REMARKABLE ELECTIONS AND CONTROVERTED ELECTION PETITIONS, 1768 TO 1784.
The feats of the Whartons, Walpoles, Marlboroughs, Pelhams, and
Graftons, in the direction of lavishing large sums for the corruption
of the electorate, were dwarfed into insignificance by the fortunes
staked upon a single contest later on: thus the disbursements over a
contested election at Lincoln would be twelve thousand per candidate;
and, we are told, “occasionally, after a hard fight at such places as
Colchester, all the defeated men appeared in the _Gazette_.” It is
stated that the two great county contests for Hampshire, in 1790 and
1806, cost the ministerial candidates twenty-five thousand apiece on
each occasion, while their opponent’s expenses were proportionately
large. The contest, still remembered by Northampton worthies as the
“Spendthrift Election,” in which three earls fought for the borough
election in favour of their respective nominees in 1768, is a startling
instance of the lengths to which electioneering Peers were tempted
to proceed in “scot and lot times.” The opponents were the Earls
of Halifax, Northampton, and Spencer, and the respective nominees
they pitted against each other in this all but ruinous “tourney”
were Sir George Osborne, Sir George Bridges Rodney, and the Hon.
Thomas Howe. The candidates were of small account in the conflict;
their patrons bore the brunt of the battle. The canvassing commenced
long before the polling; this was extended over fourteen days--a
phenomenal circumstance in the days when elections were often settled
and returns made before ten o’clock on the morning of the polling
day. According to the poll-book, the legitimate number of electors,
some 930, was exceeded by 288, but confusion of persons is accounted
for by the promiscuous hospitalities of three noble mansions being
at the mercies of the crowd for weeks: at the famous historical
seats of Horton, Castle Ashby, and Althorp, the orgies pictured in
Hogarth’s “Election Dinner”--“filled with the tipsified humours” of
what Bubb Dodington fitly called, “venal wretches”--were indefinitely
prolonged. “The Scot and Lot,”--woolcombers, weavers, shoemakers,
labourers, pedlars, militia-men, and victuallers held “high revel,”
prolonged without intercession from night till morning, and _vice
versâ_, in the ancestral halls, of which, including the well-stocked
wine-cellars, they were in a body “made free.” Therein lodged the
perdition of Horton; for, after they had drained dry the goodly stock
of matured port, Lord Halifax had to place before them his choicest
claret, whereon, with one accord, filled with vinous fastidiousness,
the “rabble rout” deserted to a man, declaring, “they would never
vote for a man who gave them sour port,” and went over in a body to
Castle Ashby. Each of the candidates claimed more votes than could be
legally registered in his favour. Howe, the unsuccessful candidate,
whose “potwallers” and “occasional voters” were likewise challenged,
petitioned; and the “controverted election” came before the House of
Commons. During the six weeks the scrutiny lasted, sixty covers were
daily spread at Spencer House, St. James’s, for those concerned in
the case. The results were no less eccentric: the number of votes
being finally found equal, the election was referred to chance, and
decided by a toss, which Lord Spencer won, and nominated a man out in
India. The cost of this escapade then had to be counted. It is said
Lord Spencer expended one hundred thousand pounds; his antagonists
are credited with having wasted one hundred and fifty thousand pounds
each--an incredible sum, considering this represents at least double
the equivalent amounts at the present day. Earl Spencer came off
lightest, and appears to have been in no way involved; Lord Halifax
was ruined; Lord Northampton cut down his trees, sold his furniture
at Compton Winyates, went abroad for the rest of his days, and died
in Switzerland. Canon James, who has related the story of the famous
“Spendthrift Election” in his “History of Northamptonshire,” mentions
that at Castle Ashby is still preserved a sealed box, labelled
“Election Papers,” the evidence of this insane contest--one of no
political moment; but none of the present generation has had the
courage to open the dread receptacle of bygone folly.
A whimsical anecdote is related by Edgeworth, in his “Memoirs,”
respecting the contest for Andover at the general election in 1768,
when Sir J. B. Griffin was returned at the head of the poll with
seventeen votes; the second member was B. Lethieulier, with fifteen
votes; and the defeated candidate was Sir F. B. Delaval, who only
polled seven. The latter was a celebrity, both in fashion and in
the politics of his day, and the story which is connected with his
electioneering experience properly belongs to the traditions of the
subject. Sir Francis found himself at loggerheads with his attorney, an
acute practitioner, whose bill had been running for years, and, though
considerable sums of money had been paid “on account,” a prodigious
balance was still claimed as unsettled; this Sir Francis disputed at
law. When the case came before the Court of King’s Bench, amongst
an exorbitant list of charges the following item excited general
attention:--
“To being thrown out of the George Inn, Andover; to my legs
being thereby broken; to surgeon’s bill, and loss of time
and business; all in the service of Sir F. B. Delaval £500.”
It was found that this charge required explanation. It appeared that
the attorney, by way of promoting the interests of his principal in
the borough, had sought to propitiate the favour of those important
potentates at electioneering times, the mayor and corporation, in
whose hands, as seen in the foregoing, was vested so much of the
local influence. A pretext was necessary to decoy these worthies to a
banquet, where they might be conciliated, so the attorney sent cards
of invitation to the mayor and corporation in the name of the colonel
and officers of a regiment in the town; he at the same time invited the
colonel and staff, in the name of the mayor and corporation, to dine
and drink the king’s health on his birthday;--an ingenious _ruse_, but
the arch-diplomatist had literally “reckoned without his host.” The two
parties met, were cordially courteous, ate a good dinner, toasted his
majesty’s health, and proceeded to other oratorical compliments before
breaking up. Then came the acknowledgments: the commanding officer of
the regiment made a handsome speech to Mr. Mayor, thanking him for his
hospitable invitation and entertainment; “No, Colonel,” replied the
mayor, “it is to you that thanks are due, by me and my brother-aldermen
for your generous treat to us.” The colonel replied with as much
warmth as good breeding would allow; the mayor retorted in downright
anger, vowing that he would not be choused by the bravest colonel in
His Majesty’s service. “Mr. Mayor,” said the colonel, “there is no
necessity for displaying any vulgar passion on this occasion; permit me
to show you that I have here your obliging card of invitation.” “Nay,
Mr. Colonel, here is no opportunity for bantering, there is your card.”
The cards were produced simultaneously. Upon examining the invitations,
it was observed that, notwithstanding an attempt to disguise the hand,
both cards were written by some person who had designed to hoax them
all. Every eye of the discomfited guests, corporation and officers
alike, turned spontaneously upon the attorney, who had, of course,
found it necessary to be present to flatter the aldermen; his impudence
suddenly gave way, he faltered and betrayed himself so fully by his
confusion, that, in a fit of summary justice, the colonel threw him out
of window; for this, Sir F. B. Delaval was charged £500.
