CHAPTER IX.REMARKABLE ELECTIONS AND CONTROVERTED ELECTION PETITIONS, 1768 TO 1784.

(“If worth allures thee, think how Beckford shoneWho dar’d to utter Truths before the throne.”)

“Most Gracious Sovereign—Will your Majesty be pleased so far to condescend as to permit the Mayor of your loyal City of London to declare in your Royal presence, on behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your Majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety, and with the deepest affliction.“Permit me, Sire, to assure your Majesty that your Majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate to your Majesty’s person and family, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your Crown.“We do, therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your Majesty, that you will not dismiss us from your presence without expressing a more favourable opinion ofyour faithful citizens, and without some comfort, without some prospect at least of redress.“Permit me, Sire, further to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions, to alienate your Majesty’s affections from your loyal subjects in general and from the city of London in particular, and to withdraw your confidence in and regard for your people, is an enemy to your Majesty’s person and family, a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy Constitution, as it was established at the glorious revolution of 1688.”

“Permit me, Sire, to assure your Majesty that your Majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more affectionate to your Majesty’s person and family, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your Crown.

“We do, therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your Majesty, that you will not dismiss us from your presence without expressing a more favourable opinion ofyour faithful citizens, and without some comfort, without some prospect at least of redress.

“Permit me, Sire, further to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions, to alienate your Majesty’s affections from your loyal subjects in general and from the city of London in particular, and to withdraw your confidence in and regard for your people, is an enemy to your Majesty’s person and family, a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy Constitution, as it was established at the glorious revolution of 1688.”

At the conclusion of these expressions of enlightenment for the royal mind, the lord mayor waited more than a minute for a reply of “some more favourable opinion,” but none was given.

“On this occasion,” says the satirist, “Nero didnotfiddle while Rome was burning.” The humility and serious firmness with which the dignified Beckford—who enjoyed the friendship of the great Earl of Chatham, and with whom he had many points in common—uttered these words, “filled the whole Court with admiration and confusion;” for they found very different countenances amongst the citizens than they expected from Lord Pomfret’s description, who declared in the House of Lords—

“that, however swaggering and impudent the behaviour of the low citizens might be on their own dunghill, when they came into the royal presence, their heads hung down like bulrushes, and they blinked with their eyes like owls in the sunshine of the sun.”

On the 19th of May, the king prorogued that parliament which, by approving addresses from both Houses, had fortified the royal censure returned to the popular remonstrances. “The prevalence of animosities and of dissensions among their fellow-subjects” was specially alluded to in his Majesty’s speech, while the conduct of both branches of his legislature received in return such flattering encomiums as their servile pliability had earned by despicable means:—

“Thetemperwith which you have conducted all your proceedings has given me great satisfaction, and I promise myself the happiesteffects from the firmness, as well as the moderation, which you have manifested in the verycriticalcircumstances which have attended your late deliberations.”

However undignified the reception accorded at the time to these petitions addressed to the throne from its truest supporters, the good cause eventually triumphed, in defiance of the chicanery of counter-expressions of servility, fabricated at the instance of those whose prospects depended on the continuance in power of false politicians, despising alike the voice and interests of the people, and resting their reliance on the venality of their adherents, and the base instinct of self-aggrandisement at the expense of the state existent in minds equally mercenary with their own.

“Eventually the citizens succeeded, in spite of the united efforts of the Court, the Ministers, and the Parliament; and their cause has since been solemnly and universally recognized as that of the Constitution and of liberty. It is impossible to appreciate too highly the national importance of the conduct they pursued.”

It was well said by “Junius,” the integrity of whose sentiments bears more than a casual resemblance to the utterances of that patriotic statesman, Lord Chatham, with whose fame the authorship of Junius’s “Letters” may one day be identified:—

“The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates with health and vigour through every artery of the Constitution.”

The great Chatham and his friend, William Beckford, stand out conspicuous from their fellow-men in association with that corrupt time when statescraft was for the most part a question of ability for debasing the largest number on the easiest terms contrivable; they lived at a time when liberty ran especial risks, and, as champions of popular rights, proved worthy of those emergencies with which they were confronted. In days when the chief magistrate of the city may degenerate to a subservient courtier, the history of Beckford’s firm attitude may be regarded as nolonger the worthiest part of the civic traditions. That his fellow-citizens appreciated his exertions is shown by the thanks he received for his able and dignified speech to the king; his reply was ordered to be inserted in the city records, and afterwards, at his death, was inscribed on the monument erected in the Guildhall to his memory.

The blow struck at a corrupt administration by the Westminster and other remonstrances seems to have damped the ardour of the ministers; in any case, no Court candidate was put forward for Westminster in 1770, and consequently the election of a liberal candidate was unopposed.

