The Project Gutenberg eBook, A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days, by Joseph Grego
| Note: | Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive/American Libraries. See [ https://archive.org/details/historyofparliam00greg] |
“THE RIGHTS of WOMEN” or the EFFECTS of FEMALE ENFRANCHISEMENT
A HISTORY
OF
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
AND ELECTIONEERING
IN THE OLD DAYS
SHOWING THE STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY
WARFARE AT THE HUSTINGS AND IN THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS FROM THE STUARTS TO QUEEN VICTORIA
CANDIDATES ADDRESSING THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
ILLUSTRATED FROM THE ORIGINAL POLITICAL SQUIBS, LAMPOONS
PICTORIAL SATIRES, AND POPULAR CARICATURES OF THE TIME
BY
JOSEPH GREGO
AUTHOR OF “JAMES GILLRAY, THE CARICATURIST: HIS LIFE, WORKS, AND TIMES”
“ROWLANDSON, THE CARICATURIST: HIS LIFE, TIMES, AND WORKS,” ETC.
London
CHATTO AND WINDUS, PICCADILLY
1886
[The right of translation is reserved]
“I think the Tories love to buy
‘Your Lordships’ and ‘Your Graces,’
By loathing common honesty,
And lauding commonplaces....
I think the Whigs are wicked Knaves
(And very like the Tories)
Who doubt that Britain rules the waves,
And ask the price of glories.”
W. M. Praed (1826).
“A friend to freedom and freeholders—yet
No less a friend to government—he held
That he exactly the just medium hit
’Twixt place and patriotism; albeit compell’d,
Such was his sovereign’s pleasure (though unfit,
He added modestly, when rebels rail’d),
To hold some sinecures he wish’d abolish’d,
But that with them all law would be demolish’d.”
Lord Byron.
PREFACE.
Apart from political parties, we are all concerned in that important national birthright, the due representation of the people. It will be conceded that the most important element of Parliaments—specially chosen to embody the collective wisdom of the nation—is the legitimate method of their constitution. Given the unrestricted rights of election, a representative House of Commons is the happy result; the opposite follows a tampering with the franchise, and debauched constituencies. The effects of bribery, intimidation, undue influence, coercion on the part of the Crown or its responsible advisers, an extensive system of personal patronage, boroughmongering, close or pocket boroughs, and all those contraband devices of old to hamper the popular choice of representatives, have inevitably produced a legislature more or less corrupt, as history has registered. Bad as were the workings of the electoral system anterior to the advent of parliamentary reform, it speaks volumes for the manly nature of British electors and their representatives that Parliaments thus basely constituted were, on the whole, fairly honest, nor unmindful altogether of those liberties of the subject they were by supposition elected to maintain; and when symptoms of corruption in the Commons became patent, the degeneracy was not long countenanced, the national spirit being sufficiently vigorous to crush the threatened evils, and bring about a healthier state of things.
The comprehensive subject of parliamentary elections is rich in interest and entertainment; the history of the rise, progress, and development of the complex art of electioneering recommends itself to the attention of all who have an interest in the features inseparable from that constitution which has been lauded as a model for other nations to imitate. The strong national characteristics surrounding, in bygone days, the various stages of parliamentary election—peculiarly a British institution, in which, of all people, our countrymen were most at home—are now, by an improved elective procedure, relegated to the limbo of the past, while the records of electioneering exist but as traditions in the present.
With the modifying influence of progress, and a more advanced civilisation, the time may come when the narrative of the robustious scenes of canvassing, polling, chairing, and election-feasting, with their attendant incidents of all-prevailing bribery, turbulence, and intrigue, may be regarded with incredulity as fictions of an impossible age.
It has been endeavoured to give the salient features of the most remarkable election contests, from the time when seats began to be sought after until comparatively recent days. The “Spendthrift Elections,” remarkable in the annals of parliamentary and party warfare, are set down, with a selection from the literature, squibs, ballads, and broadsides to which they gave rise. The illustrations are selected from the pictorial satires produced contemporaneously upon the most famous electoral struggles. The materials, both literary and graphic, are abundant, but scattered; it is hoped that both entertainment and enlightenment may be afforded to a tolerant public by the writer’s efforts to bring these resources within the compass of a volume.
CONTENTS.
| [CHAPTER I.] | |
|---|---|
| PAGE | |
| The assembling of parliaments—Synopsis of parliamentary history—Ordersfor the attendance of members—Qualifications for thefranchise: burgesses, burgage-tenures, scot and lot, pot-wallopers,faggot-votes, splitting—Disqualifications: alms, charity,“faggots,” “occasionality”—Election of knights of the shire, andburgesses—Outlines of an election in the Middle Ages—QueenElizabeth and her faithful Commons—An early instance of buyinga seat in the Commons—Returns vested in the municipal corporations;“Money makes the mayor to go”—Privileges of parliament—“Knightsgirt with a sword”—Inferior standing of the citizensand burgesses sent to Parliament—Reluctance of early constituenciesto sending representatives to parliament—Paid members—Memberschosen and nominated by the “great families”—TheEarl of Essex nominating his partisans and servants—Exemptionfrom sending representatives to the Commons esteemed a privilege—Thegrowth of legislative and electoral independence—Thebeginning of “contested elections”—Coercion at elections—Lords-lieutenantcalling out the train-bands for purposes of intimidation—Earlyviolence—Nugæ Antiquæ; the election of a Harringtonfor Bath, 1658-9; the present of a horse to paid members—Themethod of election for counties, cities, and boroughs—Relationsof representatives with their constituents—The “wages” ofmembers of parliament—“Extracts from the Proceedings of LynnRegis”—An account rendered to the burgesses—The civil wars—Peersreturned for the Commons in the Long Parliament afterthe abolition of the House of Lords. | 1 |
| [CHAPTER II.] | |
| Influence of administration under Charles I.—Ballad on the Commonwealth—Houseof Commons: “A General Sale of RebelliousHousehold Stuff”—The Parliament under the Restoration—Pepysand Prynne on the choosing of “knights of the shire”—Burgessessent up at the discretion of the sheriffs—The king’swrit—Evils attending the cessation of wages to parliamentaryrepresentatives—Andrew Marvell’s ballad on a venal House ofCommons—The parliament waiting on the king—Charles II.and his Commons—“Royal Resolutions,” and disrespect for theCommons—The Earl of Rochester on Charles II.’s parliament—Interferencein elections—Independence of legislators versus paidmembers—The Peers as “born legislators and councillors”—“ThePensioner Parliament” coincident with the remission ofsalaries to members of the Commons—“An Historical Poem,” byAndrew Marvell—Andrew Marvell as a paid member; his kindlyrelations with his Hull constituents—Writ for recovering arrearsof parliamentary wages—Uncertainty of calling another parliament—TheDuke of Buckingham’s intrigues with the Roundheads;his “Litany”—Degradation of parliament—Parody ofthe king’s speech—Relations of Charles II. and his Commons—Summaryof Charles II.’s parliaments—Petitioners, addressers,and Abhorrers—The right of petitioning the throne—The ConventionParliament—The Long Cavalier Parliament—The PensionerParliament and the statute against corruption—“The ChequerInn”—“The Parliament House to be let”—The Habeas CorpusParliament—The country preparing for Charles II.’s fourthparliament—Election ballads: “The Poll,”—Origin of the factionsof Whigs and Tories—Whig and Tory ballads—“A Tory ina Whig’s Coat”—“A Litany from Geneva,” in answer to “ALitany from St. Omer”—The Oxford Parliament of eight days—“TheStatesman’s Almanack”—A group of parliamentary electionballads, 1679-80—Ballad on the Essex petitions—The Earl ofShaftesbury’s “Protestant Association”—“A Hymn exalting theMobile to Loyalty”—The Buckingham ballad—Bribery by SirRichard “Timber” Temple—The Wiltshire ballad—“Old Sarum”—Petitionsagainst prerogative—The royal pretensions to absolutemonarchy—The “Tantivies,” or upholders of absolute kinglyrights over Church and State—“Plain Dealing; or, a Dialoguebetween Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning homefrom choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament, 1681;”“Hercules Rideing”—“A Speech without-doors, made by a Plebeianto his Noble Friends”—Philippe de Comines on the British Constitution—Onfreedom of speech—A true Commonwealth—The excitedstate of parties at the summoning of the Oxford Parliament, 1681—Balladson the Oxford Parliament—The impeachment of Fitz-Harris,and the proposal of the opposition to exclude the Duke ofYork from the “Protestant succession”—Squabble on privilegebetween the Peers and Commons—The Oxford Parliament dismissed,after eight days, on this pretence—“The Ghost of theLate Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford”—“On Parliamentremoving from London to Oxford”—“On his Majesty’s dissolvingthe late Parliament at Oxford”—A “Weeked” Parliament. | 22 |
| [CHAPTER III.] | |
| Electioneering on the accession of James II.—A parliament summonedby James II.—The municipal charters restored in the nature ofbribes—Lord Bath, “the Prince Elector,” and his progress in thewest—Electioneering strategies—How Sir Edward Evelyn wasunjustly cozened out of his election—The constitution of JamesII.’s Parliament—Inferior persons “of no account whatever”chosen to sit in the Commons—The question of supplies, the royalrevenue, and prerogative—Assembling of James II.’s parliament—Thecorrupt returns boldly denounced—Violence at the elections—Theabdication of James II., and the “Convention Parliament”—Accessionof the Prince of Orange—Ballad “On the Calling ofa Free Parliament, Jan. 15, 1678-9”—Ballads on William III.’sParliament: “The Whigs’ Address to his Majesty,” 1689; “ThePatriots,” 1700—An election under William III., for the City ofLondon—“The Election, a Poem,” 1701; the electors, theGuildhall, the candidates; Court-schemers versus patriotic representatives;and “the liberties of the people” versus the “surrenderedCharters”—Electioneering under Queen Anne—TheHigh Church party—“The University Ballad; or, the Church’sAdvice to her Two Daughters, Oxford and Cambridge,” 1705—Whigsand “Tackers”—The Nonconformity Bill—MotherChurch promises to “wipe the Whigs’ nose”—The “case of Ashbyand White,” and the dispute thereon between the Lords andCommons—Breaches of privilege—“Jacks,” “Tacks,” and the“Occasional Conformity Bill”—Ballad: “The Old Tack and theNew,” 1712—The Act against bribery—Past-masters of the artof electioneering—Thomas, Marquis of Wharton; his electionfeats, and genius for canvassing-Election, 1705—“Dyer’s Letters”—Receptionof a High Church “Tantivy” candidate—Discomfitureof the “Sneakers”—Lord Woodstock’s electioneering ruseat Southampton, 1705—“For the Queen and Church, Packington”—DeanSwift on election disturbances in Queen Anne’s reign—SirRichard Steele’s mishap when a candidate for election—Steele’sparliamentary career—“The Englishman” and “TheCrisis”—Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, an accomplished handat electioneering—Her ruse against Lord Grimston—“Love in aHollow Tree”—Dr. Johnson on scandals revived at election-time—Failureof the High Church party to bring in the Chevalier—Theaccession of George I., and the Tory discomfiture—“TheWhigs’ answer to the Tories”—The Jacobite and Hanoverianfactions—Ballads upon “Nancy,” “the Chevalier,” and George ofHanover, 1716—The disaffected and their hatred to Sir RobertWalpole—Ballad: “King James’s Declaration”—The abortiveJacobite rising in 1715—Ballad: “The Right and True History ofPerkin”—The end of Perkin’s attempt. | 56 |
| [CHAPTER IV.] | |
| Sir Robert Walpole “chaired” on his election for Castle Rising,1701—“Robin’s Progress”—Walpole in Parliament—His offices—Impeachedby the Commons for corruption on the death ofGeorge, Prince of Denmark—Returned for King’s Lynn—Firmlyestablished in power on the accession of George I.—“A Tory Billof Costs for an Election in the West, 1715”—The SeptennialAct, 1716—The elections of 1721—Walpole’s “universal salve”—“TheElection carried by Bribery and the Devil,” 1721—Municipalcorruption—Ballad: “Here’s a Minion sent down to aCorporate Town”—The elections of 1727—“Ready Money, thePrevailing Candidate; or, the Humours of an Election,” 1727—“Nobribery, but pockets are free”—Ballad: “The Laws againstBribery Provision may make”—“The Kentish Election, 1734”—“TheCountry Interest” versus “the Protestant Interest”—Vaneand Dering versus Middlesex and Oxenden—Vane’s treat to hiselectors—Walpole paraded in effigy—Hogarth’s design on theelection of 1734: Sir Robert Fagg—“The Humours of a CountryElection,” 1734—The first suggestion for Hogarth’s series of fourelection prints—Plays, operas, and poems on elections—The oathimposed upon electors—“A New-year’s Gift to the Electors ofGreat Britain,” 1741—“The flood of corruption”—Walpole, as“The Devil upon Two Sticks,” carried through the “Slough ofDespond,” 1741—“A Satire on Election Proceedings,” dedicated to“Mayors and Corporations in general,” 1741—Walpole’s lease ofpower threatened—Satirical version of Walpole’s “Coat of Arms”—TheWestminster election of 1741—Wager and Sundon versusVernon and Edwin—A patriotic “Address to the Independentand Worthy Electors” of Westminster, 1741—Royal canvassers—“Sceneat the Westminster Election,” 1741—Lord Sundon callsin the grenadiers to close the poll—The Westminster Petition, 1741—Anew election—Wager and Sundon unseated; Edwin andPercival returned—Admiral Vernon and Porto Bello—“TheFuneral of Independency,” 1741—“The Triumph of Justice,”1741—Walpole defeated—“The Banner of Liberty displayed,”1741—A ministerial mortification—Ballads upon the Westminsterelection of 1741—“The Independent Westminster Electors’ Toast”—“TheDownfall of Sundon and Wager”—“The IndependentWestminster Choice”—“The True English-Boys’ Song to Vernon’sGlory”—Triumph of the “Country party” or “Patriots”—“TheBody of Independent Electors of Westminster” constituted intoa society—Their anniversary dinners—A dinner-ticket, 1744—TheStuart rising of 1745—Lord Lovat’s trial—Meeting of “The IndependentElectors of the City and Liberty of Westminster” atVintners’ Hall, March, 1747—Jacobite toasts—“The Spy detected:”ejectment of a ministerial spy from Vintners’ Hall—The state ofparties at the Westminster election, 1747—Earl Gower and hisson, Lord Trentham—Falling-off of the Independent party—Trenthamand Warren versus Clarges and Dyke—“The Two-ShillingButcher,” 1747—The Duke of Cumberland and the Princeof Wales as rival canvassers—The Duke of Bedford’s support ofLord Trentham—“The Jaco-Independo-Rebello-Plaido”—“TheHumours of the Westminster Election; or, the Scald MiserableIndependent Electors in the Suds,” 1747—Jacobite vagaries—“GreatBritain’s Union; or, the Litchfield Races,” 1747—TheJacobite rebellion—Political animosities carried on to the race-course—AlternateWhig and Tory race meetings—The Duke ofBedford horsewhipped at the Litchfield races on WhittingtonHeath—Ballad on the fracas: “The Lords’ Lamentation; or, theWhittington Defeat,” 1747—Trentham versus Vandeput, 1749—Thefracas at the Haymarket Theatre—Frenchified Lord Trentham’sdeadly attack on his own electors—Gallic valour and theAdmiralty Board—Ballad: “Peg Trim Tram in the Suds; or, NoFrench Strollers,” 1749—“Britannia Disturbed, or an Invasionby French Vagrants, addressed to the Worthy Electors ofthe City of Westminster,” 1749—Violence and bribery—“AuxElecteurs très dignes de Westminster”—The Duke of Bedford’soppression and injustice to his tenants—Hogarth’s print of “ACountry Inn-yard at the Time of an Election,” 1747—The Hon.John Child—“No Old Baby.” | 78 |
| [CHAPTER V.] | |
| The Pelham Administration—Corruption rife—“The Duke of Newcastleas the Complete Vermin-Catcher of Great Britain; or, theOld Trap new baited,” 1754—Ministerial bribes and baits—Boroughmongering—“Dissectionof a Dead Member (of Parliament)”—Amass of corruption—Henry Pelham’s measures—TheJews’ Naturalization Bill, 1753—Death of Pelham—“His Arrivalat his Country Retirement and Reception,” 1754—Pelham’s receptionacross the Styx—The elections of 1754—Humours ofcanvassing—The election for the City of London: “The Liveryman’sLevee,” 1754—“The City Up and Down; or, the CandidatesPois’d,” 1754—City candidates: Sir John Barnard, SlingsbyBethell, William Beckford, Sir Richard Glyn, Sir Robert Ladbroke,Sir Crispe Gascoyne, and Sir William Calvert—Sir SampsonGideon, the loan contractor, and “The Jews’ Naturalization Bill”—“AStir in the City; or, Some Folks at Guildhall,” 1754—Balladon the City election at the Guildhall—“The ParliamentaryRace; or, the City Jockies,” 1754—Ballad on “The ParliamentaryRace for the City”—The London and Oxfordshire elections—“Allthe World in a Hurry; or, the Road from London toOxford,” 1754—Ballad on “The London Election”—The OxfordElection; Candidates: Wenham and Dashwood versus Turner andParker—Ballad on the Oxford election—The four election picturesby William Hogarth having reference to the county election forOxfordshire, 1754—“The Election Entertainment”—Humoursof an election feast—“The low habits of venal wretches”—“TheNew Interest” versus “The Old Interest”—Election partycries in 1754: “Give us our eleven days”—Ballad on alteration inthe style—Party animosities—“Act against Bribery”—“Kirton’sBest”—“Canvassing for Votes,” 1754—“Punch, Candidate forGuzzledown”—“The Royal Oak” versus “The Crown,” otherwise“The Excise Office”—“The Polling Booth,” Oxfordshire, 1754—Balladon the humours of polling—“Chairing the Members,” 1754—Burlesqueon Bubb Dodington—The dangers of chairing—Aministerial dinner, 1754—Hogarth’s sketches of “Bubb Dodingtonand the Earl of Winchilsea”—Murderous incidents of the Oxfordshireelection—Wrecking houses—Parliamentary interest versusplace—Hawking “marketable ware”—Diary of Bubb Dodington(Lord Melcombe Regis)—Overtures from the Pelhams—Bubb’s“parliamentary interest”—A prime minister—“Bubbling” aboroughmonger—The intriguer over-matched—The BridgwaterElection, 1754—Details of an election contest in 1754, fromDodington’s diary—The Duke of Newcastle, an arch-negotiator—Bubband his “parliamentary interest” bought for nothing—Thevitiating effects of bribery and corruption on a representativelegislature—“Burning a Prime Minister in Effigy,” 1756—Denunciationsagainst venal ministers and the vital injuries they inflicton the constitution. | 125 |
