ELECTIONEERING AND PARTY TACTICS UNDER GEORGE I. AND II.
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 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 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:--
[Illustration: 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
===============
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, “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.
[Illustration: 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 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.”
“Here’s a minion sent down to a corporate town,
In hopes to be newly elected;
By his prodigal show, you may easily know
To the Court he is truly affected.
“He ’as a knave by the hand, who has power to command
All the votes in the corporation;
Shoves a sum in his pocket, the D----l cries ‘Take it,
’Tis all for the good of the nation!’
“The wife, standing by, looks a little awry
At the candidate’s way of addressing;
But a priest stepping in avers bribery no sin,
Since money’s a family blessing.
“Say the boys, ‘Ye sad rogues, here are French wooden brogues,
To reward your vile treacherous knavery;
For such traitors as you are the rascally crew
That betray the whole kingdom to slavery.’”
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 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 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.”
[Illustration: O Cives! Cives! quærenda Pecunia primum est Virtus post
Nummos.
(O citizens, citizens, you must first seek for wealth, for virtue after
money - Horace)
READY MONEY, THE PREVAILING CANDIDATE; OR, THE HUMOURS OF AN
ELECTION. (Dr. Newton’s Collection.)
[_Page 84._]
A copy of verses sets forth the morality of this plate:--
“The Laws against Bribery provision may make,
Yet means will be found both to give and to take;
While charms are in flattery, and power in gold,
Men will be corrupted and Liberty sold.
When a candidate interest is making for votes,
How cringing he seems to the arrantest sots!
‘Dear Sir, how d’ye do? I am joyful to see ye!
How fares your good spouse? and how goes the world wi’ ye?
Can I serve you in anything? Faith, Sir, I’ll do’t
If you’ll be so kind as to give me your vote.
Pray do me the honour an evening to pass
In smoking a pipe and in taking a glass!’
Away to the tavern they quickly retire,
The ploughman’s ‘Hail-fellow-well-met’ with the Squire;
Of his company proud, he ‘huzzas’ and he drinks,
And himself a great man of importance he thinks:
He struts with the gold newly put in his breeches,
And dreams of vast favours and mountains of riches.
But as soon as the day of Election is over,
His woeful mistake he begins to discover;
The Squire is a Member--the rustic who chose him
Is now quite neglected--he no longer knows him.
Then Britons! betray not a sordid vile spirit
Contemn gilded baits, and elect men of merit.”
[Illustration: 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 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.
“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 was member for Steyning, Sussex. Concerning
the baronet it is written, in “The Art of Politicks”--
“Leave you of mighty Interest to brag,
And poll two voices like _Sir Robert Fagg_.”
“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 suggest[40] 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.’”
“Being mounted in their best array,
Upon a steed, and who but they?
And follow’d by a world of tall lads
That merry ditties, frolics and ballads,
Did ride with many a Good-morrow,
Crying, Hey for our Town, thro’ the Borough.”
(_Hudibras._)
“A motley mixture! in long wigs, in bags,
In silks, in crapes, in Garters, and in rags;
From Drawing-rooms, from Colleges, from Garrets,
On horse, on foot, in Hacks, in gilded Chariots.”
(_Grub Street Journal_, No. 268. Also in the Poems Edition.)
“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 50_l._) 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,
‘So Help me God.’
“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 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?
[Illustration: THE HUMOURS OF A COUNTRY ELECTION. 1734.
[_Page 90._]
“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, 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.”
[Illustration: 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 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 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
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 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 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.
[Illustration: TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER. VERNON AND
EDWIN. 1741.
[_Page 97._]
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, “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--
“O, put it to the public voice
To make a free and worthy choice;
Excluding such as would in shame
The Commonwealth. Let whom we name
Have Wisdom, Foresight, Fortitude,
Be more with Faith than Place endu’d,
Whatever great one it offend;
And from the embraced Truth not bend.
These neither practised force, nor forms,
Nor did they leave the helm in storms;
These men were truly Magistrates;
And such they are make happy states.”
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 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:--
“Let Rome no more with ostentation show
Her so long-fam’d dictator from the plough;
Great Britain, rival of the Roman name,
In arts, in elegance, in martial fame,
Can, from the plough, her Cincinnatus fellow,
And show a Vernon storming Porto Bello.”
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 10_s._ 6_d._”--in allusion to Vernon’s return 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 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.”
“THE INDEPENDENT WESTMINSTER ELECTORS’ TOAST.[42]
IN MEMORY OF THE GLORIOUS TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY.
_To the Tune of ‘Come, let us prepare,’ etc._
1.