Among the parodies of election addresses issued at the time of the
rival Shelburne and Rockingham parties, is a broadside “embellished”
with a copperplate engraving of a whimsical assembly of citizens,
met in solemn conclave to examine the political views of a deformed
sweeper-lad, “a public character,” who, it appears, was nicknamed by
his contemporaries “Sir Jeffery Dunstan.” The pointed satire is thus
headed:--
“‘What can we reason but from what we know?’--POPE.
“SIR JEFFERY DUNSTAN’S ADDRESS TO THE WORTHY ELECTORS OF THE ANCIENT
BOROUGH OF GARRATT,
“NOW FIRST PUBLISHED BY R. RUSTED,--AUTHOR OF ‘THE GUILDHALL ORATORS,’
ETC., ETC., ETC.
“‘A tous ceux à qu’il appartiendra.’--VOLTAIRE.” (Otherwise
“to all whom it concerns.”)
The candidate’s address is one of those confused harangues in which
a number of subjects are incongruously involved together, known in
later days as “a stump oration.” Among other subjects, Dr. Graham’s
“celestial beds,” recruiting for the army, polygamy, and divorce,
“the delicate brave men of the association” (volunteer force), and an
“effete nobility,” are all mixed up according to the following sample:--
“As my honourable friend Mr. Burke cannot lessen the influence
of the Crown, myself and his grace of Richmond are determined
to accomplish it, by abolishing the use of money entirely; it
being irrevocable poison to men’s souls, and the only remedy
existing to prevent Bribery and Corruption; an evil which all
the learned gentry of Westminster Hall could never annihilate;
and I do faithfully declare, being no placeman, that I will not
waste my fleeting moments like the four city members, whose
elements of oratory what Roman senator could ever equal.”
The address rambles through a variety of absurdities, and concludes
with a quotation from Rusted’s “Poems.” Whoever that worthy may have
been, his lines have a fine air of burlesque grandiloquence, sense
being subordinated to sound:--
“Like those brave men, who nobly shed their blood,
I’ll die a Martyr for my Country’s good.
Be to my Sov’reign ever just and true,
And yield to Britain what is Britain’s due.
Maintain the cause, and thro’ the globe impart
The bright effusions of an honest heart.”
The foregoing is found in the collection of ballads and broadsides
which it delighted Miss Banks to accumulate. It will be remembered
that eccentric lady was sister to Sir Joseph Banks, the president of
the Royal Society, and one most instrumental in founding the British
Museum, to which his collections and those of his sister were left.
Among Miss Banks’s “Political and Miscellaneous Broadsides” is another
electoral appeal to the same fanciful constituency; the document
otherwise seems almost a literal copy of an actual address of the day:--
“TO THE NOBILITY, GENTRY, CLERGY, AND FREEMEN OF THE ANCIENT
CORPORATIVE TOWN OF GARRATT.
“MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,
“Your Vote, Interest, and Poll (if needful) is earnestly
desired for Thomas, Lord SHINER, to be your
representative in Parliament, being a person zealously attached
to the King and Queen, and their numerous offspring of Princes
and princesses, and an enemy to all arbitrary Laws.
“His Lordship’s Committee for conducting the Election is held
at the ‘Three Jolly Butchers,’ and ‘Black Moor’s Head,’ Brook’s
Market, at which places his Lordship begs the audience of his
Friends.
“N.B.--His Lordship’s colours are Blue and Orange.
“⁂ Carriages will be ready on the Day of Election.”
Those corrupted electors of Shoreham who resolved themselves into
a purchasable community on their own account, were roughly handled
by the parliamentary inquisitors, but the avowed and professional
traffickers in venal boroughs seemed to conduct their trade openly,
and, with the great parliamentary lights, unadmonished and unexposed.
They were generally the agents of those who had secured the influence
in the seats by various methods--some by inheritance, others by
patronage, sometimes by purchase _en bloc_, but generally _en détail_.
Men invested in boroughs and cultivated them for sale, secure of a
profitable mart when the proper season arrived; the burgage-houses
were bought and accumulated; “shambles on old foundations” carrying
voting qualifications were secured; burgage tenures were bought up;
voters were pensioned from year to year, the process varying according
to the nature of the suffrage. As in the case of Sheridan’s expenses
at Stafford, the independent electors were retained at a settled price
per head. Sheridan’s cost him five guineas per burgess; Wilberforce
found four guineas the price at Hull for a plumper. Southey says it
rose to £30 a vote at Ilchester, Somerset, where the burgesses had a
direct control over their borough; although the tariff ran high, the
four candidates who recklessly bribed the constituents in 1774 lost
their pains and money, petitions and counter-petitions establishing
that the members returned and those who alleged they were unjustly
rejected were alike so palpably culpable of corruption that the
election was declared void. In 1826, Ilchester is given in the “Manual”
as under the patronage of Sir W. Manners. Irrespective of the local
and lesser bargains made with the mayors and burgesses, there was the
“big business” conducted on behalf of the actual individual landholders
of the place--those magnates set down in the election lists of
constituencies as “patrons” of boroughs, the dispensers of seats.
For an instance of the facility which characterized the _modus
operandi_, though “the prices ruled high” owing to extraneous demands,
see the “Letters” of that skilled courtier, Lord Chesterfield, deeply
versed in political chicanery and combination. In a passage of a letter
dated Bath, December 19, 1767, he writes to that hopeful youth who by
“Chesterfield’s Letters” was to be polished into a fine gentleman, and
for whom a place in Parliament was a desirable opening--
“In one of our conversations here this time twelvemonth I
desired my Lord Chatham to secure you a seat in the new
parliament. He assured me he would, and, I am convinced, very
sincerely.... Since that I have heard no more of it, which
made me look out for some venal borough; and I spoke to a
borough-jobber, and offered five and twenty hundred pounds for
a secure seat in parliament; but he laughed at my offer, and
said that there was no such thing as a borough to be had now,
for the rich East and West Indians had secured them all, at
the rate of three thousand pounds at least, but many at four
thousand, _and two or three that he knew at five thousand_.
This, I confess, has vexed me a good deal.”
Much has been said about “Old Sarum” (Wilts) as being typical of the
unabashed and confirmed borough-mongering and corruption which existed
not only in the last century, but, in fact, until the larger measure
of Reform carried in 1832. Representative government, conducted on the
principles which prevailed in “hole-and-corner boroughs” until the
passing of that bill against which even Sir Robert Peel protested as a
dangerous innovation, certainly, for the most part, had but a theoretic
existence, as a review of the facts sufficiently demonstrates. Amongst
the statistics given in Stockdale’s “Parliamentary Guide” (1784), Dr.