| [CHAPTER VI.] | |
| John Wilkes, the pseudo “Champion of Liberty”—W. Hogarth as apartisan—His attack on Wilkes and Churchill, the North Briton,45—Hogarth’s unfortunate political satires—“The Times,” Plate I.,1762—Lord Bute as Hogarth’s patron—“The Epistle to Hogarth,”by Churchill—“The Times,” Plate II., withheld from publication;given to the public in 1790—The demagogue tried in courtat Westminster—Hogarth’s print of “John Wilkes, a patriot”—TheNorth Briton, No. 45—Severe animadversions on Hogarthby Wilkes and Churchill—The “Bruiser,” Charles Churchill, byHogarth—His reprisal—Hogarth, Wilkes, and Churchill: “A BearLeader”—Wilkes’s illegal imprisonment on “a general warrant”—Wilkesin the Tower—“A Safe Place,” 1763—“Daniel castinto the Den of Lions; or, True Blue will never stain,” 1763—Wilkesset at liberty—His appearance in parliament, and duel—Wilkesabsconds to Paris—Is outlawed for contempt of court—Returnsfrom Paris, and contests the City of London at the generalelection, 1768—The City candidates—The nomination—The poll—Wilkesat the bottom of the poll—The adulation of the mob—Wilkes’sletter to the king—His submission to the Treasury—Wilkesa candidate for the county of Middlesex—“The Returnof Liberty,” and “Liberty revived”—The Brentford election—Violentconduct of the “Wilkes and Liberty” mob—Candidates forMiddlesex—“No. 45 N.B.”—Wilkes returned for Middlesex—Dr.Franklin on “Wilkes and the Brentford election”—“John Wilkeselected Knight of the Shire for Middlesex, March 28, 1768, bythe Free Voice of the People”—More of the “Wilkes and Liberty”riots—The mob in London—Universal turbulence—The attack onthe Mansion House—“The Laird of the Boot”—“The Rape of thePetticoat”—Lord Bute and the Princess of Wales—The OxfordMagazine on the valour of the Lord Mayor—The view takenby the Political Register—Ballad on Lord Mayor Harley’sseizure of the “Boot and Petticoat”—Surrender of Wilkes—Releasedby the rabble—His second surrender—“The Scot’sTriumph; or, a Peep behind the Curtain”—Wilkes a prisonerin the King’s Bench—The Wilkes riots in St. George’s Fields—Southwarkin a state of siege—The military under arms—Wilkes’saddress from the King’s Bench Prison, “To the Gentlemen, Clergy,and Freeholders of the County of Middlesex”—The mob demonstrationoutside the King’s Bench on the opening of parliament—TheRiot Act read—The massacre of St. George’s Fields—Thecase of William Allen, deliberately assassinated—“The ScotchVictory; murder of Allen by a Grenadier.—St. George’s Fields,1768”—The ministerial approval of the butcheries by the soldiers—JusticeGillam—The circumstances of the riot—The soldierstried—The murderer shielded from justice; his escape, and subsequentpension—Horne Tooke as a witness—He brings the guilty tojustice—The defence by the Government—“The Operation,” 1768—“Murderscreened and rewarded” | 157 |
| [CHAPTER VII.] | |
| Death of Cooke, Tory member for Middlesex, 1768—A fresh election—SerjeantGlynn, Wilkes’s advocate, a Radical candidate forthe vacant seat; opposed by Sir W. Beauchamp Proctor—Proctor’smob of hired ruffians—“The Hustings at Brentford, MiddlesexElection”, 1768—Prize-fighters employed to terrorize the electors—Dastardlyattack on the hustings—Glynn’s “Letter to the Freeholdersof Middlesex”—Proctor’s repudiation of the charge of“hiring banditti”—Horne Tooke’s “Philippic” to Proctor—Thetrue facts of the case—The circumstantial account given in theOxford Magazine—The rioters beaten off—Electioneeringmanœuvres: summoning electors as jurymen—The bruisersrecognized—Broughton engaged as generalissimo of the forces—Anexpensive contest—Glynn’s letter of acknowledgment to hisconstituents—The “Parson of Brentford”—Poetical tributes toHorne Tooke—Results of the injuries inflicted by the hired ruffians:Death of Clarke—“The Present State of Surgery; or, ModernPractice,” 1769—Trial of Clarke’s murderers—The bruisersdefended by the ministers—Found guilty, and sentenced to transportation,but receive a royal pardon and pensions for life—Partialconduct and verdict of the College of Surgeons—“A Consultationof Surgeons”—The petitions and remonstrances addressedto the Throne—Colonel Luttrell sent to parliament, though notduly elected, to represent Middlesex in place of Wilkes—An unconstitutionalvote of the Commons: “296 votes preferred to 1143”—LordBacon on the lawful power of Parliaments—The Crownand its advisers, and the odium attaching to their unconstitutionalproceedings—Servile addresses—The loyal address from the“Essex Calves”—“The Essex Procession from Chelmsford to St.James’s Market for the Good of the Common-Veal,” 1769—CharlesDingley, “the projector”—The bogus city address—“The Addressers”—Thefracas at the King’s Arms, Cornhill—A battle-royal—“TheBattle of Cornhill,” 1769—Administrative bribesof preference “Lottery Tickets”—“The Inchanted Castle; or,King’s Arms in an Uproar,” 1769—Walpole’s account of the procession—“ThePrincipal Merchants and Traders assembled at theMerchant Seamen’s Office to sign ye Address”—“Epistle to theNorth Briton,” 1769—The “Abhorrers” of Charles II.’s reignrevived—The Administration arraigned with their crimes—Addressof the Quakers to James II.—“The conduct of ninety-nine in ahundred of the people of England ‘Abhorred’”—The loyaladdress forwarded to St. James’s Palace—“The Battle of TempleBar,”—The addressers routed—“Sequel to the Battle of TempleBar: Presentation of the Loyal Address at St. James’s Palace,”1769—The fight at Palace Yard—“The Hearse,” and Lord Mountmorres—Thelost Address recovered—Account of the processionfrom the Political Register—The Town and Country Magazine—Aroyal proclamation against the rioters: Gazette Extraordinary—“TheGotham Addressers: or, a Peep at the Hearse”—“ADialogue between the Two Heads on Temple Bar,” 1769 | 178 |
| [CHAPTER VIII.] | |
| More petitions and remonstrances to the king—Petition of the Liveryof London—The king’s advisers denounced by the citizens—Anarraignment of ministerial crimes and misdemeanours—Undueprerogative and its abuses—The alienation of our colonies, andthe consequent loss of America—The king’s contemptuous receptionof the city petition—Disrespect shown to the corporationat the Court of St. James’s—Threatening attitude of the military—Anunscrupulous and tyrannical ministry—A poetical petition—Theking visits the city petition with “severe censure”—Amore stringent remonstrance prepared—The violated “rightof election”—An unrepresentative parliament—“The true spiritof parliaments”—“The constitution depraved”—The CoronationOath violated—The king’s answer, condemning the former petition,and the city remonstrance—“Nero fiddled while Rome wasburning”—Further popular agitations—Horne Tooke’s “Addressto the Freeholders of the county of Middlesex”—“The MiddlesexAddress, Remonstrance and Petition”—“Constitutional libertiesattacked in the most vital part”—“A self-elected and irresponsibleParliament”—The petitions from Middlesex and Kent receivedat St. James’s in silence—The Westminster remonstrance—Corruptadministration of the House of Commons—The king prayedto dissolve a parliament no longer representing the people—Theright of petitioning impeached by the Commons—The king repliesthat “he will lay the remonstrance before parliament”—“Makinga man judge in his own trial”—The undignified reception of theWestminster remonstrance—Parliamentary counter-petitions atthe bidding of corrupt ministers—The city vote of thanks to LordChatham, for his patriotic “zeal for the rights of the people”—Theking’s answer considered at a general assembly of the citizens—AldermanWilkes on the violation of the rights of election and ofthe constitution—The recorder characterises the remonstranceas a libel—The conduct of ministers in the case of ColonelLuttrell’s election—A fuller remonstrance from the city—Theresults of the Revolution of 1788 contravened—The king’s answer—Beckfordrequests leave to reply—His dignified speech to theking—The king remains silent—“Nero did not fiddle while Romewas burning”—The courtiers abashed—The king prorogues parliamentwith an address approving of the conduct of both Houses—Thecitizens eventually triumph in “the cause of Liberty andof the Constitution”—Lord Chatham’s eulogium pronouncedupon the “patriotic spirit of the metropolis”—Beckford andChatham, the champions of popular rights—The national importanceof their conduct at this crisis of our history—Civic honourspaid to Beckford—His speech to the king inscribed on the monumenterected to his memory in the Guildhall—The corrupt ministerscowed—An uncontested election for Westminster, 1770—Sir RobertBernard’s nomination—His election, without expense or disorder—Speechesof Sir J. Hussey Delaval and Earl Mountmorres on thelate conduct of the Government—The advantages of leaving thepeople to the legitimate exercise of their liberties, uninfluenced bythe administrative interest, corruption, and undue influence, theusual features at an election. | 207 |
| [CHAPTER IX.] | |
| “The Spendthrift Election,” Northampton, 1768—Expensive contests,the defeated men appearing in the Gazette—Colchester; Hampshire—Threenoble patrons adversaries at Northampton: the Earls ofHalifax, Northampton, and Spencer—Open-house at ancestral seats—The“perdition of Horton”—The petition and scrutiny on theNorthampton election—The event referred to chance—Cost of thecontest—The results of the reckless expenditure upon the fortunesof the patrons—Sir Francis Delaval at Andover, 1768—His attorney’sbill: item, “to being Thrown out of window, £500”—Reckoningwithout the host—An hospitable entertainment—Returningthanks—The Mayor versus the Colonel—“Sir Jeffery Dunstan’sAddress to the Electors of Garratt,” 1774: a parody upon electionmanifestoes-“Lord Shiner’s Appeal to the Electors of Garratt”—Briberyat elections, and “controverted election petitions”—Variousmethods of acquiring “Parliamentary interest”—Boroughscultivated for the market, like other saleable commodities—Patronage—Buyingup burgage-tenures—Recognized prices ofvotes—The Ilchester tariff—“Dispensers of seats”—Lord Chesterfield’sexperience of borough-jobbing—The seven electors of OldSarum—Typical sinks of corruption—Boroughbridge, Yorkshire—“Thelast of the Boroughbridges”—A solitary franchise-holder;one man returning two representatives—The bribery scrutiny,Hindon, 1774—203 bribed electors out of a constituency of 210—Wholesalecorruption—Bribing candidates committed to theKing’s Bench—A fine of “a thousand marks”—Boroughmongeringat Milborne Port—Lord North’s agent—A wholesale purchaseof “bailiwicks”—Supineness of the Commons and ministerialinfluence—Corrupt bargains ignored by the House—Illegal interferenceof peers and lords of parliament in elections; Westminsterelection, 1774—“Money, meat, drink, entertainment orprovision”—The partiality of persons in power manifested at“election bribery commissions”—The “king’s menial servantsdisqualified”—“Direct solicitation of the peers”—Worcester, 1774,wholesale swearing-in of electors as special constables—Convenientformula for defeating evidence of bribery before the House—High-Sheriffsreturning themselves, Abingdon, 1774—The instanceof Sir Edward Coke—“The sheriff in no respect the returningofficer for boroughs”—The election made void by the sheriffreturning himself—Morpeth, 1774—An election determined bymain force—The candidate forcibly returning “himself and friend”—A“bribing” candidate preferred to a “main-force” candidate—Petersfield,Hants—The Shaftesbury “Punch,”—Pantomimicmethod of distributing bribes—The mysterious “Glenbucket”—Sudbury,1780—A wager on the result of a controverted petition—Amayor insisting upon carrying on an election all night—TheShaftesbury “Punch” outdone by the Shoreham “ChristianSociety”—A well-organized scheme for “burgessing business”—The“Society” a “heap of bribery”—Stafford, 1780; The pricepaid by R. B. Sheridan for his seat—Tom Sheridan a candidatefor Stafford, on his father’s retirement, 1806—The successful candidatefor Stafford presented with a new hat at the hustings, by asubscription of his constituents—“A Mob-Reformer,” 1780—Thefirst entry into public life of William Pitt—“The spirit of thecountry in 1780”—Pitt seated for Appleby, one of Sir JamesLowther’s pocket-boroughs—Pitt’s early political friends: theDuke of Rutland and Lord Euston—Pitt’s letter to his mother,Lady Chatham, on his coming election—No necessity to visit constituencies—Choiceof seats offered to the young premier, 1784—Nominatedfor the City of London—Invited to stand for Bath,represented by his late father Earl Chatham—Pitt returned forthe University of Cambridge, 1784, which he represented till hisdeath—The dissolution delayed by the theft of the Great Sealfrom the Chancellor’s residence, 1784—Pitt’s letter to Wilberforceon the coming elections—Pitt “a hardened electioneerer”—Thewar carried into the great Whig strongholds—The subscriptionto forward Wilberforce’s return for Yorkshire—Earl Stanhopeon “Fox’s Martyrs”—Fox’s courage under adversity—Wilkesreturned as the ministerial representative for Middlesex—Wilkes’s“address to the electors”—“The Back-stairs Scoured”—“Theboldest of bilks”—“Reconciliation of the Two Kings of Brentford,”1784—“The New Coalition,” 1784—Charles James Fox’s firstentry into public life—Returned for Midhurst, 1769—His firstspeech on the Wilkes case—Wilkes at a levée: he denouncesto the king his friend Glynn as a “Wilkite”—Canvass of Pitt’sfriends—The poet Cowper’s description of Pitt’s cousin, the Hon.W. W. Grenville, seeking for suffrages—The amenities of canvassingin the old days: saluting the ladies and maids—A mostloving, kissing, kind-hearted gentleman—W. W. Grenville andJohn Aubrey returned for Buckinghamshire, 1784 | 226 |
| [CHAPTER X.] | |
| The Great Westminster election of 1784—Wilkes’s famous election contestfor Middlesex dwarfed by comparison-State of political excitement—Relationsof parties in the Commons—Fox’s India Bill—“CarloKhan”—Downfall of the Coalition Ministry—Pitt madepremier by the will of the king—“Back-stair influence,” and Courtintrigues—“The royal finger”—Hostility of the East India Companyagainst Fox—An administration called to power with a workingminority—Defeated on division—Vote of want of confidence—TheHouse dissolved—The great election campaign—“The stormconjured up”—The popular aversion to the late Coalition Ministersshown at the hustings—“The royal prerogative exerted againstthe palladium of the people”—Horace Walpole on the situation—TheWhig losses all over England—Fox’s contest for Westminster—Aforty days’ poll—The metropolis in a state of ebullition—Partycries—The streets a scene of combat—The rival mobs—The Guards—Hood’ssailors; their violent partisanship and reckless attacks—The“honest mob”—Fox’s narrow escape—The Irish chairmen beatthe sailor-mob—A series of pitched battles—Partial behaviour ofthe special constables—Their interference and violence—Flood ofballads and political squibs—Rowlandson’s caricatures on the contest—Theodium revived against the late Coalition Ministry; turnedto political account by the Court party—“The Coalition Wedding:the Fox and the Badger quarter their Arms”—“Britannia aroused;or, the Coalition Monsters destroyed”—Pitt’s election manœuvres;his bidding for the favour of the citizens—Pitt presented with thefreedom of the city—“Master Billy’s Procession to Grocers’ Hall”—Theking threatens to retire to Hanover in the event of a defeat—Ministerialwiles—Bids of place and pension—Extensive “ratting”—“TheApostate Jack Robinson, the Political Rat-catcher.N.B. Rats taken alive!”—“The Rival Candidates: Fox, Hood, andWray”—Rival canvassers—“Honest Sam House, the Patrioticpublican”—The hustings, Covent Garden—The “prerogativestandard”—“Major Cartwright, the Drum-Major of Sedition”—“TheHanoverian Horse and the British Lion”—“Fox, the Incurable”—Faircanvassers—The ladies of the Whig aristocracya bevy of beauty; the Duchess of Devonshire, the Countess ofDuncannon, the Duchess of Portland, Lady Carlisle, etc.—“TheDevonshire, or Most Approved Manner of securing Votes”—“AKiss for a Vote”—Tory lady canvassers: Lady Salisbury,the Hon. Mrs. Hobart—“Madame Blubber, the Ærostatic Dilly”—Walpole’saccount of the canvassing—Fox’s favour with the fair—TheDuchess of Devonshire’s exertions on behalf of the Whig chief—EarlStanhope on “Fox’s Martyrs”—His account of the contestedelection—Pitt’s letters on the Westminster election, toWilberforce, and James Grenville—Pitt’s account of the countryelections—His anxiety about Westminster—Earl Stanhope’ssummary of the Westminster election—Ballads on the contest—“TheDuchess Acquitted; or, the True Cause of the Majority onthe Westminster Election”—Tory libels on the Duchess of Devonshire—“TheWit’s Last Stake; or, the Cobbling Voters and AbjectCanvassers”—“The Poll”—Animadversions against Sir CecilWray—“Lords of the Bedchamber”—“The Westminster Watchman”—Aflood of jeux d’esprit—“On undue influence”—“A conciseDescription of Covent Garden at the Westminster election”—“Stanzasin Season”—The Prince of Wales a zealous partisanof Fox—“Lady Beauchamp, Lady Carlisle, and Lady Derby atthe Hustings”—Poetical tributes—The Duchess of Devonshiresaves the Whig cause at Westminster—“On the Duchess of Devonshireand Lady Duncannon canvassing for Fox”—“On a certainDuchess”—Horace Walpole’s nieces, the Ladies Waldegrave,“the three Sister Graces,” canvassing for Fox—“Epigram on theDuchess of Devonshire”—“Impromptu on her Grace of Devon”—“Odeto the Duchess”—“The Paradox of the Times”—A newSong, “Fox and Freedom”—The downfall of Wray—“The Caseis Altered”—Bringing in outlying voters—“Procession to theHustings after a Successful Canvass”—“Every Man has hisHobby-Horse”—Fox carried into the House by the duchess—ExitSir Cecil Wray!—“For the Benefit of the Champion—aCatch.” “No Renegado!” Wray defeated—“The WestminsterDeserter drumm’d out of the Regiment”—Apotheosis of the fairchampion—“Liberty and Fame introducing Female Patriotism(the Duchess of Devonshire) to Britannia”—The close of the poll—Wraydemands a scrutiny—Partial and illegal conduct of thehigh bailiff as returning-officer—Fox triumphant—The ovation—Thechairing procession—Two days of festivities—The receptionat Devonshire House—The Prince of Wales’s rejoicings—The fêteat Carlton Palace—Rival interests—Mrs. Crewe’s rout—Thetedious and prolonged progress of the scrutiny—Fox for Kirkwall—“TheDeparture”—Fox recovers damages against the high bailifffor illegality in refusing to make a return—The affair only settleda year later—“Defeat of the High and Mighty Balissimo Corbettinoand his Famed Cecilian Forces, on the Plains of St. Martin,”1785—Corbett ordered by the court to make his return—Cast indamages—Fox’s final majority | 257 |