“My _Westminster_ Friends,
Now we’ve gained our Ends,
Here’s a Health, and I’m sure ’twon’t repent ye:
With Gratitude think,
To the Health let us drink
Of the Glorious _Two hundred and Twenty_.
2.
“Come Honestly on,
Give your votes as you’ve done,
When you voted for EDWIN and VERNON;
Like Britons be bold,
Laugh at Power and Gold,
Else slavery comes, and will spare none.
3.
“The army so grand,
For the good of the Land,
That is annually chose our protectors,
A new Trade have got,
And without _Scott or Lot_;
Are now all become our Electors.
4.
“The Justices, too,
Will soon have their due,
As well as that Rogue the _High Bailey_;
Tho’ ye strut and look big,
With your Sword and Tye-wig,
The Parliament soon will to jail wi’ ye.
5.
“Brave _Edwin_ for you
Did all he could do,
As at the last Poll ye remember,
Now all of ye shou’d
To him be as good,
And choose him once more for your member.
6.
“An _honest good_ Lord
To find out, how hard,
At this time, let any man think, Sir!
Yet all do agree
Lord Perceval’s he,
Then EDWIN and PERCEVAL drink, sir.
7.
“Besides his brave spirit,
My Lord has this merit
With us; that Bob hates him to death, Sir,
He has sworn Zounds and Blood
That my Lord never shou’d
Be a member, as long as he’d breath, Sir.
8.
“Then under his nose
These brave men we will choose,
To show we don’t fear, but despise him.
We’ll laugh and we’ll flout
At the rabble at Court,
Who, for what they can get, idolize him.
9.
“The Parliament just
And firm to their trust,
Have giv’n you another Election;
Then your Liberty use,
These honest men choose,
And rely on their steady protection.
10.
“VERNON’S self will rejoice,
When he hears of our choice,
And is told how we’ve routed the Old-ones;
Then join Hand-in-Hand,
To each other firm stand,
For Success always follows the Bold-ones.
11.
“But if any more
Bob shou’d do as before,
Or by Fraud or by Violence cheat you,
In numbers then go
And demolish your foe--
Ye’re Fools if again he defeat you.”
Other verses appear in a version with a woodcut heading of a party of
jolly citizens toping and toasting healths:--
“Your High Constable rout,
Your Vestrymen out,
Ye Burgesses, Stumps, and High Bailey;
Tho’ _Robert_ assist,
We ne’er will desist,
No Power nor Help shall avail ye.
“But Vernon no more
You can serve as before,
He is chosen for several places;
Then choose in his room
A brave man who will come
And use the Court tools to their faces.
“Lord Perceval here
Will shortly declare,
Who fears neither Wager nor Sundon,
But hates all the tribe
Who take pension or bribe,
By which we brave boys are all undone.”
A second ballad bears a strong resemblance to the foregoing; one or two
verses only are selected:--
“THE INDEPENDENT WESTMINSTER CHOICE, OR, PERCEVAL AND EDWIN.
_To the Tune of ‘The Free Masons.’_
“Ye Westminster Boys, unite and rejoice,
Be steady, and make no defection;
For if you stand true, you are not too few
To carry your glorious election.
* * * * *
“Thus, while Vernon shall ride on America’s tide,
And by arms bring the Spanish Dons under;
His friend shall stand here, this noble young Peer,
And rattle old Bob with his thunder.
“You may now firmly hope, your ruin to stop,
When Vernon abroad guards the nation:
And this noblemen true, match’d by none or by few,
Shall expose all Court Tricks and Evasion.
“Thus shall PERCEVAL brave, your Liberties save,
And with EDWIN in Senate defend you:
These men they were giv’n, a present from Heav’n,
Reject not what Heaven does send you.”
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 TRUE ENGLISH-BOYS’ SONG TO VERNON’S GLORY.
OCCASIONED BY THE BIRTHDAY OF THAT BRAVE ADMIRAL.
_To be sung round the Bonfires of London and Westminster._
“Ye Westminster Boys, All sing and rejoice,
Your friends in the House will not fail ye,
We’ll the soldiers indict, And set matters right,
In spite of that Rogue the High Bailey.
“Let us raise our Bonfires As high as the spires,
And ring ev’ry Bell in the Steeple;
All the Art we defy, Of the whole Ministry,
To run VERNON down with the people.
“Stand round, and appear, All ye Hearts of Oak here,
And set the proud _Don_ at defiance,
To VERNON let’s drink, who made Spain and France slink,
And BOB, who’s with both in Alliance.