Willis writes that the borough of Old Sarum was then reduced to _one
house_. It returned members in 23 Edw. 1, and then intermitted until
34 Edw. 3, since which time representatives were returned until its
disfranchisement. These were at first elected in the county-court,
as was then customary; from 1688, the right of election was in “the
freeholders being burgage-holders” and the number was _seven_. In 1826,
when the last parliament of George IV.’s reign assembled, this state
of things was unaltered, the patron was the Earl of Caledon, and the
mysterious seven remained. New Sarum, otherwise Salisbury, which had
taken the place of “Old Sarum,” received its privileges by letters
patent, 2 Hen. 3, which conferred on the bishops and canons _tanquam
proprium dominicum_; afterwards confirmed by charter 34 Edw. 1. In
1784, there were about fifty-six voters; the right of election being
“in the select number, that is, the mayor and corporation.” The Earl
of Radnor and G. P. Jervoise were the patrons in 1826, when Viscount
Folkestone and Wadham Wyndham were returned by the fifty-four electors
then set down as the suffrage-holders.
Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, was another scandalous and typical
“pocket-borough” which obtained notoriety, especially at the time
of the passing of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill, Sir Charles Wetherell
being turned into satiric capital by Doyle (HB), in his versions
of the “Last of the Boroughbridges.” The right of election was in
the burgage-holders--a “pocket-borough” tenure, thus denounced by
Charles James Fox: “If a man comes into parliament as the proprietor
of a burgage tenure, he does not come there as the representative
of the people,” as explained in the eloquent speech of the great
Whig chief, on Grey’s motion for Reform, 1797. The Duke of Newcastle
was the patron, and sixty burgage-holders returned two members. The
constituency of Helston, where the franchise was originally invested in
a corporation, under the Old Charter, had in 1790 dwindled down to one
elector, to whose lot it fell to nominate two representatives.
The case of a “controverted election” at Hindon, Wilts, where the
right of election was of an easy order, viz. “inhabitants of houses
within the borough, being housekeepers and parishioners, not securing
alms,” raised an altogether pretty scandal in the way of revelations on
corrupt treating. The sitting members, returned in 1774, being Richard
Smith and T. Brand Hollis, the unsuccessful candidates, James Calthorpe
and Richard Beckford, were the petitioners on the ground that the
former, by the bribery of themselves and their agents, had procured an
illegal return. On the hearing of the petition it was discovered that
all or the major part of the voters for all four candidates had been
bribed, and the committee pronounced the election void. The candidates
themselves had not only bribed, but thirteen electors, acting as
agents, had also been employed to corrupt their fellow-voters. The
committee resolved to disfranchise these electors:--
“A bill was then ordered to incapacitate from voting at
elections of members of parliament 190 persons, besides the
thirteen above-mentioned, out of 210 who had polled at the
election.”
These persons appealed against the bill, and there being technical
objections to the petitioners “being parties to and alike defendants
in an indictment,” it was argued they “could not, without overturning
the known rules of law and justice, be received as witnesses in this
case.” By a tacit agreement the unfortunate cross-petitions were
dropped the ensuing session, and two new writs were issued; meanwhile
the attorney-general, on separate informations, proceeded against the
four candidates (June, 1775) for bribery at elections, held to be a
crime at common law independent of any statute against it. All the four
informations were tried at the Lent assizes in the county of Wilts,
March, 1775, before Baron Hotham. The two petitioners who were in the
first instance responsible for this scrutiny were acquitted; Smith and
Hollis, who had been returned, were found guilty, and were brought
up to the Court of King’s Bench to receive judgment: this was on the
20th of May, the last day of the term, and the judges desiring time to
consider the proper punishment, they were committed till the next term
to the King’s Bench prison. Meanwhile, previous to this commitment, the
new election for Hindon had taken place (May 16th), and Mr. Richard
Smith was again returned. On the 7th of June, Smith and Hollis were
again brought up for judgment, when they were each fined 1000 marks[57]
and sentenced to prison for six months, and until they paid their
respective fines; and it was ordered that Richard Smith should give
security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in the sum of
£1000, and two sureties each of £500.
A flagrant instance of boroughmongering was exposed during a
parliamentary investigation into a case of controverted election at
Milborne Port, Somerset, where the right of voting was, amongst others,
in the capital bailiffs and their two deputies. The petition proposed
to disqualify eleven votes upon the score of “occasionality,” and to
object to eleven who voted for the sitting members and were disabled
by a corrupt bargain made between Mr. Medlycott, the senior member,
and Loyd, an agent of Lord North’s. There were nine bailiwicks in the
borough, with a bailiff appointed for each. Mr. Medlycott had long
been in possession of four of these, and the remaining five belonged
to the family of Walters. A remarkable example of downright trading
appeared as the case developed. In February, 1770, Loyd arrived at
Milborne Port as the friend of Lord North. A meeting was held at Yeovil
between the agent and the patron, two or three others being present, at
the house of one Daniel; where a contract was duly drawn up, signed,
and witnessed, by which Medlycott agreed to sell the borough, and to
throw out his old friend, the Hon. Temple Luttrell, who was one of
the persons presenting the petition, which revealed the underground
workings of administrative jobbery. The writing drawn up at Yeovil
purported to be the “memorandum of an agreement to defray the expenses
of procuring a seat in parliament for any friend of Lord North, whom
his lordship or Loyd should recommend.” To this end Loyd agreed to
deposit fifteen hundred pounds in Daniel’s hands, to be employed in
purchasing the family interest of the Walters in the remaining five
bailiwicks for the use and at the risk of Medlycott, who stipulated
to pay Loyd five per cent. for the money so advanced, until such time
as Lord North’s friend should be seated peaceably fourteen days in
parliament--the time allowed for petitioning. The paper was put into
Lord North’s hands, who returned it to Daniel, without committing
himself to any observation. On the faith of this instrument--
“The Walters’ property in the voters was transferred; the five
bailiffs were nominated, and consigned to Medlycott’s interest,
thus purchased by Loyd. But the patron of the borough, on
assuming the undivided influence therein, in the spirit of
friendship wrote to his colleague Luttrell on the subject,
acknowledged this foul transaction, and urged the wretched
excuse _that his poverty, and not his will, consented_.”
The counsel for the petitioners further said they would give evidence
of the bribery, and several offers made, also of the _treats_ given
to influence the voters. The ministerial influence seems to have been
paramount on this occasion; as the committee determined, in the face
of the absolute documentary evidence, and other proofs of bribery,
treating, illegal voting, and refusal to register legitimate votes
on behalf of the petitioners, that the gentleman who had sold the
seat in the borough to Lord North was--with the second ministerial
nominee, brought in by his venality--duly elected. This borough of
Milborne Port seems to have been a snug haven for nominees: in 1826
the patronage was at the joint disposal of the Marquis of Anglesea
and Sir W. Coles Medlycott, and returned the Hon. Berkeley Paget and
Lord Graves--proving the utility of “a stake in the country.” The
warming-pan constituency was swept away, with similar anomalies, by the
Reform Bill carried by Lord Grey.