| [CHAPTER XI.] | |
| Another Westminster election, 1788—Lord Hood appointed to theAdmiralty Board, 1788—A fresh contest—Lord John Townshend,a candidate in the Whig interest—Defeat of Lord Hood—TwoWhig members for Westminster—Mob violence, the Guards,Hood’s sailors—Ministerial support—“Election Troops bringingtheir Accounts to the Pay-table” (Treasury Gate), 1788, by J.Gillray—“An Independent Elector”—Helston, Cornwall, 1790—Ladycanvassers—A violent “eccentric”—“Proof of the RefinedFeelings of an Amiable Character, lately a Candidate for a CertainAncient City,” by J. Gillray—“The ‘Marplot’ of his Own Party”—Abusesof patronage—Traditions of boroughmongering—Accumulationsof seats and parliamentary interests—Cartwright’stables of pocket boroughs—Pitt’s early patron, Sir James Lowther—“Thetyrant of the North”—“Pacific Entrance of Earl Wolf(Lord Lonsdale) into Blackhaven,” 1792—Great distress prevalentthroughout the country, in 1795; its effect on political agitation—Politicalclubs clamour for parliamentary reform—The kingand his advisers in disfavour—Revolutionary societies and the“Seditions Bill”—Gillray’s caricatures—“Meetings of PoliticalCitizens at Copenhagen House,” 1795—Whig agitation against thethreatened incursions on the “liberty of the subject”—“TheMajesty of the People”—“A Hackney Meeting,” 1796—A threatenedconstitutional struggle averted by a dissolution of parliament,1796—Pitt’s tactics—“The Dissolution; or, the State Alchymistproducing an Ætherial Representation,” 1796—Mr. Hull’s costlyelectioneering experience at Maidstone, 1796—Horne Tooke unsuccessfulat Westminster, 1790 and 1796—Fox and the favourof the mobocracy—“The Hustings, Covent Garden,” 1796—Electioneeringsquibs—The Anti-Jacobin and the member for Southwark—Canning’slines on George Tierney, “The Friend ofHumanity and the Knife-grinder,” 1797—Grey’s reform measurefirst moved in 1797—Defeat of the Whigs, and their temporaryabstention from the debates—Increased political agitation out ofdoors—Great reform meetings—Medal commemorative of thegathering at Warwick—“Loyal Medal,” a parody of the “Greathead”patriotic medal—The secession of “the party”—HorneTooke as a political agitator—The Brentford Parson’s pamphlets—HorneTooke a political portrait painter, and the Anti-Jacobin—“TwoPair of Portraits, dedicated to the Unbiased Electorsof Great Britain,” 1798—Meeting on the twentieth anniversaryof Fox’s membership for Westminster—The Whig chief’s speechto his constituents—“The Worn-out Patriot; or, the Last Dying-Speechof the Westminster Representative at the ShakespeareTavern,” 1800—Horne Tooke seated for “Old Sarum”—Theopposition to his membership led by Temple—Lord Camelford’snominees—“Political Amusements for Young Gentlemen; or, theBrentford Shuttlecock,” 1801—“Horne Tooke as the ‘Shuttlecock’”—Unexpectedhonours thrust upon Captain Barlow atCoventry, 1802—Middlesex Election for 1804—The BrentfordHustings—“A Long Pull, a Strong Pull, and a Pull All Together;”Sir Francis Burdett drawn to the poll—“The Governor in hisGlory,” 1804—The Westminster election, 1806—The RadicalReformers—“Triumphal Procession of Little Paull”—“The HighflyingCandidate mounting from a Blanket,” 1806—The coalitionbetween Hood and Sheridan—Paull tossed at the hustings—Burdettfor Middlesex—“Posting to the Election; or, a Scene on theRoad to Brentford,” 1806—William Cobbett “A Radical Drummer,”1806—“Coalition Candidates,” Hood and Sheridan—Sheridandisconcerted—“View of the Hustings in Covent Garden, WestminsterElection,” 1806—“Who suffers?”—The general election,1807—A split in the Radical camp—Differences between Burdettand Paull—“Patriots deciding a Point of Honour; or, the Exactrepresentation of the Celebrated Rencontre which took place atCoombe Wood, between Little Paull the Tailor and Sir FrancisGoose,” 1807—“The Poll of the Westminster Election,” 1807—“theRepublican Goose at the Top, etc.”—Horne Tooke and Sir FrancisBurdett—“The Head of the Poll; or, the Wimbledon Showman,”1807—“The Chelmsford Petition; Patriots addressing the EssexCalves” | 289 |
| [CHAPTER XII.] | |
| The “royal” Duke of Norfolk an enthusiastic “electioneerer”—Wilberforce’selectioneering experiences—His contest for Hull—Theprice of freemen—The great fight for Yorkshire, 1807—“TheAusterlitz of Electioneering”—The candidates, Wilberforce, LordMilton and Lascelles—The Fitzwilliam and Harewood interests—Threehundred thousand pounds expended—The voluntary subscriptionto defray the expenses of Wilberforce’s candidature—Thepoll—The county in a state of ferment—Election wiles;false rumours; “Bruisers”—All the conveyances bespoke—Wilberforce’svictory—His motives for the contest—“Groans ofthe Talents”—Personation—Female canvassers under false colours—Travellingexpenses of electors—Carrying cargoes of freeholdersby water—Kidnapping—The caricaturists on elections—Customaryepisodes of a Westminster election, delineated by Rowlandsonand Pugin—George Cruikshank as an election caricaturist—The“Speaker’s Warrant” for committing Burdett to the Tower, 1810—“TheLittle Man in the Big Wig,” 1810—“The Election Hunter,”1812—“Saddle White Surrey for Cheapside”—Southwark election,1812—“The Borough Candidates”—“An Election Ball,”1813—The Westminster election, 1818—“The Freedom of Election:or, Hunt-ing for Popularity and Plumpers for Maxwell,” 1818—“Hunt,a Radical Reformer”—“A Political Squib on the WestminsterElection,” 1819—“Patriot Allegory, Anarchical Fable, andLicentious Parody”—Major Cartwright, an unsuccessful candidate—Cartwright’sPetition to the House of Commons on the needfulreform of a corrupt representative system, 1820—Statisticsof borough-mongering—“Sinks of corruption”—“353 memberscorruptly imposed on the Commons”—The coming elections of1820—John Cam Hobhouse—His imprisonment—“Little Hob in theWell”—“A Trifling Mistake—corrected,” 1820—Radicals—“TheRoot of the King’s Evil; Lay the Axe to it,” 1820—The Riot Act—“TheLaw’s Delay. Showing the advantage and comfort ofwaiting the specified time after reading the Riot Act to a RadicalMob; or, a British Magistrate in the Discharge of his Duties, andthe People of England in the Discharge of Theirs,” 1820—“TheElection Day”—Dissolution of Parliament, 1820—“Coriolanusaddressing the Plebs,” 1820—“Freedom and Purity of Election!Showing the Necessity of Reform in the Close Boroughs,” 1820—“RadicalQuacks giving a new Constitution to John Bull,” 1820—Burdettand Hobhouse as Radical Reformers | 324 |
| [CHAPTER XIII.] | |
| The last parliament of George IV.’s reign—The country clamorousfor retrenchment—The Tory régime growing irksome—Theking’s illness, 1830—John Doyle’s caricatures upon public events(HB’s “political sketches”)—“Present State of Public FeelingPartially Illustrated,” 1830—Death of the king—“The MourningJournal: Alas! Poor Yorick!”—“The Magic Mirror; or, a Peep intoFuturity”—The Princess Victoria—Accession of William IV.—Whigprospects reviving—Brougham, “A Gheber worshippingthe Rising Sun”—Wellington, a “Detected Trespasser”—Partyintrigues—“Anticipation; or, Queen Sarah’s Visit to Bushy”—Theold campaigner—“Un-Holy Alliance; or, an Ominous Conjunction”—Thegeneral election, 1830—“Election Squibs andCrackers for 1830. Before and After the Election”—Caricaturists,as politicians, usually above party prejudices—W. Cobbettreturned for Oldham—“Peter Porcupine” an M.P.—“A CharacteristicDialogue”—Changes of seats—“The Noodle Bazaar”—Headsfor Cabinets—John Bull and the Times—“The man that is easilyled by the nose”—“Resignation and Fortitude; or, the GoldStick”—“The Rival Candidates;” Boai and Grant—Wellington’sleadership threatened: “The Unsuccessful Appeal”—The popularwill—Attacks upon the Wellington and Peel Ministry—Results ofthe general election unfavourable to the Cabinet—“A MaskedBattery”—“A Cabinet Picture”—“Guy Fawkes; or, the Anniversaryof the Popish Plot”—Defeat foreshadowed—“FalseAlarm; or, Much Ado about Nothing”—The Eastern Questionfatal to Wellington’s Ministry—“Scene from the SuppressedTragedy entitled the Turco-Greek Conspiracy”—“His Honour theBeadle (William IV.) driving the Wagabonds out of the Parish”—Theadoption of liberal progress—Preliminary skirmishing—“TheCoquet”—The ministry thrown out—“Examples of theLaconic Style”—“A very Prophetical and Pathetical Allegory,”1831—Reform on the road—“Leap-Frog down Constitution Hill,”1831—Another appeal to the country—“Anticipated RadicalMeeting”—The dissolution—“Great Reform” Specialists;John Bull and his constitutional deformity—“Hoo-Loo-Choo, aliasJohn Bull, and the Doctors”—“May-Day”—“Leap-Frog on aLevel; or, Going Headlong to the Devil”—The Reformers havingit all their own way—A swinging pace—Political squibs on theelections of 1831—The great battle of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill—“TheNew Chevy Chase,” a poetical version of the reformstruggle—“Votaries at the Altar of Discord”—“PeerlessEloquence”—Slaughter of the Innocents—“Niobe Family”—Extinctionof pocket boroughs—Reform at a breakneck pace—“JohnGilpin”—William IV. carried away by the old Grey—“TheHandwriting on the Wall: ‘Reform Bill!’”—A warning toreformers—Grey and “Brissot’s Ghost”—“Macbeth” and “TheTricoloured Witches”—Grey, Durham, and Brougham—Althorpand Russell—A tub to a whale—“A Tale of a Tub, and the Moralof the Tail”—Renovations at the King’s Head: “Varnishing—ASign (of the Times)”—“The Rival Mount-o’-Bankes; or, the DorsetshireJuggler”—Root-and-branch reform—“LINEal Descent ofthe Crown,” a hint from Hogarth’s works, 1832—Hobhouse inoffice—“The Cast-off Cloak”—Radicalism over-warm—“Mazeppa”(William IV.): “Again he urges on his wild career”—“Ministersin their Cups” | 343 |
| [CHAPTER XIV.] | |
| John Doyle, a Tory Caricaturist—The Tories out in the cold—“TheWaits,” 1833—Grey and the king—“Sindbad the Sailor and theOld Man of the Sea,” 1833—Parliamentary reform not carried farenough—Burdett, Hume, and O’Connell: “Three Great Pillarsof Government; or, a Walk from White Conduit House to St.Stephen’s,” 1834—“Time running away with the Reform Bill”—Generalelection, 1834-5—Party competition—“The Opposition’Busses”—“Original Design for the King’s Arms, to be placedover the New Speaker’s Chair,” supporters, Burdett and Cobbett—“Inconveniencesthat might have arisen from the Ballot”—Briberyand violence discounted—General election of 1835—Broadsidesquibs on the Windsor election—Tory view of thedecline of the British constitution, “A New Instance of the Mute—abilityof Human Affairs,” 1837—Appeal to the Constituencies in1837—“Going to the Fair with It: a cant phrase for doing anythingin an extravagant way”—Contortions of statesmen to keep inplace: “Ins and Outs”—“Fancy Ball: Jim Crow Dance andChorus,” 1837—Conversion of Sir Francis Burdett from Radicalismto Toryism—“A Fine Old English Gentleman, one of OldenTime,” 1837—A bye-election for Westminster—Burdett opposedby Leader—“Following the Leader”—“May-Day in 1837”—Whiggambols—Sir Francis Burdett invites the verdict of hisWestminster constituents upon his change of front—Thackeray’spictorial squib on the event—“The Guide”—“The Rivals; or,Old Tory Glory and Young Liberal Glory,” 1837—Sir FrancisBurdett re-elected—His valedictory speech at the Westminsterhustings, 1837—His quarrel with Daniel O’Connell, the Liberator—Defeatof Leader—“The Dog and the Shadow”—“Race for theWestminster Stakes between an Old Thoro’bred and a Young Cock-tail;weight for age. The old ’un winning in a canter,” May, 1837—“Takingup a Fare: All the World’s a Stage”—Burdett’s attackon Democracy—“The Last and Highest Point at which the unheard-ofCourage of Don Quixote ever did, or could arrive, withthe Happy Conclusion”—“An Old Song to a New Tune”—“TheRaddies”—Fate of Leader—“A Dead-horse: a sorry subject;what was once a Leader in the Bridgwater Coach”—“TheThree Tailors of Tooley Street. We, the People of England”—“Reorganizingthe (Spanish) Legion”—Burdett for North Wilts—“GrindingYoung”—Lord Durham—“The Newest UniversalMedicine”—ejected of Kilmarnock”—Joseph Hume defeatedat Middlesex—“Figurative Representation of the LateCatastrophe!”—Dan O’Connell providing the rejected candidateswith seats—“Great Western General Booking Office”—Hume forKilkenny—“Shooting Rubbish”—The interval before parliamentreassembled—“Retzsch’s Extraordinary Design of Satan Playingat Chess with Man for his Soul,” 1837—Party tactics—“A Gameat Chess (again): the Queen in Danger”—“High Life belowStairs (inverted), as lately performed at Windsor by her Majesty’sservants”—“Election Day: a Poetical Sketch from Nature”—Thehustings—The chairing—John Sterling’s poem, “The Election,”1841—A New Election at Aleborough—Rival Houses—TheCandidates—The attorneys—A corrupt bargain—The canvassing—Indirectbribing—The Bribery Act set at naught—Female voters,a fanciful prospect by George Cruikshank—“Rights of Women;or, a View of the Hustings with Female Suffrage,” 1835—Memorableelectioneering experiences: Two eminent writers as candidatesfor seats in parliament, 1857—Incidents in the canvassingof James Hannay—W. M. Thackeray’s contest at Oxford—Summaryof bribery at elections: Bribery Acts | 374 |
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
A HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE OLD DAYS.
CHAPTER I.
CONCERNING EARLY PARLIAMENTS AND ELECTIONS OF KNIGHTS AND BURGESSES.
The subject of elections being so indissolubly bound up with that of parliamentary assemblages and dissolutions, it will not be out of place to glance at the progress of that institution. John was the first king recorded to summon his barons by writ; this was directed to the Bishop of Salisbury. In 1234 a representative parliament of two knights from every shire was convened to grant an aid; later on (1286) came the parliament of Merton; and in 1258 was inaugurated the assembly of knights and burgesses, designated the mad parliament. The first assembly of the Commons as “a confirmed representation” (Dugdale) was in 1265, when the earliest writ extant was issued; while, according to many historians, the first regular parliament met in 1294 (22 Edw. 1), when borough representation is said to have commenced. From a deliberative assembly, it became in 1308 a legislative power, without whose assent no law could be legally constituted; and in 1311, annual parliaments were ordered. The next progressive step was the election of a Speaker by the Commons; the first was Peter de la Mare, 1377. A parliament of one day (September 29, 1399), when Richard II. was deposed, is certainly an incident in the history of this institution; the Commons now began to assert its control over pecuniary grants. In 1404 was held at Coventry the “Parliamentum Indoctum” from which lawyers were excluded (and that must have offered a marked contrast to parliaments in our generation). In 1407 the Lords and Commons assembled to transact business in the Sovereign’s absence. Reforms were clearly then deemed expedient: in 1413 members were obliged to reside at the places they represented,—this enactment has occasioned expense and inconvenience in obeying “the letter,” but appears to have otherwise been easily defeated as regards “the spirit;”[1] in 1430 the Commons adopted the forty-shillings qualification for county members. A parliament was held at Coventry in 1459; this was called the Diabolicum. The statutes were first printed in 1483; in 1542 the privilege of exemption from arrest was secured to members; and in 1549 the eldest sons of Peers were admitted to sit in the Commons. With James I. commenced those collisions between the Crown and the representatives of the people which marked the Stuart rule. The Commons resisted those fine old blackmail robberies known during preceding reigns as “benevolences,” under which plea forced contributions were levied by the Crown, especially during Elizabeth’s reign. James I. pushed these abuses too far, in his greed for money.
The parliament of 1614 refused to grant supplies until grievances were redressed; James dismissed them, and imprisoned several members. This short session was known as the “Addled Parliament.” The “Long Parliament” assembled in 1640, and the House of Peers was abolished by it in 1649; and later on, a Peer sat in the Commons. This parliament, proving intractable, was dissolved by Cromwell in 1653. Under Charles II., with the restoration of monarchy, the Peers temporal resumed their functions, and in 1661 the Lords spiritual were allowed to resume their seats, and the Act for triennial parliaments was unwisely set aside by the Commons. The relations between the Crown and the Commons were again becoming strained in 1667, when an Act excluding Roman Catholics from sitting in either House was forced through the legislature. From this point the narrative of electioneering incidents may commence, the more appropriately since it was at this time there arose the institution of the familiar party distinctions of Whig and Tory.
The orders for the attendance of members and the Speaker were somewhat curious; for instance, among the orders in parliament regulating procedure, the following are noteworthy:—
Feb. 14, 1606.—The House to assemble at eight o’clock, and enter into the great business at nine.
May 13, 1614.—The House to meet at seven o’clock in the morning, and begin to read bills at ten.
Feb. 15, 1620.—The Speaker not to move his hat until the third congée.
Nov. 12, 1640.—Those who go out of the House in a confused manner before the Speaker to forfeit 10s.
May 1, 1641.—All the members that come after eight to pay 1s., and those that do not come the whole day to pay 5s.
April 19, 1642.—Those who do not come to prayers to pay 1s.
Feb. 14, 1643.—Such members as come after nine o’clock to pay 1s. to the poor.
March 21, 1647.—The Speaker to leave the chair at twelve o’clock.
May 31, 1659.—The Speaker to take the chair constantly every morning by eight o’clock.