“A true lad won’t flinch, Now we’re at this sad pinch,
But old England, on VERNON rely on,
For this honest Fellow, who took _Porto Bello_,
Shall find BOB a Gibbet to die on.
“Stop not VERNON’S career, Thro’ Folly and Fear,
Lest the _French_, or the _Spaniards_ should beat ye;
Nor let _Don Geraldino_, Busy _Horace_, or _Keen_ O
Bamboozle you with a new Treaty.
“This time then be bold, Be not bought and sold,
Nor let _Monsieur’s_ old Tricks still seduce ye,
Like our Forefathers try, Or to conquer or die,
Ere _France_ to a province reduce ye.
“_Hessian_ Troops are all sham, The Neutrality damn,
The _Convention_, and ev’ry Vagary;
The money they’ve got, All is now gone to pot,
And so is the Queen of Hungary.
“But send Ships and Food, TO VERNON, that’s good,
For unless Heaven feed him with _Manna_,
His designs they’ll defeat, For without men and meat,
How can he e’er take the _Havanna_.
“Besides, let us send, a true militant Friend,
Nor longer be Bob’s, or Spain’s dupe a;
They there would agree,--Both by Land and by Sea,
And soon be the masters of Cuba.”
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. } { LORD GEORGE GRAHAM.
CHARLES EDWIN, Esq. } Stewards { GEORGE GRENVILLE, Esq.
THOMAS GORE, Esq. } { SIR JOHN PHILLIPS, Bart.
Pray Pay the Bearer 5 shil^s.”
The design which heads this dinner-ticket represents Hercules and
Britannia driving away the Harpies presumed to have been preying upon
corruption; the Goddess 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 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
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:--
“Honour in the Breech is lodg’d
As wise philosophers have judged;
Because a kick in that part more
Hurts Honour than deep wounds before.”
[Illustration: MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT ELECTORS OF
WESTMINSTER: THE SPY DETECTED. MARCH, 1747.
[_Page 109._]
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 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.
“See Gower, who the Court had opposed thick and thin;
Was out, then was in, then was out and now in;
He kiss’d hands, then look’d pensive--as much as to say,
“I can’t judge which is best, to go or to stay.
Derry Down.”
(_Place Book for the Year 1745._)
[Illustration: 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 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, “Curs me! you’d buy
me, ye Brutes, at 2_s._ 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, “Those candidates will serve you!” while a scroll, borne above
the heads of the voters, carries the warning, “No Trentham!”
[Illustration: THE HUMOURS OF THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION; OR, THE SCALD
MISERABLE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS IN THE SUDS. 1747.
[_Page 113._]
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 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:--
“Britons brave are true and unconfin’d,
To lash the Coxcombs of the Age design’d;
Fixt to no Party, censure all alike,
And the distinguish’d Villain sure to strike;
Pleas’d we behold the great maintain the Cause,
And Court and Country join the loud applause.”
[Illustration: GREAT BRITAIN’S UNION; OR, THE LITCHFIELD RACES. 1747.
[_Page 114._]
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 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 “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:--
“THE LORDS’ LAMENTATION; OR, THE WHITTINGTON DEFEAT.
“God prosper long our noble King,
Our lives and safeties all,
A woeful Horse race late there did
At Whittington befall.
Great Bedford’s duke, a mighty prince
A solemn vow did make;
His pleasure in fair Staffordshire
Three summer days to take,
At once to grace his father’s race,
And to confound his foes;
But ah! (with grief my muse does speak)
A luckless time he chose.
For some rude clowns who long had felt
The weight of tax and levy,
Explain’d their case unto his Grace,
By arguments full heavy.
‘No Gow’r,’ they cried, ‘no tool of pow’r!’
At that the Earl turned pale.
‘No Gow’r, no Gow’r, no tool of pow’r!’
Re-echo’d from each dale.
Then Bedford’s mighty breast took fire;
Who thus enrag’d did cry,
‘To horse, my Lords, my knights and squires;
We’ll be reveng’d or die.’
They mounted straight, all men of birth,
Captains of land and sea;
No prince or potentate on earth
Had such a troop as he.
Great Lords and Lordlings, close conjoin’d,
A shining squadron stood;
But to their cost, the Yeomen Host
Did prove the better blood.
‘A Gow’r, a Gow’r! ye son o’ th’ w--e,
Vile spawn of Babylon!’
This said, his Grace did mend his pace,
And came full fiercely on.
Three times he smote a sturdy foe;
Who undismay’d replied,
‘Or be thou devil, or be thou Duke,
Thy courage shall be tried.’