In the general election of 1774 the contest for Westminster was marked
by the unblushing exertion of much undue influence. Not only did two
ducal houses bring all the weight of their purses and ministerial
influence, adding to almost limitless resources such strong inducements
as the Duke of Northumberland, with his metropolitan patronage, and
the Duke of Newcastle, with his placemen, pensions, and ministerial
patronage, could bring to bear for the return of younger scions of
the two houses concerned; the royal authority was freely used, and
the king’s servants, without, it was shown, any qualifications as
voters, were allowed to record their voices for the return of the
Court candidates. The famous election of 1784, although stronger in
incident, must have been tame by comparison. Not only members of the
royal household, but divers peers of the realm and lords of parliament
publicly canvassed, and otherwise unduly interfered in the election,
contrary to several express resolutions of the House. The candidates
stood thus at the close of the poll:--Earl Percy, 4995; Lord Thomas
Pelham Clinton, 4744; Lord Mountmorres, 2531; Charles Stanhope, Lord
Mahon, 2342; and Humphrey Cotes, 130. A petition was presented by Lord
Mountmorres and several electors of the city and liberty of Westminster
against the return of Earl Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, seeing that--
“the king’s menial servants, not having proper houses of their
own within the city of Westminster, gave voices in the said
election, contrary to an express resolution of the House; that
peers and lords unduly interfered and tampered with the voters;
that during the election, after the _teste_ and issuing out
of the writ, Lord Percy and Lord Thomas Pelham Clinton, by
themselves or agents, were guilty of bribing, corrupting, and
entertaining the voters, (who must have made a fairly good
thing of the contest); and that they allowed to the electors,
and several persons who had or claimed a right to vote, money,
meat, drink, entertainment, or provision; and that by those,
and other undue means, a majority of votes was procured for
Lord Percy and Lord T. P. Clinton, so that they were returned,
and the petitioners prayed such relief as upon examination
should appear just.”
As bribery commissions were then constituted, the party in power
generally managed to make disputed returns a means of strengthening
their own majority, so that although the House took the pains to
examine the several allegations, it was decided that the sitting
members were duly elected.
On the respective counts it was found that there was no general
determination as to the right of election in Westminster, but it
seemed agreed that the suffrages were vested “in the inhabitants,
householders, paying scot and lot;” that the king’s menial servants,
not having proper houses of their own within the city of Westminster,
were not entitled to vote--as they had done, on the pretence of
being residents in the royal palaces of St. James and elsewhere. It
was admitted that the following resolution, providing against the
interposition of peers in elections for the Commons, had been renewed
on the opening of the House, from session to session, since the Act was
made, January 3, 1701:--
“Resolved that it is a high infringement of the liberties and
privileges of the Commons of Great Britain for any lord of
parliament or any lord-lieutenant of any county to concern
themselves in the elections of members to serve for the Commons
in parliament.”
The petitioners set forth that it would appear, by different
allegations, that the rights of the election had been invaded in
a manner highly alarming, so as to call for the interposition and
censure of the House; but the report of the committee disposed of these
objections by finding the petitioners were not able to prove any direct
solicitation of the peers.
A similar objection was raised on the same general election as to the
legal return of the sitting members for Worcester,--that a peer and
lord of parliament had, by himself and his agents, interfered in the
election by publicly canvassing and soliciting votes, and by using
threats to intimidate freemen from voting for the petitioner, in
violation of the privileges of the House and the freedom of election,
and to the infringement of the rights of the Commons of Great Britain.
Moreover, there was an allegation of bribery, and that conducted on a
wholesale scale. The mayor, aldermen, and justices of the city, the
town-clerk and many of the common council had sworn in, for several
days before and during the election, many freemen (some hundreds) to
be constables, under a promise that they would vote for the candidates
chosen by the persons so influencing them, “for which they were to have
certain rewards in money;” and that this money was afterwards paid to
them out of the funds of the city, or by the two sitting members.
In transparent cases of bribery, when the committee of the “whole
House” serving on these “controverted elections” decided to retain and
confirm the sitting members, there seems to have been a convenient
formula much resorted to in silencing those petitions brought on the
grounds of corruption; for instance, after the general elections of
1774,--
“An objection was taken to the petitioners examining any
witness as to the payment, till they should first bring proof
of the agency. It was argued that the circumstances which would
establish both points were so complicated that they could not
be separated;”
_ergo_, all evidence on the points to be proved was technically
excluded, and the petition was stultified.
It seems, also, to have been not unusual for high sheriffs to return
themselves; for instance, in the controverted election case for
Abingdon, Berks, March, 1774-5. The petitioner set forth that the
member returned was then high sheriff for the county of Berks; his
counsel arguing, “that by an express clause in the writ of election
the choice of sheriffs is prohibited; and that this clause has made
part of the writ for three centuries.” It was admitted that Sir Edward
Coke, sheriff of Buckinghamshire, had been returned for Norfolk in the
second year of Charles I., and that he sat till the dissolution of
that parliament; but his right was questioned, and in the “Journals
and Debates” he is invariably described as a member _de facto_. It was
contended in reply, on the other side, that the sheriff was justified
in his return, the wording of the writ not being taken literally, in
any case such as “knights girt with a sword;” that Mr. Child, being
sheriff of Warwickshire, was chosen and returned for Wells, in the
county of Somerset; he was petitioned against, but was declared duly
elected. It was also stated, on behalf of the controverted sitting
member, that--
“since the statute of the 23rd Henry VI., the sheriff is in no
respect the returning officer for boroughs; he is obliged to
accept the return sent him, with his precept, and is merely the
conduit-pipe to convey it to the clerk of the crown.”
The counsel for the member whose return was impeached further observed
that if sheriffs could not be chosen members of parliament, the Crown
would be able to prevent any one from being elected, by taking care
to make him a sheriff before the election; by which means, in bad
times, every friend to the rights of the people might be excluded
from sitting in the House of Commons. On this occasion, as the high
sheriff had returned himself, that is to say, for his own county, it
was thought proper to decide that the election was void; thus, at the
same time, disqualifying the petitioner as well, which, was seemingly
unreasonable.
There were two petitions presented in reference to the controverted
election at Morpeth, Northumberland, in 1774. On this occasion
it was violence and intimidation more than corrupt and illegal
practices--though all had been resorted to--which had unjustly
influenced the return. The candidates were the Hon. William Byron,
Francis Eyre, T. C. Bigge, and Peter Delme.