April 8, 1670.—The back door in the Speaker’s chamber to be nailed up during the session.
March 23, 1693.—No member to take tobacco into the gallery, or to the table, sitting at committees.
Feb. 11, 1695.—No news-letter writer to presume to meddle with the debates, or disperse any in their papers.
Orders touching motions for leave into the country:—
Feb. 13, 1620.—No member shall go out of town without open motion and licence in the House.
March 28, 1664.—The penalty of £10 to be paid by every knight, and £5 by every citizen, etc., who shall make default in attending.
Nov. 6, 1666.—To be sent for in custody of the serjeant.
Dec. 18, 1666.—Such members of the House as depart into the country without leave, be sent for in custody of the serjeant-at-arms.
Feb. 13, 1667.—That every defaulter in attendance, whose excuse shall not be allowed this day, be fined the sum of £40, and sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower till the fine be paid.
That every member as shall desert the service of the House for the space of three days together (not having had leave granted him by the House, nor offering such sufficient excuse to the House as shall be allowed), shall have the like fine of £40 imposed on them, and shall be sent for in custody, and committed to the Tower; and that the fines be paid into the hands of the serjeant-at-arms, to be disposed of as the House shall direct.
April 6, 1668.—To pay a fine of £10.
A few words of explanation regarding technicalities will be found in place, since the qualifications of voters have a distinctive language of their own, used to indicate their various degrees of electoral privilege. The terms, “burgage tenures,” “scot and lot,” “pot-wallopers,” “splitting,” “faggot votes,” etc., occur constantly, and it may be desirable to indicate in advance the meanings attached to these enigmatical expressions.
Burgage tenures consist of one undivided and indivisible tenement, neither created, nor capable of creation, within time of memory, which has immemorially given a right of voting; or an entire indivisible tenement, holden of the superior lord of a borough, by an immemorial certain rent, distinctly reserved, and to which the right of voting is incident.
Another qualification determined the right of voting “to be in such persons as are seized in fee, in possession, or reversion, of any messuage, tenement, or corporal hereditament within the borough, and in such persons as are tenants for life or lives, and, for want of such freeholds, in tenants for years determinable upon any life or lives, paying scot and lot, and in them and in no other.”
Potwallers—those who, as lodgers, boil the pot. Pot-wallopers, or Pot-boilers.
The word Burgess extends to inhabitants within the borough.
The right of election being generally vested “in inhabitants paying scot and lot, and not receiving alms or any charity,” these terms require explanation. What it is to pay scot and lot, or to pay scot and bear lot is nowhere exactly defined. According to Stockdale’s “Parliamentary Guide,” compiled in 1784, it is probable that, from signifying some special municipal or parochial tax or duty, they came in time to be used in a popular sense, to comprehend generally the burdens and obligations to which the inhabitants of a borough or parish were liable as such. What seems the proper interpretation is, that by inhabitants “paying scot and lot,” those persons are meant whose circumstances are sufficiently independent to enable them to contribute in general to such taxes and burdens as they are liable to as inhabitants of the place. In Scotland, when a person petitions to be admitted a burgess of a royal borough, he engages he will scot and lot, i.e. watch and ward; and by statute (2 Geo. 1, c. 18, s. 9) it is ascertained that in the election of representatives for the city of London, the legislature understood scot and lot to be as here explained.
As to the disqualifications, alms means parochial collections or parish relief; and charity signifies sums arising from the revenue of certain specific sums which have been established or bequeathed for the purpose of assisting the poor. There are further nice distinctions in the latter; for on election petitions persons receiving certain defined charities were qualified to vote, while other charities disqualify for the identical return. The burgage tenement decision which defines the nature of this qualification as set down, arose on a controverted election in 1775 for Downeton or Downton, a borough in Wilts, the right of voting being admitted by both sides to be “in persons having a freehold interest in burgage tenements, holden by a certain rent, fealty, and suit of court, of the Bishop of Winchester, who is lord of the borough, and paying reliefs on descent and fines on alienation.” Thomas Duncombe and Thomas Drummer were the sitting members; and the counsel for the petitioners, Sir Philip Hales and John Cooper, objected to some twenty votes recorded for the candidates elected. “It was proved that the conveyances to some were made in 1768, i.e. the last general election, but that the deeds had remained since that time in the hands of Mr. Duncombe, who is proprietor of nearly two-thirds of the burgage tenements in Downton; so that the occupiers had continued to pay their rents to him, and expected to do so when they became due again, considering him as their landlord, and being unacquainted with the grants made by him to the voters; and that there were no entries on the court rolls of 1768 of those conveyances, nor of the payment of the alienation fines. The conveyances to others appeared to have been printed at the expense of Mr. Duncombe, and executed after the writ and precept had been issued, some of them being brought wet to the poll. The grantees did not know where the lands contained in them lay, and one man at the poll produced a grant for which he claimed a vote, which, on examination, appeared to be made to another person.” The practice of making such conveyances about the time of an election had long prevailed in the borough; the votes so manufactured were known by the name of faggots; and the petitioners contended such votes, although pertaining to obsolete “burgage” immunities, were “colourable, fraudulent, and void,” both by the common law of parliament, and the statute of William III. aimed at abuses, and commonly called the Splitting Act. Besides the general objection of “occasionally,” a proportion of the votes for the sitting members was impeached for reasons drawn from the nature of burgage tenements, as set forth in the definition of these terms. Whence it was decided that Mr. Duncombe had done his spiriting so clumsily that neither he nor his colleague could be considered duly elected as burgesses to serve in the parliament in question, and the petitioners ought to be returned in their places.
In 1826 the Earl of Radnor was patron of this same borough of Downton, Sir T. B. Pechall and the Hon. Bouverie being its representatives, and the votes being vested in the persons having a freehold interest in burgage tenures and held of the Bishop of Winchester; the number of voters is not given—possibly J. J. Stockdale (election agent), who compiled the “Election Manual,” was unable to discover any.
It seems that, while they were permitted to exist, those qualifications which surrounded burgage tenures were founded on shadowy premises; for instance, Horsham (Sussex) was summoned to send burgesses to parliament from the 28th of Edward I. According to Bohun, the Duke of Norfolk, as lord thereof, held the entire election in his own hands, the bailiffs, chosen by the duke’s steward in the court-leet held at Michaelmas, having been the principal officers which returned members to serve in parliament; while as to the constituents and their suffrages, the qualifications for these add a fresh and startling paragraph to the subject:—
“The house or land that pays twelve pence a year to the Duke, is called a whole burgership; but these tenancies have been splitted into such small parts, that he who has only so much land, or part of a house, as pays two pence a year, is now by custom entitled to vote for members to serve in parliament; but it is the tenant of the freehold, though not resident in the place, or occupier of the house, or land, that has the right to vote.”
The outlines of an election, when the state of “villainage,” approximating to feudal serfdom, was the condition of the labouring classes, have been sketched by Sir Francis Palgrave. From the pages of his “Truths and Fictions of the Middle Ages” we obtain a vivid picture of the manner of the quest for representatives to serve the king in parliament, as it might have presented itself to the faithful lieges in the fourteenth century, at the three annual seasons for summoning the chamber.
The sheriff, Sir Roger de Swigville, mounted on a noble steed worthy of so stout a knight, rides up to the county court, the scene of the elections of the period, where is gathered a goodly assemblage of mounted gentry; the sheriff’s javelin-men about him, his silken and broidered banner waving in the breeze; and forthwith is displayed the sacred scrap of parchment, the “king’s writ,” informing the estates of the realm in the learned Latin tongue, that a parliament is to be holden at Westminster, Winchester, York, or elsewhere. The baronage and freeholders are bidden to choose a worthy and discreet knight of the shire for the county, to aid the king with his advice,—duly providing for his expenses during the term while parliament may sit, and for his charges going and returning; but first taking due care to ascertain if the great baron of the county—De Clare or De Bohun—has not already signified, through his steward or attorney, whom he would have chosen. The name of Sir Fulke de Braose is mentioned—yonder handsome “chivaler” who, hawk on wrist, is watching the proceedings; but that gay knight preferreth the excitements of war or sport, and at the Words “election” and “parliament,” he hastily withdraws from the crowd, and spurreth off as fast as his good horse may carry him. The “Chiltern Hundreds” was a sanctuary where knights, anxious to avoid the honour of being sent to the senate, frequently sought refuge.
It was Elizabeth who took a practical course with her faithful Commons, and in businesslike fashion admonished them not to waste their time in long and vain discourses, but to apply themselves at once to their function—that of voting supplies, and, on occasions, of granting “benevolences,” that is, forced loans to the Crown.
According to some writers, the earliest recorded instance of corruption in electioneering matters occurred under date 1571, but the incident hardly comes under the description of bribery. In the “Parliamentary History” (i. 765), it is stated from the journals of 1571, that one Thomas Long was returned for the borough of Westbury, Wilts, who, “being found to be a very simple man, and not fit to serve in that place, was questioned how he came to be elected.” It seems that extreme simplicity was so unusual in the House that its presence was easily detected; in any case, Thomas Long acted up to his reputation, and replied with a frankness not commonly exhibited in the admissions made before election committees and their perquisitions: “The poor man immediately confessed to the House that he gave to Anthony Garland, mayor of the said town of Westbury, and one Watts of the same, £4 for his place in parliament.” This was certainly a modest consideration for a seat, when it is considered that famous electioneering tacticians, like the Duke of Wharton, in a later generation, exhausted ample fortunes in the traffic of constituencies. Moreover, this simple purchaser of a place in parliament, though he forfeited his bargain, did not lose his money; “an order was made that the said Garland and Watts should repay unto the said Thos. Long the £4 they had of him.” Although the actual briber escaped scot-free, the inquiry terminated with the infliction of a severe penalty on those who had been convicted of venality, “a fine of £20 being assessed for the queen’s use on the said corporation and inhabitants of Westbury for their scandalous attempt.” This precept was not without its use, and in the future history of this species of corruption it will be found that mayors and corporations—in whose influence once rested that “merchantable property,” the right of selecting representatives—grew more experienced in iniquitous ways, and exacted the highest tariff for the saleable commodity they offered, besides making choice of more cunning purchasers, and, moreover, generally managed to get not only the best of the bargain, but contrived to avoid being forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains; the proverb still remains, a relic of the days in which it had its origin, “Money makes the mayor to go.”
The privilege of parliament which protected the persons of members was already sought after in Elizabeth’s days for its incidental advantages; thus, John Smith, whose name is mentioned in the “Parliamentary History,” presented himself to be elected for Camelford, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors—a ruse which was allowed to succeed by a tolerant chamber,—privilege, however, and the continuance of his seat were voted by 112 to 107.
Mr. Norton, in 1571, speaks of “the imperfection of choice, too often seen, by sending of unfit men;” and he notices as one cause, “the choice made by boroughs, for the most part of strangers.”
Interference in elections by the territorial lords, or by the Church, was resented about this time:—
“A penalty of £40 proposed upon every borough that should elect at the nomination of a nobleman, one great disorder, that many young men, not experienced, for learning sake were often chosen. Proposed that none under thirty years of age should be returned.”
From the “Parliamentary History” we secure the account of a disputed return for Buckinghamshire in the year 1603, set down by the sheriff as returning officer:—
“About eight o’clock he came to Brickhill; was there told by Sir George Throckmorton and others that the first voice would be given for Sir Francis Goodwin; he answered ‘he hoped it would not be so,’ and ‘desired every gentleman to deal with his freeholders.’ After eight went to the election.... After the writ was read, he first intimated the points of the proclamation, then jointly proposed Sir John Fortescue and Sir F. Goodwin. The freeholders cried, first, ‘A Goodwin, a Goodwin!’ Every Justice of the Peace on the bench said, ‘A Fortescue, a Fortescue!’”
Election proceedings began early in those days, and parliamentary hours were equally matinal. From the pamphlets, tracts, and broadsides of the Stuart era it may be noted that the Speaker took his place in the House at eight o’clock in the morning.
“The knights girt with swords by their sides,” as returned for the shires of the counties, were important personages, the influential families retaining this prerogative in their houses for generations; the names of the great county families may be traced, according to their respective localities, for more than a century in uninterrupted succession as the county members, as may be observed in the compendious lists of the knights, citizens, and burgesses of parliaments summoned in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Chaucer relates of his Frankleyn—
“Ful ofte tyme he was a knight of the schire.”
It was, as Hannay has expressed it, the great gentry who seem to have accepted the girding of the sword, in something like turns, as both a dignity and a duty. “From such men the House of Commons took that high, that gentle tone, which has often been so justly boasted of by its great men, and which it is to be hoped it will retain, through whatever changes are destined for it.” The dignity of representation in the earlier stages of parliamentary history does not appear to have extended beyond the knights of the shires; those of this select order might, if they had the ambition, contest among themselves, but it is difficult to imagine electoral contests among the representatives of a less exalted class—the citizens and burgesses, whose election was at first very much at the discretion of the sheriffs. When the real parliamentary strength lay in the baronage, the worthies who came up from the cities and boroughs to advise about taxation were not much regarded originally, and seem to have conducted themselves, during their brief visits to the Commons House, with a docility of demeanour, supposed to be in keeping with their native obscurity; as, for the most part, they were but nominees or placemen of Peers and Lords of parliament, of ecclesiastical hierarchs, of officers of State, or put forward by lords of manors, influential families, and dispensers of preferment of one kind or another, a retiring and deferential line of conduct was due from these mere parliamentary “pawns” to their patrons. This state of subjection appears foreign to the independence by presumption associated with the character of a member of parliament, and might be taken as belonging only to a feudal epoch; but with rare intervals of self-assertion on the part of the people, such as happened during the civil wars—when the equipoise of society was unsettled for a space—it must be admitted that at least a considerable portion of the Commons under the boroughmongering and patronage-monopolizing days, which reached to 1831, was not far removed from the condition of semi-vassalage as described, until the revision and extension of the representative system assimilated the constitution of the Commons in earnest to what by a plausible fiction it was “on trust” for generations assumed to be.
It is shown that in the early days of the representative system the high obligation of sending members to parliament was regarded as a burden instead of a privilege by many boroughs, and that exemption from this duty was a boon for which sacrifices were cheerfully made; moreover it was a “right” which constituencies managed to leave in abeyance, intermitting in many instances for a century or more. By the same rule, electoral bodies were relieved to get rid of their responsibilities, before the days of sordid trafficking, and while venal boroughmongering was still an undeveloped branch of gain: it was at first accepted by the cities and boroughs as a kindly service on the part of a great man to choose the citizens and burgesses for parliament; “influence” was not considered “undue” when it was exercised in dictating the choice of what by a traditional figment were considered the popular representatives. Thus, in Elizabeth’s reign, quite as a matter of course, Devereux, Earl of Essex, was busying himself in providing such nominees as he thought fitting for various places, as appears from the following letter, addressed to Richard Bagot, of Staffordshire, and printed with the “Memorials of the Bagot family,” 1592:—
“After my very hartie commendacions. I have written several letters to Lichfield, Stafford, Tamworth, and Newcastle for the Nomination and Election of certain Burgesses for the Parliament to be held very shortlie; having named unto them, for Lichfield, Sir John Wingfield and Mr. Broughton. For Stafford, my kinsman Henry Bourgcher, and my servant Edward Reynolds. For Tamworth, my servant Thomas Smith. For Newcastle, Dr. James. Whom because I do greatlie desire to be preferred to the said places, I do earnestlie pray your furtherance by the credit which you have in those towns.”
The mere dealing in “parliamentary interest” was still undeveloped as regarded its monetary aspect, but party strengthened its ranks by nominating candidates, first, because it was the “will and pleasure” of those who held the influence; secondly, when the possessor of several boroughs began to realize he could utilize his seats in many ways, electioneering science took a new departure, and boroughs and “burgage tenures” began to be cultivated for the market like any other trafficable commodity.
“Formerly,” says Waller, “the neighbourhood desired the member to sit, and there was an end; but now it is a kind of empire. Some hundred years ago, some boroughs sent not; they could get none to serve; but now it is a fashion, and a fine thing they are revived.”
The ancient system was shaken in the early Stuart days: under Charles I. we find ministers still writing of those “seats which were safe,” and where, such as in the “Cinque Ports,” patronage could secure the election of placemen; but opposition was ripe in the land, and when the stand was to be made against the Crown “in many places the elections were managed with much popular heat and tumult.” The strength of the Church was matched against dissent—“that incredible heresy;” then began Puritan corporations which exhibited a “factious activity” in the boroughs, and thus raised to white heat the indignation of territorial magnates; thence did lords of the manor bestir themselves for the assertion of traditional privileges, by easy degenerations swollen into prescriptive rights and oppressive tyrannies. Hence attempted coercions; “certain lord-lieutenants of the counties were accused of making an improper use of the Train-bands,” the beginning of the system of electioneering intimidation. Thus we are informed that, in the year 1639:—
“In many places the elections were managed with much popular heat and tumult by the countenance of those English nobility and gentry of the Scottish faction. At the County election for Essex, for instance, the Earl of Warwick made good use of his lord-lieutenancy, in sending letters out to the captains of the Train-bands, who having power to charge the people with arms, durst not offend, which brought many to his side. Those ministers who gave their voices for my Lord of Warwick, as Mr. Marshal and others, preached often out of their own parishes before the election. Our corporation of Essex, consisting most of Puritans, and having had their voices in electing their own burgesses, and then to come to elect knights, is more than the greatest lord of England hath in their boroughs; the multiplicity of the people are mean-conditioned, and most factious, and few subsidy-men; and therefore in no way concerned in the election.
“A man having but forty shillings a year freehold hath as great a voice in the election as any; and yet this man is never a subsidy-man, and, therefore, no way concerned in the election for his own particular; and when the statute was made two centuries earlier (in 1430) forty shillings, it was then twenty pound in value now. And it were a great quiet to the state if it were reduced to that; and then gentlemen would be looked upon, and it would save the ministers a great deal of pains, in preaching from their own churches.”
About 1640, although absolute intimidation was not common, it at least was resorted to in the case of one candidate, who suffered therefrom, and evidently entered a subsequent protest. In Nalson’s papers it is recorded:—“A paper sent to the Secretary of State by Mr. Nevil, of Cressing Temple, the unsuccessful candidate, whose life was threatened. ‘It was said among the people that if Nevil had the day they would tear the gentleman to pieces.’” Walpole, otherwise unscrupulous in his resort to corruption of various kinds, appears to have avoided downright violence; it was reserved for the Pelhams and the Duke of Grafton to bring armed force to the hustings by way of intimidating opposition—an unsatisfactory state of affairs which reached its most unconstitutional proportions under the administration of William Pitt, when those Court candidates selected from the two services received the support of both army and navy; when the guards and sailors surrounded the hustings, and menaced such as were prepared to record votes for candidates other than their employers. Much might be written of the struggles in which envenomed adversaries were led into personal encounters; and rival factions, as between the Cavaliers and Roundheads, went to great lengths in their hostilities: but when the excitement cooled down, the honour of sitting for a borough did not, as a rule, excite fierce competition, at least, anterior to the Revolution which dismissed the Stuarts; members were proposed and accepted in a half-hearted way, and the burgesses sent to Parliament seemed little ambitious of the honour.
