A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 32

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 32

“E’en by the elements his power confessed,

Of mines and boroughs Lonsdale stands possessed;

And one sad servitude alike denotes

The slaves that labour and the slave that votes.”

 

(_Rolliad._)]

 

The political clubs renewed their clamours for a more extended system

of representation freed from corruption, and protested against Pitt’s

new enactments; the London Corresponding Society called another public

meeting, at which the premier is said to have shown symptoms of alarm.

Gillray’s engraving of a meeting of “Patriotic Citizens at Copenhagen

House,” November 16, 1795, satirizes the order of agitators and their

disciples as the dregs of the people, which he represents them to be.

This demonstration, which was largely attended, was held to protest

against the “Seditions Bill” for the protection of the king’s person,

for which, it was argued, ample provisions were already legalized.

Petitions to both Houses were prepared, and remonstrances numerously

signed.

 

This situation is embodied in the picture of the assembly. The orator,

Thelwall, is holding forth to an audience which is more picturesque

than distinguished. Platforms are arranged at intervals as rostrums

for the speakers, at one of which a butcher is enlarging on “The

Rights of Citizens.” The proprietress of a halfpenny gaming-table has

labelled it, “Equality and no Sedition Bill.” An emissary of Thelwall’s

is offering the remonstrance to sweep-boys for signature; and the

autographs attached thereto, though notorious, are hardly such as to

command the respect of parliament--“Jack Cade, Wat Tyler, Jack Straw,

etc.”

 

After the elections of 1784 parliament was entirely in the control of

Pitt. It met, wrote Horace Walpole, “as quietly as a Quarter Session,”

the opposition seemed quelled, or driven to despair.

 

The meeting at Copenhagen House failed to accomplish its purpose,

and further protests were entered against the Seditions Bill “for

the better protection of the king’s person,” which was carried in

the House by large majorities; this repressive measure provided that

no gathering exceeding fifty persons should take place, even in a

private house, without previous information had been laid before a

magistrate, who might attend, and, if he saw cause, order the meeting

to disperse, while those who resisted would be guilty of felony. In

the face of such unconstitutional interference, fresh hostility sprang

up throughout the land; and there being anticipations of an appeal

to the country, the opposition endeavoured to present a bold front

before the constituencies in view of that event; one of these meetings

was summoned by the Sheriff of Middlesex, inviting the freeholders to

assemble at the Mermaid, Hackney; this gathering has been commemorated

by Gillray. The object of the meeting was to obtain a repeal of the

obnoxious Seditions Bill, which, as the artist shows, the Whig member,

George Byng, is vigorously denouncing from the platform; it was at

the same time proposed to prepare an “Address to the King,” and Mr.

Mainwaring, the ministerial representative, is, with Jesuitical

__EXPRESSION__, deprecating hostility both to the Government and to their

oppressive legislation, Fox is holding the hat of his oratorical

disciple, Byng. It was on this occasion that the sturdy Duke of

Norfolk, who raised the royal ire by proposing as a toast in a public

assembly, “The Majesty of the People,” took occasion to warn those who

valued the liberty of the subject that they must not be misled by the

specious titles of the bill.

 

[Illustration: MEETING OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS AT COPENHAGEN HOUSE,

1795. SPEAKERS: THELWALL, GALE JONES, HODSON, AND JOHN BINNS. BY JAMES

GILLRAY.

 

“I tell you, Citizens, we mean to new dress the Constitution, and turn

it, and set a new Nap upon it.”

 

[_Page 298._]

 

[Illustration: AT HACKNEY MEETING--FOX, BYNG, AND MAINWARING. BY JAMES

GILLRAY.]

 

“I daresay,” he observed, “if the High Priest of the Spanish

Inquisition was to come among us to introduce his system of

inquisition here, he would call it an act for the better

support and protection of religion; but we have understandings,

and are not to be deceived in this way.”

 

Mainwaring stated in the House that the meeting had been most

respectably attended, and that the requisition had been signed by three

dukes, one marquis, two earls, and several freeholders.

