before Mr. Justice Bailey, from whose
lips are proceeding a portion of the charge which he actually delivered
to the jury at the trial at Kingston assizes. Even the duke, impassive
as he appeared, must have felt the justice of this unsparing but
admirable sarcasm.
Another member of the royal family who frequently figures in the
"sketches" is the Duke of Sussex. He was a man of large frame, and as
remarkable for the blackness of his whiskers as the Duke of Cumberland
was conspicuous for the bleached appearance of these hirsute adornments.
At a meeting of the council of the London University, he is reported to
have said that for the promotion of anatomical science he should have no
personal objection to dedicate his own body after death to the College
of Surgeons for the purposes of dissection. This hint was enough of
course for HB, and his royal highness accordingly figures in a
contemporary satire as _A great Subject_ "_Dedicated to the Royal
College of Surgeons_."
SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.
Another prominent personage of HB's time, and a singular instance of the
change which frequently takes place in the political convictions of
public men, was Sir Francis Burdett. Commencing his career as an ardent
radical and reformer intolerant of abuses, he finished it and astonished
his former supporters by being returned for Westminster in the
Conservative interest. The political conduct of this once celebrated man
is of so unusual a character that a short recapitulation of his career
seems necessary, in order that the reader may understand the satires we
are about to describe. Notwithstanding his expressed views in support of
absolute purity of election, his own election for Middlesex in 1802-4,
is said--what with the expenses and subsequent litigation--to have cost
him upwards of one hundred thousand pounds. On the 5th of May, 1807, he
was challenged by and fought a duel with Mr. James Paull, on Wimbledon
Common, the cause of quarrel being Sir Francis's refusal to act as
chairman at a gathering of Paull's supporters at the Crown and Anchor
Tavern, Westminster, in April. The duel terminated in both the
principals being seriously wounded. The same year he was returned to
Parliament to serve as member for Westminster, which constituency he
continued to represent for nearly thirty years. Perhaps the greatest
event of his life was his committal to the Tower under the Speaker's
warrant for a libellous letter published in _Cobbett's Political
Register_, of 24th March, 1810, in which he questioned the power of the
House to imprison delinquents. He at first resisted the execution of the
warrant, and being a favourite with the mob, a street contest ensued
between the military and the people, in which some lives were lost. In
1818, we find him moving for annual parliaments and universal suffrage,
when the House divided with the result of 100 to 2, the minority being
composed of the mover and seconder--that is to say, himself and Lord
Cochrane. In 1820, he was found guilty at Leicester of a libel on
Government in a letter to his constituents reflecting on the Manchester
outrage of the preceding year; a new trial was moved for by himself, but
this was refused, and he was sentenced the following February to three
months' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of L2,000. In March, 1825, his
resolutions for the relief of the Irish Catholics were carried by a
majority of 247 to 234; but in later life his restless spirit gradually
calmed down, and after the appointment of the Melbourne Ministry in
1835, he surprised and disgusted his party by going into opposition,
principally (as he alleged) on account of the court which they paid to
O'Connell and his followers in their agitation against the Irish
Established Church. For some time previous to the sketch we are about to
describe he had absented himself from the House, and otherwise shown his
distaste for the persons and principles of the leading men of the party
to which he had formerly belonged. The busy-bodies who professed to be
the exponents of public opinion in Westminster, pressed him for an
explicit statement of his views, and eventually called upon him to
resign, and he took them directly at their word. The person brought
forward to oppose him was John Temple Leader, then member for
Bridgwater, a name which suggested to the artist the pictorial pun of
_Following the Leader_, the "followers" being Lord Melbourne, Lord John
Russell, Lord Palmerston, Mr. O'Connell, Sir J. Hobhouse, Mr. Hume, and
Sir William Molesworth. Notwithstanding the exertions of the ministers
and their friends to secure the election of Mr. Leader, that gentleman
was not only beaten by a very considerable majority, but lost as a
natural consequence his seat for Bridgwater, a fact which suggested to
the artist another able sketch, _The Dog and the Shadow_. The election
itself forms the subject of _A Race for the Westminster Stakes_, in
which the aged thoroughbred (Sir Francis), ridden by Lord Castlereagh,
beats the young horse Leader, jockey Mr. Roebuck. Among the backers of
the losing horse, Daniel O'Connell and Joseph Hume may be easily
detected by the lugubrious expression of their faces. The sketch of _A
Fine Old English Gentleman_ was suggested by a remark made by the
_Times_ during the progress of the contest, in which it described Sir
Francis as "a fine specimen of the old English gentleman." In the
left-hand corner of this sketch the artist has placed a picture of the
Tower of London, by way of reminder of the days when the baronet was
regarded not so much in the light of "a fine old English Gentleman" as a
radical of the most advanced type, and as a martyr in the cause of
public liberty.
CHANGES IN POLITICAL OPINION.