The method in which a member was selected in the middle of the seventeenth century for the city of Bath, even then a place of importance,[2] which a short while after became a celebrated centre for election contests and ministerial and party intrigues, may be studied with all its simple minutiæ among the “Nugæ Antiquæ,” (vol. ii.) prepared from the family papers of the Harringtons, landed proprietors in the locality, who, from father to son, had represented the citizens in successive sessions:—
“To our much honoured and worthie Friend, J. Harrington, Esq., at his house at Kelston, near Bathe.
“Worthie Sir,
“Out of the long experience we have had of your approved worth and sincerity, our Cittie of Bathe have determined and settled their resolutions to elect you for Burgess of the House of Commons in this present Parliament, for our said Cittie, and do hope you will accept the trouble thereof: which if you do, our desire is you will not fail to be with us at Bathe on Monday next, the eighth of this instant, by eight of the morning at the furthest, for then we proceed to our election. And of your determination we entreat you to certifie us by a word or two in writing, and send it by the bearer to
“Your assured loving friends,
“John Bigg, the Mayor.
“William Chapman.“Bathe.”
There is some obscurity as to the dates; according to Willis, John Harrington sat for Bath 1658-9.
The progress of these negotiations is set down in the diary of the worthy gentleman selected to serve:—
“A NOTE OF MY BATHE BUSINESS ABOUT THE PARLIAMENT.
“Dec. 26.—Went to Bathe and dined with the Mayor and Citizens; conferred about my election to serve in parliament, as my father was helpless and ill able to go any more; went to the George Inn at night, met the Bailiffs, and desired to be dismissed from serving; drank strong bear and metheglin; expended about iiijs.; went home late, but could not get excused, as they entertained a good opinion of my father.
“Dec. 28.—Went to Bathe; met Sir John Horner; we were chosen by the Citizens to serve for the city. The Mayor and Citizens conferred about Parliament business. The Mayor promised Sir John Horner and myself a horse apiece when we went to London to the Parliament, which we accepted of....
“Thursday, Dec. 31.—Went to Bathe; Mr. Ashe preached [this was before the members, probably in state at the Abbey]. Dined at the George Inn with the Mayor and 4 citizens; spent vjs. in wine.
“Laid out in victuals at the George Inn xjs. 4d. “Laid out in drinking vijs. iid. “Laid out in tobacco and drinking vessels iiijs. 4d. “Jan. 1.—My father gave me £4 to bear out my expenses at Bathe.”
| “Laid out in victuals at the George Inn | xjs. | 4d. |
| “Laid out in drinking | vijs. | iid. |
| “Laid out in tobacco and drinking vessels | iiijs. | 4d. |
The members were salaried at this time, being allowed from two shillings to three shillings and fourpence, and in exceptional cases five shillings, per day during the sessions of the Commons, although in many instances no more than two shillings was the recognized fee;[3] these wages were generally raised by the town, and paid in a lump sum at the close of the sessions.
The writ directs two knights to be chosen out of every county, two citizens out of every city, and two burgesses out of every borough. The counties were well known, and had long been ascertained; but the sheriffs had it left to their discretion as to the cities and boroughs. They were the dominicæ civitates and burgi regis, viz. such as had charters from the king and paid a fee-farm rent in lieu of the customs and other advantages and royalties that belonged to the Crown; but these not being named in the writ, the sheriffs took great liberties, either by summoning such as had no right, or omitting others, who ought to have been summoned: this arose from the nature of the institution.
“The representation of the nation in parliament was then a burden to the people, the elected being paid by their electors; nor doth it appear that the representatives at that time had any advantage more than their wages. Cities and boroughs were, therefore, not fond of returning representatives to Parliament, and it was reckoned a privilege to be exempted, and to obtain which there are more instances than one of petitions having been presented. Sheriffs would frequently act in a very partial and arbitrary manner, and out of pique return many poor boroughs, who were not able to pay their representatives, and omit others who were able, in order to show favour towards them.”
This became a veritable grievance, and, in 5 Rich. 2, a law was made to hinder these arbitrary proceedings, and several boroughs were, by charter from the Crown, exempted from what they would have esteemed a hardship and burden upon them.
Colchester returned members to Parliament 23 Edward 1; as endorsed upon the writs in 7 Edward 4, only five burgesses, named in the return, chose for that Parliament. At that time, service was thought a burden, and exemption was allowed by way of reward for loyal services rendered; thus Richard II., in consideration of the burgesses of Colchester rebuilding and fortifying the walls of their town against the king’s enemies, granted them an exemption for the space of five years.
Beyond the very modest wages allowed by constituencies to their representatives during their sojourns in London at the three sessions of parliament, it was generally held a matter of courtesy to present the two representatives with a horse apiece to help them on their way; and expenses by the road, at the allowances stipulated, were added in with the fixed pay of so much per day for the duration of parliament, which sum was generally allowed to accumulate, and redeemed at the close of the session, when the members came back to report themselves to their constituents and give an account of their stewardship.
In respect of Middlesex, which has been represented in parliament from the first general summons of the knights of the shire in the reign of King Edward I., a reservation was made. The city of Westminster, where parliament was usually held, being within this county, the knights had only their fees for attendance, and no allowance for coming and going, as in other counties. “In the second year of King Henry V. (1414), the Bishop of London complained that his tenants of Fulham were taxed towards the expenses of the knights of the shire for this county, upon which a writ was issued for discharging the said tenants, in case it should appear they had not been formerly taxed.”
The sums paid to members were in all cases very moderate; but these allowances appear to have varied even for the same place. The interesting “Extracts from the Proceedings of Lynn Regis, 1430 to 1731,” as printed in Archæologia (vol. xxiv.), supply evidence of the dealings of that corporation with their parliamentary representatives, as set down in the “Hall Books.” The parliamentary warrant was read in the mother-tongue, and sealed after the election of burgesses to serve in the Commons. The manner of election by a committee on the jury principle seems to have prevailed; thus, in 1433, the king’s writ was publicly read for electing members of parliament. “And for electing them the Mayor called two of the twenty-four (the court of Livery) and two of the common council, which four chose two more of the twenty-four, and two of the common council, and they chose four others, who all unanimously chose John Waterden and Thomas Spicer, to be Burgesses in Parliament.”
The year previous, the burgesses went to parliament in May, and returned in July, when, as was customary, a report was submitted before the mayor as to the manner in which the corporation had been represented, and how far its interests had been promoted by the members; when accounts were compared and a settlement was agreed upon for wages due, to be raised by a special rate, thus:—
“July 23. John Waterden reported the transactions of Parliament, at which time was granted by the Corporation half a fifteenth, to be paid in at two several payments; viz. at Martinmas next, and at Martinmas then next following. That ye Parliament held from ye 12th day of May to Thursday next before ye feast of St. Margaret, on which day ye Parliament ended, and so ye Parliament held for 70 days. And so there is owing to them, for their appearance for 73 days, 6s. and 8d. for each day, of which they received before their journey or passage one hundred shillings, and there remains £19 6s. 8d.”
From this entry it seems evident that these members received 3s. 4d. each. Ten years later, January 10, 1442, two burgesses were chosen, but, for some unexplained cause, the fees were lowered.
“And it was ye same day ordered, by ye assent of ye whole congregation, that ye Burgesses chosen for Parliament shall be allowed each of them two shillings a day and no more.”
At the same time, various instructions were given touching renewal and confirmation of the Charter; and the burgesses on their return to Lynn—
“did well and discreetly declare those things which were substantially done and acted for ye Mayor in ye Parliament.”
“April 18, 1442. The Burgesses of ye last Parliament ingeniously and seriously related several transactions of ye said Parliament.”
As a qualification to serve, it was, as a rule, deemed essential that the member should be “an individual either bearing office or being resident in the borough,” and persons residing elsewhere were held inadmissible; thus:—
“Feb. 1664. Two letters, one from Sir Robert Hitchin, Kt., ye other from Sir Henry Spelman, Kt., desiring to be elected Burgesses for ye next Parliament; forasmuch as ye Statute of ye 1st of Henry 5 (1413) doth appoint that Burgesses should be men residing and free in ye Borough at ye time of their election, it is agreed to answer their letter that ye corporation is minded to chuse according to ye Statute.”
In March, the mayor and recorder were straightway elected burgesses for the next parliament, and enacted under “June 20. The mayor to have ten shillings per day for serving in parliament.” This specially high allowance was possibly due to the extra state which the mayor of a corporation like King’s Lynn would be expected to support in the metropolis, to impress the citizens with the consequence and honour of the borough. The fee speedily dwindled again, and, in 1642, when the kingdom was in a state of ebullition, during the Long Parliament, a general prescript appears to have been instituted as to the fees due to members, and the possible difficulties of collecting them. It is thus noted:—
“Oct. 15. An order from ye House of Commons to ye Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, to require them to pay to Mr. Toll and Mr. Percivall, their Burgesses in Parliament, the same allowance as formerly per day, being 5s.”
“1643, Jan. 3. In answer to ye above order to ye House of Commons to acquaint them that heretofore no Parliamentary wages have been paid before ye Parliament ended, nor then out of ye town stock, but by ye freemen and inhabitants, saving of late of mere bounty ye Burgesses were diversely rewarded by ye representative body. Also ye impossibility of performing ye said order, there being no town stock, ye revenues not being sufficient to defray ye necessary charges in common; besides, extraordinary expenses unavoidably fall upon us daily for ye safety of this town and ye kingdom.”
The Rump Parliament, 1649, had abolished the House of Peers, but some of the Upper Chamber became burgesses to parliament, and this secured admission to the Commons. Lynn Regis came forward hospitably on this emergency, and the head of the proud house of Salisbury had reason to feel grateful for the privilege of being sent to parliament at a time when the order of Peers was abolished through the spontaneous suffrages of the people.
“Jan. 16, 1649. Ordered that a letter be written to ye Right Honble. ye Earl of Salsbury, by ye Mayor from this house, to give him knowledge that this house have granted him ye freedom of this Burgh, and that the comonalty of this Burgh hath elected him a Burgess of ye Parliament of England.”
This honour, which had rarity to recommend it, elicited a graceful and earnest letter from the new member.
“THE EARLE OF SALSBURY’S LETTER.
“Gentlemen,
“As ye precedent you have made in choosing me to be your Burgess is unusual (I believe), if not ye first among you, so do it lay ye greater obligation upon me, neither is that favour a little heightened by my being so much of a stranger to you as indeed I am; and as you have here an open and free acknowledgment from me of your kind and good affections in so unanimous an election of me to serve you in Parliament, as your letter doth express, so cannot they merit or you expect more thanks than I do really return unto you for them. You have been pleased cheerfully (as you say) to confer your freedom upon me. I shall ever be zealous in maintaining yours, and, as I am not ignorant of the great trust you have placed in me, so shall you never be deceived in it; for ye addresses you are to make me (as your occasion shall require) they shall not be so many as cheerfully received, and whatsoever may concern the public good or yours, shall ever be pursued with all faithfulness by him that is
“Your very loving friend,
“Salsbury.”
CHAPTER II.
PARLIAMENTARY LIFE UNDER THE STUARTS; PAID MEMBERS.
The days of the Long Parliament were fruitful in frank out-of-door expressions of opinion under the rule of Charles I. and the Commonwealth; but, although political feelings were embittered, it does not appear that the franchise was exposed to any undue influence worth recording. A certain amount of governmental favour was reckoned of use in isolated instances; this patronage was considered safe to return nominees for such places as the Cinque Ports. But few election squibs, pure and simple, can be discovered before the Restoration. Ballads are less rare; these for the most part deal with the broader party relations, and are confined within discreet limitations, for “privilege of parliament” was rigorously enforced under Cromwell. On the disappearance of the Commonwealth, the spirits of the Cavalier wits and rhymsters revived, with all the more liveliness for their long-enforced repression. As an animated and characteristic example of the ballads produced at the close of the stern conventicle régime, we include the jeux d’esprit written upon the moribund parliament, when it was no longer formidable,—dissolution having, for the time being, shorn its far-reaching and vengeful claws, while a changed head of the State had rendered its return to a lease of power extremely problematical. It is fair to say that, for the most part, the disappearance of this straight-laced and tyrannical House of Commons was hailed as a national relief: the theory of flying “to ills we know not of” had yet to be realized with the gradual development of the Merry Monarch’s selfish and ruinous system, the most iniquitous ever tolerated.
“A GENERAL SALE OF REBELLIOUS HOUSEHOLD STUFF.
“Rebellion hath broken up House,
And hath left some old Lumber to sell;
Come hither and take your choice—
I’ll promise to use you well.
Will you buy th’ old Speaker’s chair,
Which was warm and easy to sit in,
And oftentimes hath been made clean,
When as it was fouler than fitting?
Will you buy any Bacon-flitches
They’re the fattest that ever were spent;
They’re the sides of th’ old Committees
Fed up with th’ Long Parliament.
Here’s a pair of bellows and tongs,
And for a small matter I’ll sell ’em;
They’re made of the Presbyters’ lungs
To blow up the Coals of Rebellion.
Here’s the besom of Reformation,
Which should have made clean the floor;
But it swept the wealth out of the nation,
And left us dirt good store.
Here’s a roll of States tobacco
If any good fellow will take it;
It’s neither Virginia nor Spanish,
But I’ll tell you how they do make it;
’Tis Covenant mixt with Engagement,
With an Abjuration Oath;
And many of them that did take it,
Complain it is foul in th’ mouth.
A Lantern here is to be bought,
The like was scarce ever begotten,
For many a plot ’t has found out,
Before they ever were thought on.
Will you buy the Rump’s great saddle
Which once did carry the nation?
And here’s the Bit and the Bridle,
And Curb of Dissimulation.
Here’s the Breeches of the Rump
With a fair dissembling cloak,
And a Presbyterian Jump
With an Independent Smock.
Here’s Oliver’s Brewing vessels,
And here’s his Dray and slings;
Here’s Hewson’s awl and his bristles,
With divers other odd things.
And what doth the price belong
To all these matters before ye?
I’ll sell them all for an old song,
And so I do end my story.”
From the pages of Pepys we are reminded that members of parliament were paid for their services up to Charles II.’s reign.
It might be expected that the secretary’s “Diary” would contain some pertinent observation upon elections; he has set down a good deal upon parliamentary matters that is curious and enlightening, but the diary ceases in May, 1669, and the more remarkable election contests commenced later.
Samuel Pepys was evidently as indifferent as were the courtiers of his day to the relatively vital importance of the Commons to the State. While accompanying the reforming member William Prynne, who had accused Sir G. Carteret of selling places,[4] from Whitehall to the Temple, the diarist in return for the hospitality of his coach, endeavoured to obtain some information by the way as to the manner of holding parliaments, and whether the number of knights and burgesses were always the same. To which Prynne replied—
“that the latter were not; but that, for aught he can find, they were sent up at the discretion, at first of the Sheriffs, to whom the writs were sent to send up generally the Burgesses and citizens of their county, and he do find that heretofore the Parliament-men, being paid by the country, several boroughs have complained of the Sheriffs putting them to the charge of sending up Burgesses.”
This conversation was in January, 1668; in March, Pepys describes his dining with certain counsel retained by creditors of the navy, the secretary having been to Cursitor Street to arrange assignments on the Exchequer to the tune of £1,250,000 in favour of these creditors. The counsel were pleased to flatter Mr. Secretary upon a recent performance of his in the Parliament House, and, finding himself with four learned lawyers, Pepys, with his dinner, enjoyed what he calls “a great deal of good discourse about parliament”—
“their number being uncertain, and always at the will of the king to increase, as he saw reason to erect a new borough. But all concluded the bane of the Parliament hath been the leaving off the old custom of the places allowing wages to those that served them in Parliament, by which they chose men that understood their business and would attend it, and they could expect an account from, which now they cannot, and so the Parliament is become a company of men unable to give account for the interest of the place they serve for.”
Andrew Marvell, member for Hull, who had enjoyed much experience of men and measures, found fit subject for satire among the corrupt comrades who now surrounded him in parliament.
“C. That traitors to th’ Country in a brib’d House of Commons
Should give away millions at every summons.
W. Yet some of those givers such beggarly villains
As not to be trusted for twice twenty shillings.
C. No wonder that beggars should still be for giving,
Who, out of what’s given, do get a good living.
W. Four Knights and a knave, who were burgesses made,
For selling their consciences were liberally paid.
C. How base are the souls of such low-priced sinners,
Who vote with the country for Drink and for Dinners.
W. ’Tis they that brought on us this scandalous yoke,
Of excising our cups, and taxing our smoke.
C. But thanks to the Harlots who made the King dogg’d,
For giving no more the Rogues are prorogued.”
(Andrew Marvell, 1674: A Dialogue between Two Horses.)
From his “good discourse on parliament,” Mr. Secretary Pepys, by a happy coincidence, straightway betook himself to that palace, where he had the privilege of being well received, and in which, under the Stuarts, more curious scenes were witnessed than falls to the lot of even the average of princely abodes:—
“Thence to Whitehall, where the Parliament was to wait on the King, and they did: and he did think fit to tell them that they might expect to be adjourned at Whitsuntide, and that they might make haste to raise their money: but this, I fear, will displease them, who did expect to sit as long as they pleased.”
A truly regal reception, and a most unceremonious mode of dismissing the “chosen of the people.” The wits of the day thus tersely summed up the situation of affairs:—
“I’ll have a long parliament always to friend,
And furnish my treasure as fast as I spend,
And if they will not, they shall have an end.”
(A. Marvell: Royal Resolutions.)
Perhaps the most felicitous sallies were due to the pen of that gifted reprobate, the Earl of Rochester, at times the alter ego of the Merry Monarch, but who finally, after enjoying boundless favour by diverting the king at his own royal expense as often as at that of his subjects, pointed a shaft with too galling a barb, and flitted away from a Court whose vileness he both exposed and shared in equally liberal measure:—
“A parliament of knaves and sots,
Members by name you must not mention,
He keeps in pay, and buys their votes;
Here with a place, there with a pension.
When to give money he can’t cologue ’um,
He doth with scorn prorogue, prorogue ’um.
But they long since, by too much giving,
Undid, betray’d, and sold the nation;
Making their memberships a living
Better than e’er was sequestration.
God give thee, Charles, a resolution
To damn the knaves by Dissolution.”