“It was proved by a number of witnesses, that, at the end of
the Poll, the majority was declared to be in favour of Delme
and Byron (a counter-petition set forth that a majority had
been obtained for Delme by the corrupt practices of Byron), but
that the returning officers were _compelled_ to return Delme
and Eyre: and it was also proved that, on the morning of the
election, before it began, Eyre made an inflammatory speech to
the people; that after the riot began, he having retired some
time before, the returning officers sent him word they would
return whom he pleased, and that an answer being brought them,
that they must return himself and Mr. Delme, they complied, and
the riot ceased.”
The decision of the committee was that the gentleman who, as master of
the mob, had directed the storm, was _not_ duly elected, while the Hon.
W. Byron, who had found his way to the suffrages of the voters through
their pockets, must be returned, together with his nominee, Delme,
already seated.
At Petersfield, Hants, in 1774, the Hon. John Luttrell was unfortunate,
and brought a petition against the two members returned, Sir Abraham
Hume and William Jolliffe, the former being high sheriff for the county
of Hertford, and both--
“having been guilty of divers acts of bribery, by money, meat,
drink, reward, entertainment, and provision; and that James
Showell, pretending to be mayor, had acted partially.”
Three or four witnesses were called to prove that gifts and promises
had been made by Mr. Jolliffe in the presence of the other sitting
member; in the course of this evidence--
“one Newnam was called to prove a declaration made to him by
Brackstone a voter, about having got the promise of a _house_
from Mr. Jolliffe for his vote.”
The committee resolved that the evidence was inadmissible on the
grounds that--
“although the declaration (not upon oath) of a person who
cannot be obliged to be a witness on the subject himself, is
admissible in evidence to _affect such person_, yet is not
admissible _against a third party_.”
Although the traditional figure of “Punch” is associated with
punishments dealt out indiscriminately, it appears in the old
electioneering days he was the agent for distributing illicit rewards
for iniquitous acts. In the case of a “controverted election” for the
borough of Shaftesbury (Dorset) the evidence produced vividly recalls
Hogarth’s representation of an election broadside, “Punch, Candidate
for Guzzletown,” introduced in his picture of “Canvassing for Votes.”
After the general election, 1774, it was alleged that the sitting
members, Sykes and Rumbold, by themselves or their agents, had been
guilty of bribery, while it was attempted to be shown that Mortimer,
who was the petitioner, had promised money to procure his election.
The trial lasted four weeks, and among the points of evidence was
the following indictment against the manœuvres of “Punch:”--Money,
to the amount of several thousand pounds, had been given among
the electors,[58] in sums of twenty guineas a man (654 votes were
recorded in 1774; 532 being for Sykes and Rumbold). The persons who
were entrusted with the distribution of this money, and who were
chiefly the magistrates of the town, fell upon a very singular and
absurd contrivance, in hopes of being able thereby to hide through
what channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person concealed
under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name
of “Punch,” was placed in a small apartment, and, through a hole in
the door, delivered out to the voters parcels containing the twenty
guineas; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the
same house, where they found a person called “Punch’s secretary,” and
signed notes for the value, but which were made payable to an imaginary
character, to whom they had given the name of “Glenbucket.” Two of
the witnesses, called by the counsel for the petitioner, swore that
they had seen “Punch” through the hole in the door, and that they
knew him to be one Matthews, an alderman of Shaftesbury; and, as the
counsel for the petitioner had endeavoured to prove, an agent for the
sitting members. It was said that those voters who admitted that they
had received “Punch’s” money, had at the poll taken the bribery oath;
it was contended for the other side that this was not legal evidence,
that “it would be unjust to suffer what a man had said in conversation,
and without an oath, to invalidate what he had solemnly sworn.” The
committee determined that, with regard to supposed agents, evidence
should be first produced to establish the agency, before the bribery
by such persons should be gone into. In the sequel it was determined
that the two sitting members were not duly elected, and that the
petitioner should be returned. “Punch,” his exertions, and his profuse
distribution of bribes proved a grievous failure.
Not only was bribery freely practised under one or another disguise,
but even the result of the petitions and scrutinies were made the
subject of corruption. In a controverted election for Sudbury, in 1780,
for instance, the question was put to the committee, “Whether a person
who had laid a wager of about £40 on the event of the petition was
competent to give evidence in the cause?” the decision being in the
affirmative. This Sudbury election was altogether an odd affair.
“The mayor was the returning officer, and the petitioner
alleged that at the close of the poll it was declared in his
favour, but that afterwards a scrutiny was illegally demanded,
when the other candidates were pronounced duly elected.” It was
given in the evidence “that the election began Sep. 8, 1780,
about ten o’clock in the morning, and continued until it was
dark: that the petitioner and his friends then desired the
mayor to adjourn the poll to the following day; but that he
refused, and proceeded all night by candlelight”--
the election ending between six and seven o’clock the following
morning: “There was some tumult during a part of the poll, but that it
was upon the whole a very peaceable election.” This goes far to prove
that an election must have been an extraordinarily turbulent business a
century back, when proceedings varied by “a tumult during part of the
poll” was admitted to be peaceful in an unusual degree.
The Shaftesbury arrangements for presenting voters with packets of
twenty guineas were outdone by the electors of Shoreham, who combined
and resolved themselves into a joint-stock company, that they
themselves might derive the advantage from their borough which in
other cases was monopolized by the patrons, or holders of bailiwicks.
The suffrages being originally in the mayor and burgesses, these
electors, with a forethought superior to their generation, organized
themselves into a compact league, or caucus, for electioneering
purposes; but _not_ with the intention of resisting and keeping out
corrupt practices: the nature of this compact was disclosed during
the hearing of the petition of Thomas Rumbold, on the election of a
member in place of Sir Samuel Cornish deceased, and is set down in
the _Journals_ of the House (vol. 33), 1770-1. It appeared that the
petitioner was duly elected, those who voted for him, to the number
of eighty-seven, taking the bribery oath; as to the other candidates,
thirty-seven votes were given for Purling and four for James; but the
returning officer placed queries against the names of seventy-six of
the petitioner Rumbold’s voters, and immediately on the close of the
poll declared Purling duly elected. The fourth plea related that in
this borough of Shoreham had subsisted for many years a body which had
assumed the name of the “Christian Society,” though its organization
was quite outside the diffusion of benevolence or Christianity; none
but electors for representatives in parliament were admitted into the
society, but the great majority of those who had votes were enrolled. A
clerk was employed, and a meeting-place provided, where regular monthly
and frequent occasional meetings were held, upon which gatherings a
flag was hoisted to give notice to the members. About 1767, the members
of the society entered into articles for raising and distributing small
sums of money for charitable uses, these articles being designed to
cover the real intention of the institution. The principal purpose of
their meetings was for what they denominated _burgessing business_.