The charge began; but, on one side,
Some slackness there was found;
The smart cockade in dust was laid,
And trampled on the ground.
Some felt sore thwacks upon their backs.
Some, pains within their bowels;
And who did joke the royal oak,
Were well rubbed with its towels.
Then terror seized the plumed troop,
Who turned themselves to flight.
Foul rout and fear brought up the rear,
Oh! ’twas a piteous sight!
Each warrior urg’d his nimble steed,
But none durst look behind;
Th’ insulting foe, they well did know,
Had got them in the wind.
Who ne’er lost scent, until they came
Unto the gallows tree:
‘Now,’ said their foes, ‘we’ll not oppose,
Your certain destiny.
No further help of ours ye lack,
Grant mercy with your doom!
Trust to the care o’ the three-legg’d mare,
She’ll bring ye all safe home.’
Then wheel’d about with this fierce shout,
‘Confusion to the Rump!’
Leaving each knight to moan his plight
Beneath the triple stump.
Now Heaven preserve such hearts as these
From secret Treachery!
Who hate a knave, and scorn a slave,
May such be ever _Free_!”
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 were hired,
and processions made on both sides, and the city of Westminster
was filled with tumult and uproar.”
“Ye ELECTORS who hate all the French strolling Clan,
If you love yourselves, chase not the MINISTER’S MAN,
But give all your Votes to the _Man_ of the KING,
SIR GEORGE VANDEPUT’S he--and GEORGE we will sing.”
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 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:--
“PEG TRIM TRAM IN THE SUDS; OR, NO FRENCH STROLLERS.
“I sing you a song of a right noble Lord,
Whose name must, for ever, stand FOOL on Record;
Who, losing a _Seat_, by accepting a Place,
SUBSCRIB’D to _French Strollers_, so fell in disgrace.
“This right noble Lord, when elected before,
To preserve us, in our _ev’ry Privilege_ swore;
How well he maintain’d them will quickly appear,
Deduc’d from right Reason, unaided by Sneer.
“Got snug in the House, he exerted his zeal,
Not for his Constituents, or the Common-Weal;
But to serve his own ends, and aid _Gentleman_ HARRY,[43]
Lest his Glorious Views, for our Good, should miscarry.
“Have you heard a pert _Parrot_ cry ‘_Quaker-a-quer;
A cup of Good Sack; Pretty Poll; Saucy Cur_’?
You’ve then heard this Lord to great HARRY reply,
And echo, _Yes, No,--No, Yes_;” anything cry.
“Have you seen a young _Puppy_ leap over a stick,
Fetch, carry, yelp, fawn, and learn every fond Trick?
Then you’ve seen this sleek Lordling on HARRY attend,
And, aw’d by his nod, most obsequiously bend.
“To reward such bright parts and so ductile a mind
The Dispenser of PLACES was strongly inclin’d;
When deeply reflecting what he could afford,
He fix’d him (slap dash!) at the Admiralty Board.
“This little Lord, conscious that he had no right
To a _Post_ which requir’d, not to Fiddle, but Fight;
Resolved that for once he’d assume martial airs,
And in the _Haymarket_ protect the FRENCH PLAYERS.
“He flew, he appear’d, and he heard a strange roar;
The like had ne’er tickl’d his soft ears before;
Then to set an example to future _Protectors_,
He drew forth his TILTER--_and at his_ ELECTORS.
“Shock’d at this rough treatment, in print they demand,
Why, ’gainst his best Friends, he thus lifted his hand;
His answer was full of mean _Equivocation_,
Which made them the jest and contempt of the Nation.”
[Illustration: BRITANNIA DISTURBED BY FRENCH VAGRANTS. LORD TRENTHAM
FOR WESTMINSTER. 1749.
[_Page 121._]
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:--
“Quoth L--d G--r [_Lord Gower_] to his son, ‘Boy, thy frolic and place
Full deep will be paid for by us and his g----e [_grace_]:
Ten thousand twice over advanced!’--‘_Veritable,
Mon pere_,’ cry’d the youth; ‘but the D--e [_Duke_] you know’s able:
Nor blame my _French frolics_; since all men are certain,
You’re doing behind, what I did ‘fore the curtain.’”
At the conclusion of the polling there appeared a 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,
“MIREPOIX.
[French ambassador to the Court of
St. James’s, 1749-1751.]
“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:--
“TO THE WORTHY ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER.
“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.
“‘RT. BUTCHER, Steward to His Grace.
“‘_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.
“MATTHEW CREYGHTON,
“An insulted Elector of Westminster.
“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, 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.