Later, Pepys is in conference with the king and the Duke of York (April, 1668) upon no less a subject than “about the Quakers not swearing, and how they do swear in the business of a late election of a Knight of the Shire of Hertfordshire in behalf of one they have a mind to have,” which diverts the monarch mightily.
We have seen how the juris-consultists who lived contemporaneously with the system of “paid members” considered the impartiality of representatives was protected from outside influences by the receipt of a small independence; later on we find that, owing to a dispute between the two Chambers, the impression was arrived at by the Peers that no salaried judges can be deemed impartial, and that hereditary legislators are the only reliable tribunals whence unimpeachable justice could be secured.
On a question of privilege between the Lords and Commons (May, 1668), when the latter took upon themselves to remedy an error of the Upper Chamber, Lord Anglesey informed the Commons that the Lords were “Judices nati et Conciliarii nati, but all other Judges among us are under salary, and the Commons themselves served for wages; and therefore the Lords, in reason, were the freer Judges.”
The circumstance of receiving a salary does not appear to have compromised the independence of members, but to the contrary, as they were thus enabled to keep their honesty the purer, by resisting the venal attacks of the Court. The integrity of members seems to have suffered when their fees were no longer recognized. The “Pensioner Parliament” came into existence precisely at the epoch when representatives remitted “their wages;” a significant circumstance, but indicative of the times; when selfishness usurped the place of patriotism, members sacrificed the modest retainers designed to keep them honest, that they might be the less fettered to bargain in their own interests.
“The senate, which should head-strong Princes stay,
Let’s loose the reins, and gives the Realm away;
With lavish hands they constant tributes give,
And annual stipends for their guilt receive.”
(Andrew Marvell: An Historical Poem.)
The proverbial incorruptibility of Andrew Marvell is a case in point. This example of a true patriot is erroneously said to have been the last member who received wages from his constituents. He died in 1678, M.P. for Hull.[5] Others, his contemporaries, maintained the right, and suffered their arrears to accumulate, as a cheap resource at the next election. Marvell more than once, in his correspondence, speaks of members threatening to sue their boroughs for pay.[6] Lord Braybrooke, in his notes to Pepys’s “Diary,” refers to a case, noticed by Lord Campbell in his “Life of Lord Nottingham,” where the M.P. for Harwich, in 1681, petitioned the Lord Chancellor, as that borough had failed “to pay him his wages.” A writ was issued “De expensis Burgensium levandis.” Lord Campbell adds, “For this point of the People’s Charter [payment of wages] no new law is required.”[7]
Pepys’s later allusions concern the constantly threatened dissolutions; in November, 1668, he records, “The great discourse now is that the Parliament shall be dissolved and another called, which shall give the King the Dean and Chapter’s lands, and that will put him out of debt,” concluding with a hint that the subtle and “brisk” Duke of Buckingham, at that time the actual ruler of the kingdom, “does knowingly meet daily with Wildman and other Commonwealth-men,” the while deceiving Charles into the belief that his intrigues were of a more tender nature.
At Whitehall, the same month, Pepys acquires some fresh and rather significant information upon the subject of the Commons; it is imparted to him that—
“it was not yet resolved whether the Parliament should ever meet more or no, the three great rulers of things now standing thus:—The Duke of Buckingham[8] is absolutely against their meeting, as moved thereto by his people that he advises with, the people of the late times, who do never expect to have anything done by this Parliament for their religion, and who do propose that, by the sale of the Church lands, they shall be able to put the King out of debt: my Lord Keeper is utterly against putting away this and choosing another Parliament, lest they prove worse than this, and will make all the King’s friends, and the King himself, in a desperate condition: my Lord Arlington [being under suspicion, owing to his mismanagement of money in Ireland] knows not which is best for him, being to seek whether this or the next will use him worse. It was told me that he believes that it is intended to call this Parliament, and try them for a sum of money; and, if they do not like it, then to send them going, and call another, who will, at the ruin of the Church perhaps, please the King with what he will have for a time.”
These passages need no comment, the accepted ideas upon representative government under the House of Stuart were such as to fill constitutional minds with amazement. This view is endorsed by a popular ballad of the day:—
“Would you our sov’reign disabuse,
And make his parliament of use,
Not to be chang’d like dirty shoes?
This is the time.”
The inconsistency of the king’s behaviour, and the triviality of his mind—when applied to matters of business, and especially that of parliament—is happily held up to ridicule by one of his contemporary wits, who has thus parodied the expected speech from the throne:—
“HIS MAJESTY’S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
”My Lords and Gentlemen,
“I told you at our last meeting the Winter was the fittest time for business; and truly I thought so, till my Lord Treasurer assured me the Spring was the best season for salads and subsidies: I hope, therefore, that April will not prove so unnatural a month as not to afford some kind showers on my parched Exchequer, which gapes for want of them. Some of you perhaps will think it dangerous to make me too rich; but I do not fear it, for I promise you faithfully whatever you give me I will always want; and altho’ in other things my word may be thought a slender authority, yet in that you may rely upon me, I will never break it.
“My Lords and Gentlemen, I can bear my straits with patience; but my Lord Treasurer does protest to me, that the Revenue, as it now stands, will not serve him and me too; one of us must pinch for it if you do not help me. I must speak freely to you, I am under circumstances, for, besides my Harlots on service, my reformado Concubines lie heavy upon me. I have a passable good estate, I confess; but, Gads-fish, I have a great charge upon’t. Here’s my Lord Treasurer can tell, that all the money design’d for the next summer’s guards must of necessity be apply’d to the next year’s cradles and swaddling clothes. What shall we do for ships then? I hint this only to you, it being your business, not mine. I know by experience I can live without ships; I liv’d ten years abroad without, and never had my health better in my life; but how you will be without I leave to yourselves to judge, and therefore hint this only by the by; I don’t insist upon it. There’s another thing I must press more earnestly, and that is this. It seems a good part of my revenue will expire in two or three years, except you will be pleased to continue it. I have to say for’t, Pray why did you give me so much as you have done, unless you resolve to give on as fast as I call for it? The nation hates you already for giving so much, and I will hate you too if you do not give me more; so that if you stick not to me, you must not have a friend in England. On the other hand, if you will give me the revenue I desire, I shall be able to do those things for your Religion and Liberty that I have had long in my thoughts, but cannot effect them without a little more money to carry me through. Therefore look to’t, and take Notice that if you do not make me rich enough to undo you, it shall lie at your doors, for my part I wash my hands on’t. But that I may gain your good opinion the best way is to acquaint you what I have done to deserve it out of my royal care for your religion and your property. For the first, my proclamation is a true picture of my mind: he that cannot, as in a glass, see my zeal for the Church of England, does not deserve any farther satisfaction, for I declare him wilful, abominable, and not good. Some may perhaps be startled, and cry—how comes this sudden change? To which I answer I am a changeling, and that’s sufficient, I think. But to convince men farther that I mean what I say, there are these arguments. First, I tell you so, and you know I never break my word. Secondly, my Lord Treasurer says so, and he never told a lie in his life. Thirdly, my Lord Lauderdale will undertake it for me, and I should be loth by any act of mine he should forfeit the credit he has with you.
“I must now acquaint you, that by my Lord Treasurer’s Advice, I have made a considerable retrenchment upon my expenses in Candles and Charcoal, and do not intend to stop there, but will, with your help, look into the late embezzlements of my dripping-pans and kitchen stuff; of which, by the way, upon my conscience, neither my Lord Treasurer nor my Lord Lauderdale are guilty. I tell you my opinion, but if you should find them dabbling in that business, I tell you plainly I leave ’em to you; for I would have the world know I am not a man to be cheated.
“My Lords and Gentlemen, I desire you to believe me as you have found me; and I do solemnly promise you, that whatsoever you give me shall be specially manag’d with the same conduct, trust, sincerity, and prudence, that I have ever practised since my happy Restoration.”
The commencement of party warfare as now recognized in parliamentary life may be dated from the Stuarts, and to account for the designations of Whig and Tory it is necessary to glance back at the parliamentary troubles of Charles II., 1679-1680, when that monarch, acting under the encouragement of Louis XIV., was inclined to make a misguided attempt to govern without a legislative chamber. In 1679 the monarch refused a Speaker to his Commons, finding that functionary obnoxious; and between this date and 1681 parliament was prorogued seven times: in fact—as a summary of Charles II.’s parliaments discloses—the discords of the previous reign were revived; the “town and country party” petitioned zealously for the reassembling of parliament, while the Court party counter-petitioned “to declare their abhorrence of the late tumultuary petitioning.” Those who were urging on the struggle for popular representation and freedom were designated Petitioners, the king’s “friends” were voted “betrayers of the liberties of the people, and abettors of arbitrary power,” and expressively stigmatized as Abhorrers;[9] from these two parties, which were ready to exterminate one another, arose the nicknames of Whigs and Tories, as is explained in Tindal’s “Rapin.”[10]
The “Abhorrers,” who were the mainstay of Charles’s utterly unconstitutional procedure, although as courtiers they hoped for their reward from the king, did not get much tolerance from the Commons: when the parliament at last reassembled, several members were expelled from the House on this pretence alone, and they consigned to the Tower that Sir Francis Withers who had been knighted for procuring and presenting the loyal address from the city of Westminster; the majority at the same time recording, as a gage of battle to their opponents, the resolution (October, 1680), “That it is the undoubted right of the subject to petition for the calling of a parliament, and that to traduce such petitions as tumultuous and seditious is to contribute to the design of altering the constitution.” The Tories at that time and long after maintained the doctrines of “divine hereditary indefeasible right, lineal succession, passive obedience, prerogative, etc.”
That a determined attitude was felt to be fitting is exhibited in the protests of the House, printed for circulation, like the following:—
“Wednesday, October 27, 1680.
“Two Unanimous votes of this present Honourable and Worthy Parliament concerning the subjects’ rights in Petitioning.
”Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,—
That it is and ever hath been the undoubted Right of the subjects of England to petition the King for calling and sitting of parliaments, and redressing of Grievances.
“Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,—
That to traduce such Petitioning is a violation of duty, and to represent it to his Majesty as Traitorous and seditious, is to betray the Liberty of the Subjects, and contributes to the design of subverting the ancient, legal Constitution of this Kingdom, and the Introducing Arbitrary Power.
”Ordered—That a Committee be appointed to enquire of all those Persons as have offended against these Rights of the subject.
“London: Printed for Francis Smith, Bookseller, at the Elephant and Castle, near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill.”
Francis Smith was the publisher—
“who suffered a Chargeable Imprisonment in the Gaol of Newgate, in December last, for printing and promoting Petitions for the Sitting of this present Parliament.”
He is referred to with acrimony in the ballads by Tantivy and courtier bards, among the “pestiferous crew of republican scribes.”
Charles’s first parliament was, amid the confusion of the time (the revolution subverted and royalty restored), barely constituted; it lasted from April 25, 1660, to December 29th, and, being assembled without the king’s writ, was, with customary royal ingratitude for “past favours,” considered by Charles as the Convention Parliament.[11] The long Cavalier Parliament, some portion of which, like the king, was in the pay of Louis XIV., is stigmatized to posterity as the “Pensionary” Parliament; it met May 8, 1661, and lasted until January 24, 1679; the members were doubly corrupt, accepting money-bribes or lucrative offices from the Court, or being, according to Barillon’s clear declarations, in the pay of France and Holland, as regarded the patriotic members, who fiercely denounced the venality of the Court. In 1675 the oath against bribery was opportunely inaugurated, providing against corruption either from the Crown or from any ambassador or foreign minister. The Pensionary Parliament, which began its career by servile loyalty, and was merciless against Republicans, towards its close opposing the unreasonable extension of prerogative became factious and insubordinate, arrogating to itself the control of legal procedure, and, according to the opinions of extreme Royalists, generally proving itself a “scourge.”
The popular view of this venal legislature is given in the following version:—
“A PENSIONER PARLIAMENT:
ANSWER TO THE BALLAD CALLED ‘THE CHEQUER INN.’
“I.
“Curse on such representatives!
They sell us all, our bairns and wives,
(Quoth Dick with indignation);
They are but engines to raise tax,
And the whole business of their acts
Is to undo the nation.
“II.
“Just like our rotten pump at home,
We pour in water when ’twon’t come,
And that way get more out,
So when mine host does money lack,
He money gives among the pack,
And then it runs full spout.
“III.
“By wise Volk, I have oft been told,
Parliaments grow nought as they grow old,
We groan’d under the Rump,
But sure this is a heavier curse,
That sucks and drains thus ev’ry purse,
By this old Whitehall pump.”
Another warning note is struck in the following ballad, aimed at the reprobated Pensionary Parliament:—
“THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE TO BE LET.
“1678.
“Here’s a House to be let,
For Charles Stuart swore
By Portsmouth’s honour
He would shut up the door.
“Enquire at the Lodgings
Next door to the pope,
At Duke Lauderdale’s head
With a cravat of Rope,
“And there you will hear
How next he will let it,
If you pay the old price
You may certainly get it.
“He holds it in-tail
From his Father, who fast
Did keep it long shut,
But paid for’t at last.”
Charles II.’s third, or Habeas Corpus Parliament, showed a determination to exceed its predecessor in opposing the Court, and seemed ambitious of imitating that of 1640, the reminiscences of which were still of a portentous character, and filled with dread as regarded the survivors of those uncompromising times:—
“The Habeas Corpus act is past,
And so far we are safe;
He can’t imprison us so fast,
But straight we have relief;
He can’t deny us aught we ask,
In so much need he stands;
And before that we do money give,
We’ll tie up both his hands.”
Charles very naturally found this parliament beyond his control, so it was prorogued May 27, 1679, to the 14th of August, but dissolved on the 10th of July. The whole country was in commotion during August and September in electioneering contests, preparing for the fourth parliament. It is to be regretted that electioneering broadsides have, as a rule, been allowed to perish; they would prove a mine of curious information.
The following is a pertinent allusion to the eventualities of the “poll:”—
“But most men did think
He had not so much chink,
Nor could pay for the poll of the County,
And therefore did fear
It would cost them too dear
Should they accept of his Bounty.”
(The Worcestershire Ballad.)
The opprobrious terms of Whigs and Tories were freely exchanged. Here is a Whig’s view of the “king’s men:”—
“As Rascals changing rags for scarlet coats,
Cudgell’d before, set up to cut Whig throats.”
The wit lay rather with the Cavaliers, though it must be confessed their opponents had the best of the argument when reasoning on facts.
The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose, is given in “A New Ballad” (Narcissus Luttrell’s Collection):—
“The word Tory’s of Irish Extraction,
’Tis a Legacy that they have left here,
They came here in their brogues,
And have acted like Rogues,
In endeavouring to learn us to Swear.”
By way of answer, the Tories exulted in their loyalty:—
“Let Tories guard the King,
Let Whigs on halters swing.”
The Court party denounced—
“Visions, Seditions,
And railing Petitions.”
The designs of the various factions were thus summed up:—
“Sir Tom would hang the Tory,
And let the Whig go free:
Sir Bob would have a Commonwealth
And cry down Monarchy.”
The Tories retaliated upon their antagonists with interest, though they feared the zealots not a little, as the following ballad illustrates:—
“What! Still ye Whigs uneasie!
Will nothing cool your brain,
Unless Great Charles, to please ye,
Will let ye drive his Wain?
That Peer-less House of Commons,
So zealous for the Lord,
Meant (piously) with some on’s
To flesh the Godly sword.”
(A Tory in a Whig’s Coat.)
One of the most popular “counter-blasts” to the Whig pretensions is embodied in the following parody, which enjoyed considerable favour, though not equal to Andrew Marvell’s diatribes “on the other side:”—
“A LITANY FROM GENEVA,
IN ANSWER TO A LITANY FROM ST. OMER.
“From the force and the fire of th’ Insolent Rabble
That would hurl the Government into a Babel,
And from the nice fare of the Mouse-starver’s table,
Libera nos Domine.
“From a surfeit occasion’d by Protestant feasts
From Sedition for sauce, and Republicks for guests,
With Treason for Grace-cup, or Faction at least,
Libera nos.
“From the blind Zeal of all Democratical tools,
From Whigland, and all its Anarchical rules,
Devisèd by knaves and imposèd by fools.
Libera nos.
“From Parliamentarians, that out of their Love
And care for his Majesty’s safety, would prove
The securest way were his Guards to remove.
Libera nos.
“From a Protestant Church where a Papist must reign,
From an Oxford Parliament call’d in vain,
Who because Fitz-Harris the plot would make plain,
Was dissolv’d in a fit and sent home again.
Libera nos.”
The newly elected parliament, the materials of which were equally unpalatable to the Court party, was summoned to meet in October, 1679, but, prorogued during the royal pleasure, it did not actually meet until October 21, 1680. The interval was marked by the presentation of loyal addresses and petitions for its reassembling. Further prorogued on the 10th of January, it was dissolved on the 18th, to be followed by the “Oxford Parliament” of eight days, which was dissolved on March 28, 1681. The nation saw itself on the verge of civil war, and, remembering what it had suffered—while opposing the encroachments of the Crown and autocratic exactions—from the opposite extremes of anarchy and fanaticism, the people were resigned to temporize, and thus Charles was allowed to rule without a parliament until his death.
The following satire is well-founded, and pertinent to the prevalent state of affairs:—
“THE STATESMAN’S ALMANACK.
Being an excellent new Ballad, in which the qualities of each month are considered, whereby it appears that a parliament cannot meet in any of the old months; with a proposal for mending the Calendar. Humbly offered to the packers of the next parliament,”
—which, as it fell out, never reassembled during the reign of the Merry Monarch. The rhymster, after rehearsing the sufficient reasons why every month, from January to December, is unfitted, according to the royal inclinations, for the assembling of a parliament, concludes with a prayer by way of—
EPILOGUE.
“Ye Gypsies of Rome
That run up and down,
And with miracles the people cozen,
By the help of some saint
Get the month which you want
And make up a baker’s dozen.
“You see the old Year
Won’t help you ’tis clear,
And therefore to save your Honour,
Get a new Sun and Moon,
And the work may be done,
And ’fore George it will never be sooner.”
The political squibs of this time are chiefly written by Cavaliers, and give a one-sided view, from which, however, much may be gathered. Though not actually election addresses, they refer to the claims which the electors of the kingdom found themselves constrained to address to the throne.
Among the collection of “Bagford Ballads,” so capably edited and illustrated by J. W. Ebsworth, M.A.,[12] is a group of parliamentary election ballads, apparently of the date 1679-80, and relating to Essex, Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, and the Universities. The Titus Oates plot; the Duke of York and his threatened exclusion from the succession; the impeachment by the Commons of a secretary of State, of Lord Danby, lord-treasurer; with the opposing designs of the Papists and the rabid Dissenters; and, above all, the petitions and the counter-petitions, seem the leading topics of these satires: but they do not contain much enlightenment upon elections, pure and simple. “The Essex Ballad,” humorously explains the modus operandi of the “abhorred” petitions.