An oath of secrecy was administered to all the members, who farther
entered into a bond, under a penalty of five hundred pounds, to bring
them all together with regard to _burgessing_; but otherwise the
conditions of the bond were not allowed to appear. Upon any vacancy
in the representation of the borough, the society always appointed
a committee to _treat with the candidates for the purchase of the
seat_, and the committees were constantly instructed _to get the most
money and make the best bargain they could_; the society had no other
purpose in view, and had no standing committee. On a false report of
the death of the sitting member, Sir Samuel Cornish, the society was
called together by the signal of the flag. On that meeting, which was
numerously attended, the members declared that _they would support the
highest bidder_; but some of their number, including Hugh Roberts,
the returning officer impeached in the petition, expressed themselves
offended at such a declaration, and declared that they were afraid
of the consequences, for the society was nothing but _a heap of
bribery_, and withdrew from the body; but two months later, one of
these ex-members returning to a meeting of the society, was treated
with harsh expressions, and was told he came among them as a spy.
The society, however, continued to meet, their gatherings being more
frequent near election time. It was said that, on the death of Sir
Samuel Cornish, when a vacancy occurred, a committee was appointed to
treat for the seat with the incoming candidate, the members of the said
committee themselves being careful to abstain from voting, though they
were there on the day of election; three days before the polling, the
society was reported to be dissolved, in order to escape the odium of
proceedings on petition, but that the meetings had been resumed since.
In the face of this evidence, Mr. Purling’s counsel acquainted the
court “that he could not carry his case further than by the witnesses
examined, and could not impeach Mr. Rumbold’s election or affect his
votes.” Although this closed the petitioning case, it was resolved
that a further inquiry ought to be made into the transactions of the
society, and a bill was ordered “to incapacitate certain persons from
voting at elections,” together with an address to the king to order
the attorney-general to “prosecute certain persons for an illegal and
corrupt conspiracy in relation to the late election for Shoreham.”
The bill was carried, printed, copies served on the offenders, passed
through the House, agreed to by the Lords, and received the royal
assent. The returning officer was ordered into the custody of the
serjeant-at-arms; he was finally brought to the bar of the House to be
reprimanded and discharged.
New Shoreham appears later under the patronage of the Duke of Norfolk
and Earl of Egremont; the suffrage in 1771, after the extraordinary
federation described in the foregoing, was extended to forty-shilling
freeholders, “in the rape of Bramber,” in which Shoreham is situated.
R. B. Sheridan, the brilliant but unstable genius,[59] sat for Stafford
from 1780, until that ill-considered attempt to represent the city
of Westminster in the place of his deceased friend, the great Charles
James Fox, which completed his financial ruin. “Sherry” was notorious
for looseness in his accounts, and it is curious to find one of the
few circumstantial statements of election outlays calculated upon
this unbusinesslike representative’s borough expenses for the first
parliament in which he represented Stafford--always a moderate place,
as prices ruled,--Sheridan being brought in chiefly by the influence of
the shoemakers, an extensive body there.
R. B. SHERIDAN, ESQ., EXPENSES AT THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD, FOR
ELECTION, ANNO 1784.
£ _s. d._
248 Burgesses paid £5 5_s._ each 1302 0 0
YEARLY EXPENSES SINCE.
£ _s. d._
House Rent and Taxes[60] 23 6 6
Servant at 6_s_ per week,
Board Wages 15 12 0
Ditto, Yearly Wages 8 8 0
Coals, &c. 10 0 0
------------ 57 6 6
Ale Tickets 40 0 0
Half the Members’ Plate 25 0 0
Swearing Young Burgesses 10 0 0
Subscription to the
Infirmary 5 5 0
Do., Clergymen’s Widows 2 2 0
Ringers 4 4 0
------------ 86 11 0
-----------
One year 143 17 6
Multiplied by years 6
----------- 863 5 0
Total expense of six years’ parliament, exclusive of
expenses incurred during the time of election and -----------
your own annual expenses £2165 5 0
(Moore’s “Life of Sheridan,” vol. i. p. 405.)
In 1806, when R. B. Sheridan was, by a coalition with Sir Samuel Hood,
elected for Westminster--a seat lost by him, to his ruin, on the
unexpected dissolution the year following,--his son, Tom Sheridan, that
“proverbial pickle,” whose love of mischief and readiness of resource
were alike remarkable, was offered for election in his gifted father’s
place; the reputation of the Sheridans was, however, on the wane, and
Tom, though admirable and even unapproachable at the hustings, was
hardly endowed with the sterling qualities which should be found in a
representative of the people to the Commons. The electors made choice
of two Tory candidates, R. M. Phillips (412), and the Hon. E. Monckton
(408), leaving but a poor record of votes for Thomas Sheridan (165). An
amusing instance is recorded of the good-will of the constituents on
this occasion:--
“When Mr. Clifford introduced Mr. R. M. Phillips to the
electors--the journeymen shoemakers, as a token of respect,
insisted that they should present him with a new hat, which was
accordingly done, on the hustings, by a contribution of one
penny each.”
Truly an exceptional circumstance, when voters--although expectant to
receive--were rarely prepared to bestow, even their “voices,” unless
for an adequate consideration!
The first entry into public life of William Pitt, as related by Earl
Stanhope, is characteristic of the easy mode of procedure in those
days, when a great man had merely to name his friends, and his tenants
elected them. “Hitherto,” wrote Sir George Savile in 1780, “I have
been elected in Lord Rockingham’s dining-room. Now I am returned by
my constituents.” The spirit of the country, it was asserted, was
rising at that period, but in 1780, it was still manifest that the
territorial magnates and the monopolists of the borough franchises had
their “own sweet will.” Pitt’s early friend, the eldest son of that
Granby who had been an attached follower of Lord Chatham, had, mindful
of this hereditary friendship, sought the acquaintance of William
Pitt at the beginning of the latter’s career at Cambridge. Granby was
five years Pitt’s senior; he became one of the members for Cambridge
University, and in 1779 had the fortune to succeed his grandfather as
Duke of Rutland. On Pitt’s coming to London, to commence his career,
the young men became intimate, and the warm attachment between them,
which continued during the whole of the duke’s life, was the cause of
the early advancement of the son of the great Commoner. Owing to the
Duke of Rutland’s solicitude to see Pitt in parliament, he spoke upon
the subject to Sir James Lowther, another ally of his house, and the
owner of most extensive borough influence. Sir James quickly caught
the idea, and proposed to avail himself of a double return for one of
his boroughs to bring the friend of his friend into parliament. The
duke mentioned the offer to Pitt; and Pitt, who was writing on the same
day to his mother, Lady Chatham, added a few lines in haste to let her
know. But it was not until he had seen Sir James himself that he was
able to express his entire satisfaction at the prospect now before him.