A change of opinion however is obviously a necessary incident of
political life, and we have ourselves witnessed some remarkable
instances of such versatility in our own days. In some cases these
changes are only temporary or partial, in others they are radical and
complete; sometimes they are dictated by conviction, at others by
necessity; occasionally they seem to be the result of absolute caprice;
while in not a few instances, I fear, we should not be very far wrong in
assigning them to feelings of disappointment or personal or political
pique. This tergiversation in public men forms the subject of one of
HB's happiest inspirations. In 1837 there appeared at the Adelphi
Theatre an American comedian named Rice, the forerunner of the Christies
and other "original" minstrels of our day, who sang in his character of
a nigger a comic (?) song, which, being wholly destitute of melody, and
even more idiotic than compositions of that kind usually are, forthwith
became exceedingly popular, being groaned by every organ, and whistled
by all the street urchins of the day. This peculiar production, which
was known as "Jim Crow," was accompanied by a characteristic double
shuffle, while every verse concluded with this intellectual chorus:--
"Turn about, and wheel about,
And do just _so_;
And every time I turn about,
I jump Jim Crow."
In _Jim Crow Dance and Chorus_ (the title of the sketch referred to), we
find the leading men of all parties assembled at a ball, engaged in the
new saltatory performance initiated by Mr. Rice. In the left-hand corner
we notice Lord Abinger, formerly Sir James Scarlett, a Whig, who growing
tired of waiting for the advent of his own party to power, changed his
political opinions--that is to say "jumped Jim Crow,"--and was made
Attorney General by the Duke of Wellington. Next him is Lord Stanley,
who commenced life as a Whig and was a member of Lord Grey's Reform
administration, but unprepared to go the lengths which his party seemed
disposed to take, he too "jumped Jim Crow," deserted them, and joined
the ranks of the Opposition. Lord Stanley's _vis-a-vis_ is Sir James
Graham; in his early days he had distinguished himself by the strength
of his radical opinions, but as a member of Lord Grey's cabinet, he
suppressed these sentiments, and "jumped Jim Crow" by confining himself
more strictly within Whig limits. Conspicuous amongst the performers is
Lord Melbourne! When in office under Mr. Canning he had made several
anti-Reform speeches, but afterwards became a member of the Government
of Lord Grey by which Reform was carried;--as Prime Minister he went far
nearer to the principles of absolute democracy than either Lord Grey or
Lord Althorp. Lord Melbourne's face, however, shows unmistakable
repugnance at finding that his numerous "wheels about" have brought him
face to face with O'Connell, and he turns in disgust from the famous
agitator, who, with his thumb to his nose and his left arm stuck in his
side, shows that he has no intention of permitting him to enjoy a _pas_
all to himself. O'Connell of course shows himself complete master of the
figure which he had danced so frequently; one of the most shifty,
unstable men of his day, he can scarcely be called a politician, for
like all agitators, the person he really sought to serve was himself
alone. He chopped and changed just as it suited his purpose, and is
properly introduced by the artist amongst the most adroit and vigorous
of the political double shufflers.
The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel find themselves _vis-a-vis_,
in allusion to their conduct with reference to Catholic Emancipation.
Both had originally been consistent opposers of the measure, which was
at last carried by the influence of the very men who before had been its
most persistent adversaries.
But, if any one had "turned about and wheeled about," it was Sir Francis
Burdett, and accordingly the artist introduces him as indulging in a
very flourishing _pas seul_; he wears a self-satisfied smirk, and
carries his thumbs in his waistcoat, in allusion to his own contention
that he had been always consistent. Yet this self-satisfied
aristocratic-looking personage not many years before had distinguished
himself as the most prominent of radical malcontents, and had been drawn
by his enthusiastic dupes through the city of Westminster in a triumphal
car, decorated with the symbols of liberty, and preceded by a banner
bearing the inscription, "Westminster's Pride and England's Glory."
The queer figure in the cocked hat is Sir de Lacy Evans, who figures as
one of the dancers in allusion to his practice as compared with his
professions. In 1833 he obtained a seat for Westminster, triumphing over
his opponent Sir J. C. Hobhouse, who for fifteen years had represented
that constituency, both candidates professing to be zealous advocates
for the abolition of flogging in the army. Sir de Lacy nevertheless,
when commanding the British Legion at St. Sebastian, "jumped Jim Crow"
by flogging his soldiers without mercy. Lord John Russell once sneered
at every project of Reform, but his Lordship, as we have seen, "jumped
Jim Crow" by repeatedly introducing the Reform Bill into the House of
Commons, which was mainly passed by his persistent exertions; very
properly, therefore, Lord John figures in HB's clever sketch among the
most prominent of "Jim Crow" double shufflers.
FOOTNOTES:
[108] These political changes, as we shall presently see, are by no
means uncommon. William Cobbett, for instance, in 1801 supported the
principles of Pitt, but in 1805, from a "Church and King" man, he
became and continued an ardent liberal.
[109] "English Graphic Satire," by R. W. Buss.
[110] _Westminster Review_, June, 1840.
[111] Greville's "Memoirs," ii. p. 303.
[112] This was the idea of all Tories of the day. The terrible effects
of the Reform Bill were amusingly predicted by John Wilson Croker to
the king himself; they have not of course been fulfilled. See
"Journal of Julian Charles Young" (Memoir of Charles Mayne Young,
vol. i. p. 231).