“In Essex, much renowned for Calves,
And giving verdicts in by halves,
For Oysters, Agues, and for Knaves
Of Faction,
One Peer, and men of worship four,
With gentlemen some half a score,
Did draw in ten Dutch Ells of Bore
To Action.[13]
The Squire, whose name does famous grow
As Marcus Tullius Cicero,
And keeps true time with Sir A. Carew
And Ashley.[14]
As freely gave himself his hand,
As once his voice to rule the Land
By such as should not understand
Too rashly.
The Rout, that erst did roar so loud,
A Mildmay and a Honeywood,[15]
Are of their choice now grown so proud
You’d wonder:
And these State-Tinkers must be sent
To stop the leaks of Government,
Grown crazy now, and almost rent
In sunder.
His Honour first set all his hands,
Each member next in order stands;
The rabble, without ‘ifs and ands,’
Sub-scratch it.
The Cause, not obsolete, though old,
Like Insects lay in winter cold,
And warm Petitions (they were told)
Would hatch it.
Corn bore a price in Cromwell’s days,
Nor did we want a vent for bays;
Nay, even calves were several ways
Advanced.
And then we fear’d not wicked plots,—
The Godly serv’d to cut our throats,
Though agents for the Pope, as Oates
And Prance[16] said.
Those reasons did so much prevail,
That they petition’d tooth and nail,
To have the Sovereign strike sail,
And stand by:
While th’ Parliament had sate some years,
To drive out Pope with Presbyteers,
And try the Babylonish Peers
And Danby.”[17]
The grievances of the petitioning constituencies are farcically rehearsed, the king is prayed that he will not “quite forget the Senate,” and the writer goes on to describe the signatories of this “Anti-Popish Bull.” When all hands had been set to the roll, it was found that—
“Several yards of fist,
Were wanting to complete the list
Sans scruple.
Those scholars that could write, they bribe
To prompt and proxy every side;
And these did personally subscribe
Centuple.
But now the time draws on apace,
And member itches for his place,
The knights and gentlemen five brace
Assemble;
And brought the muster-roll to Court
Tho’ Charles did hardly thank ’em for’t;
But made ’em with a sharp retort
To tremble.
Now God preserve our King and Queen
From Pyebald Coats and ribbons green,
Let neither knave nor fool be seen
About ’em.
And those that will not say Amen,
Let ’em petition once again,
For every one, the Shire has ten
To rout ’em.”
“Ribbons green,” were the badges of the Protestant Association, at the head of which was Shaftesbury, “the popular favourite,” or “Sejanus,” as his enemies designated him. Vide “A Litany from Geneva:”—
“From Saucy Petitions that serve to inflame us,
From all who for th’ Association are famous,
From the Devil, the Doctor, and the d——d Ignoramus,
Libera nos Domine.”
The obstinate and infatuated zealots, who would insist on keeping up the pretence that parliaments were essential to the constitutional government of the kingdom, were, with the suspected association, treated to all the witticisms Cavalier balladists could bring to bear against preposterous attempts to assail the royal prerogative, and enforce the just balance of the State:—
“’Tis to preserve his Majesty,
That we against him rise,
The righteous cause can never die
That’s manag’d by the wise.
Th’ Association’s a just thing,
And that does seem to say,
Who fights for us, fights for the King,
The clean contrary way.”
(“A Hymn exalting the Mobile to Loyalty.”)
The members representing Buckingham town in the fourth parliament of Charles II., 1679, were Lord Latimer and Sir Richard Temple.
“Of thirteen men there were but six
Who did not merit hemp well,
The other seven play their tricks
For Latimer and Temple.”
The Buckingham ballad, “The Sale of Esau’s Birthright,” which relates to these members, is interesting from an electioneering point, as proving bribery, and as showing there were only thirteen electors of this limited constituency concerned in this particular return. Six voted, according to a list at the end of the ballad, “for their king and country,” and seven for Lord Latimer and Sir Timber Temple (the Earl of Danby, in another version), “for popery and their Town Hall” (“Sir R. T. his Timber, Chimney-money and Court,” according to another version). It seems certain that Sir Richard Temple had offered a present of timber for the Town Hall—in fact, some years later he is called “Timber Temple” (“State Poems”)—which was regarded as a bribe; it also appears that some delay had arisen in its payment.
“Our prating Knight doth owe his call
To Timber, and his Lady;
Though one goes longer with Town-Hall,
Than t’other with her baby.
“The Bailiff[18] is so mad a spark
(Though h’ lives by tanning leather),
That for a load of Temple’s bark,
He’d sacrifice his father.”
The other electors were a barber, two maltsters, a baker, and a farmer; the peppery ballad castigates the former, and concludes with a groan against the members returned:—
“Thus Buckingham hath led the way
To popery and sorrow;
Those seven Knaves who make us slaves,
Would sell their God to-morrow.”[19]
“The Wiltshire[20] Ballad,” also belonging to this so-called “group of election ballads,” professes to be—
“A new Song, composed by an old Cavalier,
Of wonders at Sarum by which doth appear,
That th’ old Devil came again lately there,
To raise a Rebellion
By way of Petition.
“From Salisbury, that low Hous’d Town,
Where steeple is of high renown,
Of late was brought unto the Crown
A Lesson:
’Twas drawn up by three worthy wights,
Members they were, and two were Knights,
Great trencher-men, but no one fights
Mompesson.[21]
Through discontent his Hand did set
First to the scroll without regret,
Then pilgrim-like travel’d to get
Some others,
From house to house, in Town and Close,
Our zealous Preservator goes;
Tells them of dangers and of Foes;
But smothers
The true intent of what they bring,
Who beg’d the House may sit; a thing
Which only can preserve the King,
When nothing
Destroys him more; for should he give
Consent, he’d never that retrieve,
But part with his Prerogative;
A low thing
Make himself by ’t, the rabble get
Into his high Imperial seat
They’d make him Gloriously Great!
We trow it.
They serv’d his Father so before,
These Saints would still increase the store
Of Royal Martyrs, Hum! no more,
We know it.
The herd of zealots long to see
A monarch, but in effigie,
A project which appears to be
Most witty;
And they at helm aspire to sit,
There govern without fear or wit,
King and un-king when they think fit;
That’s pretty.
To see (’twould make a Stoic smile)
Geneva Jack[22] thus moil and toil
To Lord it in our British Isle
Again, Sir;
And ‘Pulpit-Cuff’ us till we fight,
Lose our Estates and lives outright;
And when all’s done, he gets all by ’t,
That’s plain, Sir.
But this, I hope, nor make no mars
Charles knows what’s meant by all these jars,
And these domestic paper-wars,
Conceive it;
Tom of Ten Thousand,[23] is come in,
Sure such a hero much will win,
On skulls as thick, as his is Thin,
Believe it
The people would have power to call
Parliaments, and dissolve them; all
Regalias possess; what shall
The Saint, Sir,
Not have the power of Peace and War?
Religion steer? Holy we are,
And rich, the King shall we (be ’t far)
Acquaint, Sir?”
The Court party lost no opportunity of abusing their opponents of the Constitutional and Protestant party; they not only did the Whigs the favour to hate them cordially, but, as their own satires abundantly demonstrate, they also dreaded and feared them not a little.
The more sober-sided attacks came from the opponents of overstrained prerogative and those who upheld the popular rights of representation against absolute monarchy; witness the following:—
“PLAIN DEALING,
Or a Second Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, as they were returning home from choosing Knights of the Shire to sit in Parliament.
(PRINTED FOR T. B.)
Roger. Well overtook, neighbour. I see you are not a man of your word; did you not promise me, when we last met, that you would vote for our old members, that sat in the last Parliament, to be Knights of the Shire, to sit in the parliament at Oxford.
Humphrey. I thought to do so, but, by my brown cow, I have been over-persuaded to the contrary by my Landlord and his Chaplain, Mr. Tantivie, and a pestilent fine man, I think they said he was a courtier, that lay at my Landlord’s house; and what with arguments and wine, they drew aside my heart, and made me vote against my conscience.
Roger. ’Twas ill done, neighbour Numps, but all their artifices would not do, we have carried it by some hundreds for our old members, that stood so bravely for their country.
Humphrey. I am glad of it with all my heart, for, to tell you truly, tho’ my landlord had my voice, the old members had my heart, and I’ll never do so again.
Roger. I hear most of the Counties in England are of the same mind, and all the Burgess Towns, Cities, and Corporations; but what arguments could they use to alter thy mind?
Humphrey. First, I say, they made me continually drunk, and then my Landlord asked me so very civilly, and gave me so many good words, and fine promises what a kind Landlord he would be, that I forgot all your instructions; and methought he had invincible arguments to persuade me.
Roger. What were they?
Humphrey. Nay, I have forgot them; but I thought no Counsellor-at-Law, nor any Bishop, could have contradicted them: I now remember one argument that took with me; you know I was ever for the King, and he told me the King did not love the old Parliament-men, and therefore I should not vote for them; but I, being bold, asked him how he knew that.
Roger. What said he then?
Humphrey. Why he laid me as flat as a flounder, that is, he fully convinced me, for, said he, if the King had loved them he would not have dissolved them. I think that was demonstrable.
Roger. ’Tis no matter, tho’ the King did not love them, they lov’d you and your country, and you should so far have loved yourself, as not to have betrayed your own interest. What said the Courtier?
Humphrey. ‘Faith he said not much to me, but I suppose he had said enough to my Landlord.
Roger. And was this all your Landlord said to you? Had you nothing to say for yourself? You spoke rationally the last time we were together.
Humphrey. Nay, I was forward enough to speak I’ll assure you; and I told them I was sure our old members would be for the rooting up of Popery, and would stand stiffly against Arbitrary Government.
Roger. What said they then?
Humphrey. My Landlord laughed at me, and told me I had been among the Presbyterian Whigs, and bid me have a care of being cheated into Rebellion, by those two words Popery and Arbitrary Government. Then he showed me a printed paper, I think he called it The Mistress of Iniquity, which showed as plain as the nose on my face, that in ’41 they did as we do now, and by that means they brought one King to the block, and so they would now do by our present Sovereign, God bless him.
Roger. Alas! alas! and that frighted you, did it?
Humphrey. Frighted me, ay marry did it, and I think ’twould affright any honest man; you know I was always a King’s man, and I would be taught to join with those, or give my Voice for such, who, under the notion of crying against Popery and Arbitrary Government, would pull down the King and the Bishops, and set up a Commonwealth again.
Roger. Well, Numps, I believe thee to be an honest man, and there be many in this land of thy condition, that are not of any great reach in policies and tricks of State Mountebanks, and so may be easily persuaded, upon false grounds, to betray your country, your liberties, your lives, and religion.
Humphrey. Nay, that was not all; he then read another printed paper, with a hard name, I think it was Hercules Rideing, or something of jest and earnest which I laughed heartily at, and methought there were some things called ‘Querks,’ which made a jingling and noise in my ears, that I thought there was some spell in it, for it seemed to join with Mistress Iniquity, to make all the Presbyterians traitors, and most of the people of England mad and factious.
Roger. There is as much heed to be given to these pamphlets as to the jingling of Morrice-bells. They are hired to set the people together by the ears, and are Papists in masquerade; things set up to affright the people out of their senses, with the buy leave of ’41; wise men see through them, honest men are not affrighted at them, and fools and knaves only are led aside by them.
Humphrey. But don’t we do now as formerly, before the late wars? don’t we run in just the same steps as they did, who caused all the late bloody doings, as those pamphlets would make us believe?
Roger. I cannot tell what they mean by roads and highways; pray Hodge, we are now riding in the High-road to the next market-town; before the last Assizes, in this very road three or four Highwaymen rode in it too, and robbed several persons, and committed many villainous murders, and were at last caught and hanged for it; now therefore, because we are riding in the same Highway, must we honest men be accounted thieves, robbers, and murderers, and all others who travel this road? that’s a hard case.
Humphrey. You say right, neighbour Hodge, tho’ the gallows stand in the highway, we need not run our Heads against it, nor do anything to deserve it.
Roger. Shall not the people who feel the burden and groan under the oppression, and, having no other way of redress but a parliament, desire and petition for one, and cry out against such illegal and unjust proceedings, but presently they must be termed by these fellows seditious, factious, and such as would dethrone the King, and pull down the Bishops? Then all men must hereafter be afraid to speak, to vote, or to petition against grievances, lest they should be termed rebels, villains, and traitors.
Humphrey. O neighbour, my heart trembles! what a rogue was I to vote at random, when our all lies at stake! I did not think we had put such a trust into the hands of our Parliament-men; I thought, alas, as many do, that we chose only for form-sake, and that they were only called to Parliament to give the King money, and to do what he would have them; and we have paid so many taxes already, and given so much money, that I wished in my heart there would be no more parliaments in my days.
Roger. You see you were mistaken; ’tis the greatest trust that can be put into the hands of men, when we send to the parliament our representatives, for we entrust them with our religion, lives, liberties, and property, all we have; for they may preserve them to us, give them from us, and therefore, neighbour, we ought to be careful in whom we put this great trust, and not be persuaded by our Landlord or any flattering Courtier, or ‘horn-winding Tantivie’ of them all, to choose those whom we know not, and are not well assured of, and that we dare not confide in.”
Equally sound in argument is the following:—
“A SPEECH WITHOUT DOORS MADE BY A PLEBEIAN TO HIS NOBLE FRIENDS.
(PRINTED FOR B. T. 1681.)
Parliaments have been wont to take up some space at the first Meetings to settle the House, and to determine of unlawful elections, and in this point they never had greater cause to be circumspect than at this time: For by an abuse lately crept in, there is introduced a custom, which, if it be not seen and prevented, will be a great derogation of the honour, and a weakening of the power of your House, where the law giveth a freedom to Corporations to elect Burgesses, and forbiddeth any indirect course to be taken in their Elections, many of the Corporations are so base-minded and timorous, that they will not hazard the indignation of a Lord Lieutenant’s letter, who, under-hand, sticks not to threaten them, if he hath not the Election of the Burgesses, and not they themselves.
And commonly those that the Lords recommend are such as desire it for protection, or are so ignorant of the place they serve for, as that there being occasion to speak of the Corporation for which they are chosen, they have asked their neighbours sitting by, whether it were a sea or a land town?
The next thing that is required is Liberty of Speech, without which Parliaments have little force or power; speech begets doubts, and resolves them; and doubts in speeches beget understanding; he that doubts much, asketh often, and learns much; and he that fears the worst, soonest prevents a mischief.
This privilege of speech is anciently granted by the testimony of Philip Cominus, a stranger,[24] who prefers our parliaments, and the freedom of the subject in them, above all other Assemblies; which Freedom, if it be broken or diminished, is negligently lost since the days of Cominus.
If Freedom of Speech should be prohibited, when men with modesty make repetition of the grievances and enormities of the kingdom; when men shall desire Reformation of the wrongs and injuries committed, and have no relation of evil thoughts to his Majesty, but with open heart and zeal, express their dutiful and reverent respect to him and his service; I say, if this kind of Liberty of Speech be not allowed in time of Parliaments, they will extend no farther than to Quarter-Sessions, and their Meetings and Assemblies will be unnecessary, for all means of disorder now crept in, and all remedies and redresses will be quite taken away.
As it is no manners to contest with the King in his Election of his Councillors and servants (for Kings obey no men, but their laws), so it were a great negligence, and part of Treason, for a subject not to be free in speech against the abuses, wrongs, and offences that may be occasioned by Persons in authority. What remedy can be expected from a prince to a subject, if the enormities of the kingdom be concealed from him? or what King so religious and just in his own nature, that may not hazard the loss of the hearts of his subjects, without this Liberty of Speech in Parliament? For such is the misfortune of most princes, and such is the happiness of subjects where Kings’ affections are settled, and their loves so far transported to promote servants, as they only trust and credit what they shall inform.
In this case, what subject dares complain? or what subject dares contradict the words or actions of such a servant, if it be not warranted by Freedom of a Parliament, they speaking with humility? for nothing obtaineth favour with a King, so much as diligent obedience.
The surest and safest way betwixt the King and his people, which hath the least scandal of partiality, is, with indifference, and integrity, and sincerity, to examine the grievances of the Kingdom, without touching the person of any man, further than the cause giveth the occasion: for otherwise, you shall contest with him that hath the prince’s ears open to hearken to his enchanting tongue, he informs secretly, when you shall not be admitted to excuses, he will cast your deserved malice against him, to your contempt against the King; and so will make the prince the shield of his revenge.
These are the sinister practices of such servants to deceive their Sovereigns; when our grievances shall be authentically proved, and made manifest to the world by your pains to examine and freedom to speak. No prince can be so affectionate to a servant, or such an enemy to himself, as not to admit of this indifferent proceeding: if his services be allowable and good, they will appear with glory; if bad, your labour shall deserve thanks both of Prince and country.
When justice shall thus shine, people will be animated to serve their King with integrity; for they are naturally inclined to imitate their princes in good or bad.
If any man shall pervert this good meaning and motion of yours, and inform his Majesty, ’Tis a Derogation from his Honour to yield to his subjects upon Conditions, his Majesty shall have good cause to prove such men’s eyes malicious and unthankful, and thereby to disprove them in all their outer actions; for what can it lessen the reputation of a Prince whom the subject only and wholly obeyeth, that a Parliament which his Majesty doth acknowledge to be his highest Council, should advise him, and he follow the advice of such a Council? What dishonour rather were it to be advised and ruled by one Councillor alone, against whom there is just one exception taken of the whole Commonwealth?
Marcus Portio saith, that that Commonwealth is everlasting, where the Prince seeks to get obedience and love, and the subjects to gain the affection of the Prince; and that Kingdom is unhappy where their Prince is served out of ends and hope of reward, and hath no other assurance of them but their service.”
The substitution of Oxford, “the hot-bed of Toryism,” for Westminster as the place of assembly for what proved Charles II.’s last parliament, was violently opposed by the members, who naturally resented this royal manœuvre of cutting off the representatives from the protection of the citizens. A petition remonstrating against the change was presented by Essex and sixteen other Peers; this darkly set forth dangers to the Crown, and reminded the king of the disasters which had always followed similar departures from the rule of London parliaments. Charles frowned, but took no heed. The parliament, forced into submission, attended at Oxford, Shaftesbury and other adherents taking with them a body-guard of armed retainers, citizens of London, wearing the Association green ribbons, with the legend, “No Popery: no Slavery!”
“Who was ’t gave out, that a thousand Watermen
Had all conspir’d to Petition, when
The parliament to Oxford were conven’d,
That they might sit at Westminster for them;
But ne’er were heard of more than Smith and Ben?[25]
Who was ’t endeavour’d all that preparations
To guard the City Members in their stations
To Oxford; which look’d far more Arbitrary
Than Forty-One, or absolute Old Harry.”