“Lincoln’s Inn, Thursday Night, Nov., 1780.
“MY DEAR MOTHER,
“I can now inform you that I have seen Sir James Lowther, who
has repeated to me the offer he had before made, and in the
handsomest manner. Judging from my father’s principles, he
concludes that mine would be agreeable to his own, and on that
ground--to me of all others the most agreeable--to bring me
in. No kind of condition was mentioned, but that if ever our
lines of conduct should become opposite, I should give him
an opportunity of choosing another person. On such liberal
terms I could certainly not hesitate to accept the proposal,
than which nothing could be in any respect more agreeable.
Appleby is the place I am to represent, and the election will
be made (probably in a week or ten days) without my having any
trouble, or even visiting my constituents. I shall be in time
to be spectator and auditor _at least_ of the important scene
after the holidays. I would not defer confirming to you this
intelligence, which I believe you will not be sorry to hear.”
It is added (Dec. 7, 1780),--
“I have not yet received the notification of my election. It
will probably not take place till the end of this week, as Sir
James Lowther was to settle an election at Haslemere before
he went into the north, and meant to be present at Appleby
afterwards. The parliament adjourned yesterday, so I shall not
take my seat till after the holidays.”
This confidence discloses that such a thing as a contest, let alone a
defeat, was not for a moment entertained.
“I propose before long, in spite of politics, to make an
excursion for a short time to Lord Westmoreland’s (Althorp,
Northamptonshire), and shall probably look at my constituents
that should have been, at Cambridge, in my way.”
About three years later, William Pitt, by that time the most
conspicuous statesman of his day, and already prime minister of
England by the royal will, on the downfall of the coalition, realized
his former ambition, and he offered himself successfully for the
University of Cambridge. In order to enter for this distinction, Pitt
had declined two seats, voluntarily placed at his disposal: when the
war-cry arose from the hustings throughout the kingdom, he was put in
nomination, without either his knowledge or consent, for the city of
London, as usual the first election in point of time; the show of hands
was declared to be in the young statesman’s favour, but when apprised
of the fact he declined the poll. Such were the honours heaped upon
this proud juvenile premier, that he was constantly refusing favours
solicitously placed at his acceptance.
“He was pressed,” says Earl Stanhope, “to stand for several
other cities and towns, more especially for the city of Bath,
which his father had represented, and the king was vexed at his
refusal of this offer. But the choice of Pitt was already made.
He had determined, as we have seen, to offer himself for the
University of Cambridge.”
He held at this time all the state patronage, and, moreover, with the
king at his back, he meant mischief to the members of the ministry
recently displaced from power by his royal master; and was about to
trust to his faculties and the reserve forces he could command for a
great electioneering campaign. He found time to write to his friend in
Yorkshire:--
“DEAR WILBERFORCE,
“Parliament will be prorogued to-day and dissolved to-morrow.
The latter operation has been in some danger of delay by a
curious manœuvre, that of stealing the Great Seal last night
from the Chancellor’s, but we shall have a new one ready in
time. I send you a copy of the Speech which will be made in two
hours from the Throne. You may speak of it in the past tense,
instead of in the _future_.... I am told Sir Robert Hildyard
is the right candidate for the county. You must take care
to keep all our friends together, and to _tear the enemy to
pieces_. I set out this evening for Cambridge, where I expect,
notwithstanding your boding, to find everything favourable. I
am sure, however, to find a retreat at Bath.
“Ever faithfully yours,
“W. PITT.”
Though Pitt had the “good things” to give away he did not escape
sarcasm: thus it was suggested--it is said by Paley, who was then at
Cambridge--as a fitting text for a university sermon, “There is a lad
here which hath five barley loaves and two small fishes; but what are
they among so many?”
“The author of this pleasantry,” declares Stanhope, “did not
allow for the public temper of the time; in most cases the
electors voted without views of personal interest; in some
cases they voted even against views of personal interest.”
Pitt was supported by Lord Euston, the heir of the Duke of Grafton, and
between them they defeated the late members, the Hon. John Townshend,
and James Mansfield, both members of the coalition ministry, the
former as lord of the admiralty, the latter as solicitor-general.
After a keen contest, Pitt and Lord Euston were returned, Pitt at the
head of the poll. It was a marked triumph, and exercised an influence
elsewhere; nor was it a fleeting victory or a temporary connection,
for Pitt continued to represent the university during the remainder of
his life. Pitt, now, as he called himself, “a hardened electioneerer,”
entered into the spirit of the warfare, and carried his forces into the
strongholds of the Whig estates:--
“But,” writes Earl Stanhope, “of all the contests of this
period the most important in that point of view was for the
county of York. That great county, not yet at election times
severed into Ridings, had been under the sway of the Whig
Houses. Bolton Abbey, Castle Howard, and Wentworth Park had
claimed the right to dictate at the hustings.”
The spirit of the country in 1784 rose still higher; the independent
freeholders of Yorkshire boldly confronted the great Houses, and
insisted on returning, in conjunction with the heir of Duncombe Park,
a banker’s son, of few years and of scarcely tried abilities, though
destined to a high place in his country’s annals--Mr. Wilberforce.
With the help of the country gentlemen, they raised the vast sum of
£18,662 for the expense of the election (twenty-one years later this
“vast sum” would not have produced much effect on the same field,
when Wilberforce fought, in 1807, what has been described as the
“Austerlitz of electioneering,”--the candidates between them expending
above three hundred thousand pounds,--the details of which follow in
their chronological sequence); and so great was their show of numbers
and of resolution, that the candidates upon the other side did not
venture to stand a contest. Wilberforce was also returned at the
head of the poll by his former constituents at Hull. “I can never
congratulate you enough on such glorious success,” wrote the youthful
prime minister to his equally youthful friend. Rank and file, leaders
and spokesmen, of the coalition party fell before the masterly tactics
of the young chief, who stirred the minds of the people by extreme
views as to England’s sinister future (if the Whigs prevailed) menaced
with the onslaught of sweeping revolutions, and the destruction of
every moderate institution and every safeguard of the state. In this
manner, writes Pitt’s biographer, the party of the opposition was
scattered beyond rallying. “To use a gambling metaphor,” declares
Stanhope, “which Fox would not have disdained, many threw down their
cards. Many others played, but lost the rubber.” A witty nickname
was commonly applied to them. In allusion to the History, written by
John Fox, of the sufferers under the Romish persecution, they were
called “Fox’s Martyrs;” and of such martyrs there proved to be no less
than one hundred and sixty. Amidst all these reverses, however, Fox’s
high courage never quailed. On the 3rd of April, we find him write
as follows to a friend: “Plenty of bad news from all quarters, but I
think I feel misfortunes when they come thick have the effect rather of
rousing my spirits than sinking them;”--as set down by Earl Russell in
his “Memorials.”