On the 30th of April, at noon, came on at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, the election of a representative in parliament for the City and Liberty of Westminster, in the room of the Hon. Edwin Sandys, created Lord Sandys. A considerable number of the electors assembled early in the morning at the “Standard Tavern” in Leicester Fields; and proceeded from thence with a band of music, etc., in procession through Piccadilly to the residence of Sir Robert Bernard, in Hamilton Street. When they came to Covent Garden, the whole square was full. Proclamation of silence being made, Sir John Hussey Delaval, Bart., addressing himself to the people, said—

“he rejoiced to see such a prodigious number of the Electors present, to support the nomination in Westminster Hall the previous Thursday; that Sir Robert Bernard had stood forward in support of the rights of the people in their just complaints against the late flagrant violation of their liberties; and concluded with observing, that they were come to confirm with their votes this their free and glorious choice.”

Lord Viscount Mountmorres seconded the motion in a spirited speech, in which he stated—

“the services and principles of Sir Robert Bernard; the grievances under which the people laboured; the great violation of their rights in the case of Middlesex; the impossibility that any king, that any parliament, that the courts of justice, or that all together, could annihilate the people’s constitutional rights.”

These speeches were received with acclamation by the twenty thousand people present, amongst whom strict good order was preserved.

The proper proclamations being made, and no other candidate appearing, the return was signed by the gentlemen present on the hustings. The election being entirely over, the gentlemen retired into the vestry-room, where the indenture was signed by them, and finally returned to the Crown Office. On the day following, Sir Robert Bernard was introduced into the House of Commons by the Hon. Henry Grenville and William Pulteney, and took his seat as member for Westminster. The Westminster returns being generally looked upon with interest by other constituencies, this election was held out as a proper example to every city in the kingdom, and to all the counties and towns, to choose their members with a spirit of freedom and without expense. It was resolved by the freeholders of Westminster, in advance—

“that if this election had been contested, it would not have cost Sir Robert Bernard a shilling, the electors being determined to support their free choice.”

This particular return is a case in point, which goes to prove that the authors of corruption in electioneering matters were more guilty than those they corrupted. At the Covent Garden hustings—where, on previous occasions, the ministers had spent enormous sums, besides moving every power and art of intrigue to get their own nominees returned—the entire proceedings were one long scene of bribery, trickery, and illegality, brute-force, and disorder. On the occasion in question, 1770, the administration seems to have been slightly cowed by the results of their ill-advised manœuvres to impose placemen upon the county: the recent Middlesex proceedings were still a source of concern; the constitution had been violated—not with impunity,—and serious effects in the way of impeachment were by no means impossible: consequently, the peoplebeing left to the legitimate exercise of their liberties, the election passed off in the pacific, well-ordered, and regular manner described, freedom did not degenerate into licence, “no one was a penny the worse,” and the representative system in its purity of action was for once maintained in Westminster.

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 theGazette.” 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 morningof 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, andvice 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 thepresent 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 legsbeing thereby broken; to surgeon’s bill, and loss of timeand 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 whosehands, 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 ingeniousruse, 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.

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 impartThe 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:—

“My Lords and Gentlemen,“Your Vote, Interest, and Poll (if needful) is earnestly desired for Thomas, LordShiner, 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.”

“My Lords and Gentlemen,

“Your Vote, Interest, and Poll (if needful) is earnestly desired for Thomas, LordShiner, 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 purchaseen bloc, butgenerallyen 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 themodus 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. Heassured 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 toone 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 wasseven. 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 canonstanquam 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. Jervoisewere 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 marks57and 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 bailiffsand 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 excusethat 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 thetreatsgiven 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 toseveral 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 thetesteand 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 memberde 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 beexcluded 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 werecompelledto 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, wasnotduly 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 ahousefrom 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 toaffect such person, yet is not admissibleagainst 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,58in 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 whatchannel 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; butnotwith 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 theJournalsof 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 dulyelected. 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 denominatedburgessing 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 toburgessing; 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 totreat with the candidates for the purchase of the seat, and the committees were constantly instructedto 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 thatthey 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 buta 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 withharsh 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,59sat for Stafford from 1780, until that ill-considered attemptto 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.

(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 becameone 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 auditorat leastof 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.”

“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 auditorat leastof 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 intothe 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 thefuture.... I am told Sir Robert Hildyard is the right candidate for the county. You must take care to keep all our friends together, and totear 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.”

“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 thefuture.... I am told Sir Robert Hildyard is the right candidate for the county. You must take care to keep all our friends together, and totear 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 thesufferers 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

Back to Index Next