The doctors were dispossessed from their seats to make way for the legislators:—
“The safety of the King and ’s Royal Throne
Depends on those five hundred Kings alone.”
Parliament met March 21, 1681. Of its short existence of eight days, three were consumed in formalities, the choice of a Speaker, and other preliminaries. The course of the action of the members was predetermined. They were to insist on the banishment and exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession. The impeachment was to be proceeded with of Fitz-Harris, who was imprisoned and awaiting trial, on an information of Everard, for being the author of a treasonable libel; it was understood, or at least expected, that the Duchess of Portsmouth and others of the Court would be implicated in his confession. The Lords voted that he should be proceeded against at Common Law, by which decision the Commons were craftily involved in a struggle for privilege and power with the Peers, who were also less impatient than themselves to carry the Exclusion Bill, the Lower House resolving that “it is the undoubted right of the Commons in parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in parliament any Peer or Commoner for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour; and that the refusal of the Lords to proceed in parliament upon such impeachment is a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution.”[26]
This squabble between the two branches of the legislature exactly answered the king’s occasions; he made this a pretence for again dissolving the parliament, thus saving his brother and the Duchess of Portsmouth from the designs of the Commons. As it was, Charles coolly dismissed them as impracticable and useless, telling them, “he perceived there were great heats between the Lords and Commons, and their beginnings had been such as he could expect no good success of this parliament, and therefore thought fit to dissolve them.” This was on the 28th of March. On this point the Rev. J. W. Ebsworth, M.A., who has edited the “Bagford Ballads,” which illustrate the last years of the Stuarts, remarks—
“Had they been in London, there can be no doubt they would have resisted, calling the City to support them, and voted themselves permanent, to the defiance of the King and a commencement of civil war. He saw their plan, and conquered them.”
It was the lesson of “forty-one” to be taught again, as was prophetically hinted by “the ghost of the late Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford.” In reference to the tyranny of the Commons, as opposed to the absolutism of the Crown, we find a Loyal Poem, entitled—
“THE PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED AT OXFORD.
March 28, 1681.
“Under five hundred kings Three Kingdoms grone:
Go, Finch,[27] Dissolve them, Charles is on the throne,
And by the grace of God, will reign alone.
“The Presbyterians, sick of too much freedom,
Are ripe for Bethle’m, it’s high time to bleed ’em,
The Second Charles does neither fear nor need ’em.
“I’ll have the world know that I can dissipate
Those Impolitick Mushrooms of our State,
’Tis easier to dissolve than to create.
“They shan’t cramp Justice with their feigned flaws;
For since I govern only by the Laws, (!)
Why they should be exempt, I see no cause.”
The actual “Oxford Poem” in the Bagford Collection is addressed:—
“ON PARLIAMENT REMOVING FROM LONDON TO OXFORD.
“You London lads be merry,
Your Parliament friends have gone
That made us all so sorry
And would not leave us alone.”
“THE WHIGS’ DOWNFALL.
“To perfect which, they made their choice
Of parliaments of late,
Of members that had nought but voice,
And Megrims in their pate.
Wi Williams he the Speaker was,
And is’t not wondrous strange;
The reason’s plain, he told it was,
Because they would not change;
He told you truth, nor think it strange;
He knew well their intent,
They never meant themselves to change,
But change the Government.
For now cry they ‘The King’s so poor,
He dares not with us part;
And therefore we most loyally
Will break his royal heart.’”
For a fine, ancient, divine-right-of-kings effusion commend us to the following full-flavoured High Tory manifesto:—
“TO MR. E. L. ON HIS MAJESTY’S DISSOLVING THE LATE PARLIAMENT AT OXFORD.
“An Atheist now must a Monster be,
Of strange gigantic birth
His omnipotence does let all men see,
That our King’s a God on earth.
“Fiat, says he, by proclamation,
And the parliament is created:
He repents of his work, the Dissolution
Makes all annihilated.
“We Scholars were expell’d awhile,
To let the Senators in;
But they behav’d themselves as vile,
So we return again:
“And wonder to see our Geometry School
All round about be-seated,
Though there’s no need of an Euclid’s rule
To demonstrate ’em all defeated.
“The Commons their Voting Problems would
In Riddles so involve,
That what the Peers scarce understood,
The King was forc’d to solve.
“The Commons for a good omen chose
An old consulting station:
Being glad to dispossess their foes
O th’ House of Convocation.
“So Statesmen like poor scholars be,
For near the usual place
They stood, we know, for a great Degree,
But the King deny’d their Grace.
“Though sure he must his reason give,
And charge them of some crime:
Or else by course they’ll have reprieve
For this is the Third time.
“It was because they did begin,
With insolent behaviour:
And who should expiate their sin
The King himself’s no Saviour.
“Their faults grew to a bulk so high,
As mercy did fore-stall:
So Charter forfeited thereby,
They must like Adam fall.
“It is resolv’d the Duke shall fail
A Sceptre to inherit:
Nor right nor desert shall prevail,
’Tis Popish to plead merit.
“Let the King respect the Duke his brother,
And keep affection still,
As duly to the Church his mother:
In both they’ll cross his will.
“They would Dissenters harmless save,
And penalties repeal;
As if they’d humour thieves, who crave
A liberty to steal.
“Thus he that does a pardon lack
For Treason damn’d to dy.
They’d tempt, poor man, to save his neck,
By adding perjury.[28]
“The Nobles threw th’ Impeachment out[29]
Because, no doubt, they saw
’Twas best to bring his cause about,
But not to th’ Commons Law.
“But hence ’twas plaguily suspected,
Nay, ’tis resolv’d by vote,
That th’ Lords are popishly affected,
And stiflers of the plot.
“The Commons’ courage can’t endure
To be affronted thus:
So, for the future to be sure,
They’ll be the Upper House.
“But by such feverish malady,
Their strength so soon was spent
That punning wits no doubt will cry—
Oh, Weeked Parliament!”
CHAPTER III.
PARLIAMENTS AND ELECTIONEERING UNDER JAMES II., WILLIAM III., AND QUEEN ANNE.
With the accession of James II. a fresh era of parliament commences. It was the first object of the newly proclaimed king to secure a liberal allowance, settled for life, such as would make him independent of “his faithful Commons.” His late brother having attempted to govern without that section of the legislature in which is vested the control of supplies, was, towards the close of his reign, getting to the end of his resources, derived from foreign pensions for the most part. Evelyn records that within a month of Charles’s death a parliament was summoned, and “great industry used to obtain elections which might promote the Court interest, most of the Corporations being now, by their new charters, empowered to make what return they pleased.” These liberties were, however, restored in the nature of bribes, the new charters granted by the Court being held as considerations for the election of such as were reckoned in the interests of that faction. Evelyn himself discloses this damaging fact: “It was reported that Lord Bath carried down with him into Cornwall no fewer than fifteen charters, so that some called him the ‘Prince Elector.’” This was an “electioneering job” on a gigantic scale, and the new parliament seems to have been returned on these corrupt principles where it was possible. On the same authority, we are enlightened concerning another piece of electioneering strategy, which proves that, as Praed has wittily told in verse, expediency has ever been proved the ruling policy on both sides. Under the 8th of April, 1685, the diary records—
“This day my brother of Wotton and Mr. Onslow were candidates for Surrey against Sir Adam Brown and my cousin Sir Edward Evelyn, and were circumvented in their election by a trick of the Sheriff’s,[30] taking advantage of my brother’s party going out of the small village of Leatherhead to seek shelter and lodging, the afternoon being tempestuous, proceeding to the election when they were gone, they expecting the next morning; whereas before and then they exceeded the other party by many hundreds, as I am assured. The Duke of Norfolk led Sir Edward Evelyn’s and Sir Adam Brown’s party. For this Parliament very mean and slight persons (some of them gentlemen’s servants, clerks, and persons neither of reputation nor interest) were set up; but the country would choose my brother whether he would or no, and he missed it by the trick above-mentioned. Sir Adam Brown was so deaf that he could not hear one word. Sir Edward Evelyn[31] was an honest gentleman, much in favour with his majesty.”
On the 22nd of May, 1685, the new king met his parliament (with his crown on his head), and the Commons being introduced to the House of Lords, read his speech, to the effect that he resolved to call a parliament from the moment of his brother’s decease, as the best means to settle all the concerns of the nation; that as he would invade no man’s property, so he would never depart from his own prerogative; and that as he would take care of their religion and property,—
“so he doubted not of suitable returns of his subjects’ duty and kindness, especially as to settling his revenues for life, for the many weighty necessities of government, which he would not suffer to be precarious; that some might possibly suggest that it were better to feed and supply him from time to time only, out of their inclination to frequent parliaments; but that that would be a very improper method to take with him, since the best way to engage him to meet oftener would be always to use him well, and therefore he expected their compliance speedily, that this session being but short, they might meet again to satisfaction;”
a speech which, in spite of its palpable duplicity, was received with acclamation by the House. “So soon as the Commons were returned, and had put themselves into a Grand Committee, they immediately put the question, and unanimously voted the revenue to his Majesty for life.” This ready subserviency is explained, as it transpires, from Evelyn’s account, that the new members were not all that could be desired:—
“Mr. Seymour made a bold speech against many of the elections; and would have had those members who (he pretended) were obnoxious, to withdraw, till they had cleared the matter of their being legally returned: but no one seconded him. The truth is, there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were universally censured, many of them being persons of no condition, or interest in the nation, or places for which they served, especially in Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk, etc., said to have been recommended by the Court, and from the effect of the new charters changing the electors, as in Lord Bath’s famous western tour, when that nobleman is said to have quietly put down the names of all the officers of the Guards into the charters of the Cornwall boroughs; whence Seymour told the House in his speech that if this was digested, they might introduce what religion and laws they pleased, and that though he never gave heed to the fears and jealousies of the people before, he was now really apprehensive of Popery.
“By the printed list of members, of 505 there did not appear to be above 135 who had been in former Parliaments, especially that lately held at Oxford.”
Under the same date, 1685, Burnet mentions that complaints came up from all parts of England of the injustice and violence used in elections.
James II. got on no better with his parliaments than his predecessor; on his abdication at the Revolution, a convention parliament was assembled, which ratified the late changes, and offered the sovereignty to William of Orange and Mary his consort. The political squibs upon this topic are not wanting in point:—
“ON THE CALLING OF A FREE PARLIAMENT.
January 15, 1668-9.
“A Parliament with one consent
Is all the cry o’ th’ nation,
Which now may be, since Popery
Is growing out of fashion.
The Belgic troops approach to Town,
The Oranges come pouring,
And all the Lords agree as one
To send the papists scouring.”
The Whigs, who had effected the Revolution which placed William III. on the throne, were now in the enjoyment of place and power, to the mortification of the discomfited Tories, whose vexation on the aspect of affairs, which gave them no prospect of a return to office, found expression in satirical attacks upon their more successful adversaries.
“THE WHIGS’ ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
“We who were never yet at quiet,
Lovers of Change, Disorder, Riot,
Old Sticklers for a Common-wealth,
(If you believe us) wish you Health,
A long, a safe, a prosperous Reign.
(The wicked Tories think we feign.)
We, who all Monarchy despise,
Hope to find favour in your eyes;
Think you a Protestant so hearty
As not to disoblige our Party,
And humbly beg, at any rate
To be Chief Ministers of State,
Or else your person we shall hate;
For tho’ Religion bears the name,
It’s GOVERNMENT is all our aim.
We’ll be as faithful and as just
As to Your Uncle, Charles the First;
Grant this request, your Cause we’ll own,
And ease the burden of the Crown;
Make it the easiest e’er was worn,
You’ll scarcely know you’ve any on.
But if (Great Sir) we find you slight us,
Ourselves can tell which way to Right us;
And, let you know, by sad disasters,
Tho’ you are Lord, yet we are Masters.
This truth you cannot choose but know,
We prov’d it sixty years ago;
Yet shall you find us now on Trial,
Your faithful subjects, OR WE LIE ALL!”
Disappointment, and a long spell of disfavour at Court, embittered the Tory wits, and lent a barb to those satirical shafts which they freely launched at their powerful opponents, the Whigs in office and in parliament.
“THE PATRIOTS. 1700.
“Your hours are choicely employ’d,
Your Petitions all lie on the Table.
With Funds insufficient
And Taxes deficient,
And Deponents innumerable.
For shame leave this wicked employment,
Reform both your manners and lives;
You were never sent out
To make such a rout,
Go home, and look after your wives.”
A poetic effusion, one of the relics of a parliamentary election in the reign of William III., was printed in 1701. It is entitled “The Election, a Poem,” and evidently describes an election for the city of London; the scene of the incident is the Guildhall, where the electoral struggle was fought out beneath the shelter of the civic guardians, Gog and Magog. This production, redolent of the savour of the seventeenth century, is interesting as displaying the nature of “election squibs” under an early guise. The poem opens with a brief introduction of the principal performers, and alludes to the scene of the contest.
“The day was come when all the folks in furs
From sables, ermines, to the skins of curs,
In great Augusta’s Hall each other rub’d
And made it but one common powd’ring tub;
Ne’er was that Hall so throng’d in days of yore,
Ne’er were there seen such numerous crowds before.
From end to end the warm Electors thrust,
And move like ants in heaps of straw and dust.
Each busy mortal does his forces rally,
And from one nook to t’other quarter sally.
So close they prest, with such inhuman twitches;
The Civit Hogo did arise from breeches,
Which thro’ the air increas’d into a breeze
Made e’en the mighty Giants cough and sneeze.
Here a fat spark could scarce his tallow save,
And there a fool was jostled by a knave.
Came to sweat out their venom ’gainst the State,
Old feuds revive, and mischiefs new create.”
The bard describes the “City Godmother,” an obsolete mistress, whose traditions were with the Tories of the past:—
“She saw the temper of the noisy Hall,
And wept the Churches’ stars that downwards fall.”
In vain does the antique beldame recall the “bad old times” of fanaticism and oppression (when in a former reign the civic charters were taken away perforce), and exhort the sympathies of the crowd to turn from Whiggism and embrace the abuses of the Stuarts:—
“Poor I, the city Sybil of renown,
Am disrespected by the nauseous Town:
Of Innovations daily I complain,
But, like Cassandra, prophesy in vain.”
Next comes the hustings:—
“When on the Rostra, as upon a stage,
The Candidates their partizans engage;
You’d think the Hall an Amphitheatre
And these the furious Gladiators were.”
The author first introduces the candidates who were obnoxious to him, and he certainly roasts them royally, and serves with a right pungent sauce. Priso, the first candidate to appear before the freeholders, had degraded himself as a tool of the late Court, and when in possession of the chair had basely surrendered the liberties of the city corporation.
“First Priso mounts the stage, and shows himself;
The crowd unanimous did hiss the elf,
And vow’d no Representative they’d have,
Who to a Tyrant their old Charter gave.”
Candidate number two, Child, was, it is hinted, in the interests of the “prince over the water,” whom he was hopeful of converting from popery.
“Next him an infant comes, a Babe of Grace,
And steps into his abdicated place,
Where from his throne he, lisping out aloud,
In words like these bespoke the noisy crowd.
‘You’re govern’d, sirs, but by uncommon rules,
If you elect such men as are not fools.
In hopes of this, this doubtful stage I enter,
And at much cost on an election venture.
I hope you’ve read the letter which I sent,
Design’d each silly sot to circumvent.
Tho’ I’m a Child,[32] my parts are come to age,
And for my sense the monied men engage:
Both kings and people have esteemed it fit,
That those who have most money have most wit.
Men they are pleas’d with great and manly toys,
But baubles are the true delight of boys.
I hate of Barons the renownèd Tales
And recommend you to the Prince of Wales.
Who in the Senate I will move to come
Into our Church from the curst See of Rome;
Where he shall hector like the Son of Priam,
And be as wise a Protestant as I am.’”
The sentiments put into the mouths of the candidates contain enlightenment upon city matters, as well as upon prominent citizens, both under the reign of William III. and his predecessors from the Restoration. Another candidate is thinly disguised under the nickname of “the Czar.” He is made to thus candidly address the “medley voting crowd:”—
“This City fam’d for Aldermen and Mayors,
The best intrusted with the public cares,
In former ages have obtained renown,
Great as the deeds our Ancestors have done.
I, tho’ of mean descent, and void of fame,
My ancestors obscure in birth and name,
By gold ennobl’d, am come here to serve ye
As once I did my master—that’s to starve ye.
E’er I a representative commence,
I’ll make confession here of all my sins;
I Judas first for my just pattern took,
Betray’d my master, and his cause forsook.
This made me rise, as other courtiers do,
T’ attempt high Crimes, and Villainies pursue.
Jemmy a special Banker had in me,
His coin lay safe as in his Treasury:
It was no cheat his money to purloin,
He knew not how, alas, to use his coin.
My breach of promise is so small a fault,
That no wise man can wonder at.
But that you might not of my wit complain,
I’ve been a cheat in every monarch’s reign.
When paper was equivalent to gold,
And paper-skulls their paper-credit sold,
I, by my cunning and my wise designing,
Soon got the modern art of paper-coining.”
The poetaster has nothing but good repute to shower on the late representatives of the city of London; he bids his Muse—
“Tell to Augusta’s sons, the worth disclose
Of those good patriots whom they lately chose.
In front of these the aged Clito place,
A better man did ne’er the City grace:
Generous and brave, and true in former time,
When Honesty was thought the highest crime.
He in the Oxford Senate bravely stood,
Like some tall tree, the Giant of the Wood,
O’ertopping all in courage and address,
Invaded-Rights and Freedoms to redress;
Brought in a Bill t’ exclude a Popish prince,
The want of which we have lamented since.
And when the Chair he did most justly fill,
And tempted was to serve a Tyrant’s will,
Would not his fellow-citizens disarm,
But boldly did withstand th’ impending storm.
He in the Senate sits unbrib’d, and knows
No cause—but where the common interest goes.
He, unconcern’d, the dangerous path doth tread,
Where Faction shakes its dire envenom’d head.”
Another favourite and patriotic candidate is “Asto,” who—
“early did his country’s cause embrace
And opposed villains even to their face.
The Charter he would not consent to yield,
But did defend it in th’ open field.
Gold never could his interest engage,
The common vice of this polluted age;
Whereby they villains into office vote,
Such as would cut their King’s and country’s throat.”
The other candidates—“friends to their country all,” according to the bard—are christened “Witho,” “Hethban,” and “Pastor.”
With the death of William III. the Tory prospects revived, and their attacks became bolder. In alluding to the accident which caused the king’s end, the party lyrists showed no compassion for “a fallen foe.”
“Let’s ’em mourn on, ’twould lessen much our woe
Had Sorrel stumbled thirteen years ago.”