One of the most remarkable features of the great electioneering contest
of 1784 was the fact of the ex-demagogue Wilkes being returned as
the ministerial candidate, to Pitt’s pronounced gratification too,
for the county of Middlesex. But the ways of statesmen are indeed
wonderful and manifold, and Wilkes, the man without prejudices, and
equally unburdened by principles, was an expedient ally (though a
redoubtable foe). Wilkes, very cleverly and plausibly, upon the score
of Pitt’s constant advocacy of Parliamentary Reform, was enabled to
press upon the freeholders of the county of Middlesex the advisability
of extending their entire support to the “virtuous young Minister,”
whose “liberal and enlightened principles promised to advance the best
interests of the country.”[61]
“Johnny Wilkes, Johnny Wilkes,
Thou boldest of bilks,
What a different song you now sing!
For your dear _Forty-five_,
’Tis _Prerogative_!
And your blasphemy--‘_God save the King_.’”
(_The Backstairs Scoured._)
Wilkes having made the most of his patriotism, after being elected lord
mayor, and subsequently obtaining the lucrative and permanent office
of city chamberlain, now exhibited himself in his true colours--a
remarkable instance of tergiversation, disclaiming his own acts, and
making no scruple of expressing his contempt for the opinions of his
former supporters. On his return for Middlesex in 1784, as one of
“the king’s friends,” the democrats represented the king and Wilkes
hanged on one tree, with the inscription, “Give justice her claims.”
The reconciliation of the “two kings of Brentford” was by no means
popular, and the wits were severe on the fresh departure. One of
these caricatures, May 1, 1784, is entitled, “The New Coalition.” It
represents the King and the ex-archdemagogue fraternally embracing;
Wilkes’s cap of liberty is cast to the ground; he declares to his
Sovereign, “I now find you are the best of princes.” While great George
discovers the erst agitator, his late aversion, “Sure! the worthiest of
subjects and most virtuous of men!”
[Illustration:
THE NEW COALITION - THE RECONCILIATION OF “THE TWO KINGS OF
BRENTFORD.” 1784. #/ ]
Charles James Fox, the most popular Whig statesman of history, was
returned for Midhurst in May, 1769. He was then only nineteen years and
four months old; notwithstanding this, he took his seat the November
following, thus becoming a member of parliament before he reached the
age of twenty. Curiously enough, his first speech, March, 9, 1770, was
on a point of order, arising out of the Wilkes case and the disputes
of the Middlesex election. In spite of his affected patriotism, Wilkes
made a jest of his insincerity: standing on the hustings at Brentford,
his opponent said to him, “I will take the sense of the meeting;” to
which the pseudo “champion of liberty” responded, “And I will take the
nonsense, and we shall see who has the best of it.” In the same way he
coolly disavowed his friend and advocate Serjeant Glynn, his colleague
for Middlesex, who had fought all his battles through the courts to
the hustings, and _vice versâ_. Some years later, as related by Earl
Russell, when the “two kings of Brentford” were excellent friends,
and Wilkes, by the irony of fate, became a ministerial candidate, he
was received at a levée, when George III., with his habitual practice
of asking awkward questions, inquired after Wilkes’s friend, Glynn.
“Sire,” said Wilkes, “he is not a friend of mine; he was a Wilkite,
which I never was.”
One of the most animated pictures which can be found of the humours of
canvassing is that drawn from life by William Cowper, at the time the
poet’s mind was influenced to cheerfulness by the company of the lively
Lady Austen, who, with the more gravely solicitous Mrs. Unwin, made
Olney an halcyon abode. The year the “Task” was published, and while
Cowper was touching up his spirited ballad of “John Gilpin,” he has
set down the visit of an aspiring young senator, no less than Pitt’s
cousin, Mr. W. W. Grenville, who, with a retinue of zealous supporters
at his tail, quite “without your leave,” bursts upon the poet’s
retirement in pursuit of suffrages; this was at the general election of
1784:--
“As, when the sea is uncommonly agitated, the water finds
its way into creeks and holes of rocks, which, in its calmer
state, it never reaches; in like manner, the effect of these
turbulent times is felt even at Orchard Side, where in general
we live as undisturbed by the political element as shrimps or
cockles that have been accidentally deposited in some hollow
beyond the water-mark by the usual dashing of the waves. We
were sitting yesterday after dinner, the two ladies and myself,
very composedly, and without the least apprehension of any
such intrusion, in our snug parlour; one lady knitting, the
other netting, and the gentleman winding worsted, when, to
our unspeakable surprise, a mob appeared before the window,
a smart rap was heard at the door, the boys halloed, and the
maid announced Mr. Grenville. ‘Puss’ [Cowper’s tame hare] was
unfortunately let out of her box, so that the candidate, with
all his good friends at his heels, was refused admission at the
grand entry, and referred to the back door as the only possible
way of approach. Candidates are not creatures to be very
susceptible of affronts, and would rather, I suppose, climb in
at the window than be absolutely excluded. In a minute, the
yard, the kitchen, and the parlour were filled. Mr. Grenville,
advancing towards me, shook me by the hand with a degree of
cordiality that was extremely seducing. As soon as he, and as
many more as could find chairs, were seated, he began to open
the intent of his visit. I told him I had no vote, for which
he readily gave me credit. I assured him I had no influence,
which he was not equally inclined to believe, and the less, no
doubt, because Mr. Ashburner, the draper, addressing himself
to me at this moment, informed me that I had a great deal.
Supposing that I could not be possessed of such a treasure
without knowing it, I ventured my first assertion by saying
that, if I had any, I was utterly at a loss to imagine where it
could be, or wherein it consisted. Thus ended the conference.
Mr. Grenville squeezed me by the hand again, kissed the ladies
and withdrew. He kissed likewise the maid in the kitchen, and
seemed, upon the whole, a most loving, kissing, kind-hearted
gentleman. He is very young, genteel, and handsome. He has a
pair of very good eyes in his head, which not being sufficient,
as it should seem, for the many nice and difficult purposes
of a senator, he has a third also, which he wore suspended by
a riband from his button-hole. The boys hallooed, the dogs
barked, ‘Puss’ scampered, the hero with his long train of
obsequious followers withdrew. We made ourselves very merry
with the adventure, and, in a short time, settled into our
former tranquillity, never probably to be thus interrupted
more.”
It may be added that this persuasive young politician, W. W. Grenville,
succeeded in securing his return at the top of the poll for the county
of Buckinghamshire in 1784, as Pitt wrote to James Grenville (Lord
Glastonbury)--“William was safe.”
[Illustration: A MOB-REFORMER. 1780.]