 

As we have seen, in describing the elections of 1784, the results

of which ended for a while all the prospects of the Whigs, William

Pitt was called to office in the face of an unmanageable opposition,

and almost in contravention of the voice of parliament; the youthful

premier’s bold resort to dissolution, with his energetic election

tactics, disembarrassed him of the troublesome majority, and placed at

his disposal a perfectly docile House. The progress of our relations

with France, and many unpopular and stringent measures, like the

Seditions Bill, had revived antagonism, and every fresh legislation

which encroached on the rights of the people weakened the Government

influence. Pitt, anticipating the struggle, boldly resorted to his old

policy, and the intention of dissolving parliament was announced in the

speech from the throne. Gillray, whose admirable caricatures illustrate

the leading political events from 1782 to 1810, has epitomized the

situation as “The Dissolution, or the Alchymist Procuring an Ætherial

Representation,” May 21, 1796. Pitt is seated on the model of his new

barracks; the transmutation is carried out from the premier’s recipe,

“Antidotus Republica;” Treasury coals, _i.e._ golden pieces, feed

the furnace; the breeze is raised by the Crown as a bellows; the old

House of Commons, seen in the alembic, shows a few tenants, such as

Fox and Sheridan, left on the opposition benches, but all is rapidly

dissolving into a new chamber, where the alchemist is enthroned as

“Perpetual Dictator,” “Magna Charta” and “Parliamentary Rights” become

his foot-stools, and adulation of the most slavish order is offered up

by the members of the newly constituted and subservient Commons.

 

Maidstone, for which Benjamin D’Israeli took his seat in 1837, has

been the scene of many severe and exceptionally costly contests.

At the general election, 1796, the defeated candidate, Christopher

Hull, is reported to have polled the greatest number of single votes

ever tendered for that constituency, he having expended three thousand

pounds in about seven hours. This heavy outlay proved fruitless, as Mr.

Hull stood last on the list; but attempting to make a merit of this

liberal use of money, the reputation of which he hoped might serve

for a future occasion, the incipient “electioneerer” was assured by

his friends “he must start on fresh grounds, as the present would be

considered as nothing more than electioneering experience.”

 

[Illustration: THE DISSOLUTION; OR, THE ALCHYMIST PRODUCING AN ÆTHERIAL

REPRESENTATION. WILLIAM PITT DISSOLVING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1796. BY

JAMES GILLRAY.

 

[_Page 300._]

 

[Illustration: THE HUSTINGS--COVENT GARDEN. 1796. BY JAMES GILLRAY.

 

VOX POPULI.--“We’ll have a mug.”--_Mayor of Garratt._

 

CHARLES JAMES FOX.--_Loq._ “Ever guardian of your most

sacred rights, I have opposed the ‘Pewter Pot Bill!’” #/ ]

 

The general election of 1796 was less fruitful in incidents than its

predecessor in 1790. The celebrated philologist, John Horne Tooke,

endeavoured to gain the second seat, as the colleague of the great

Whig chief. On this occasion “the Brentford parson” secured, though

unsuccessful, a larger number of votes; Fox was returned at the

head of the poll, and Sir A. Gardner was second. Gillray has left a

characteristic likeness of the Whig chief, very “spick and span,”

deferentially bowing from “The Hustings,” in acknowledgment of the

ribald, if popular, reception his admirers are according their old

“true blue” member for Westminster. Fox is pressing to his heart, in

parody of another measure, the “Pewter Pot Bill.” “Ever guardian of

your most sacred rights, I have opposed the Pewter Pot Bill.” His

audience is filled with enthusiasm. As an allusion to Fox’s supposed

sympathies with events then proceeding in France--the pot-boy of “The

Tree of Liberty,” Petty France, is offering a foaming measure to the

well-tried patriot and popular representative.

 

[Illustration: THE FRIEND OF HUMANITY AND THE KNIFE-GRINDER.]

 

The well-known “Friend of Humanity and the Knife-Grinder,” one of

the most spirited poetical squibs, which first appeared in the

_Anti-Jacobin_, was reprinted as a broadside for electioneering

purposes, with a no less spirited plate, by Gillray, as a heading; and

dedicated “To the Independent Electors of the Borough of Southwark,”

of which constituency Tierney--whose person was figured as “the Friend

of Humanity”--was the representative in parliament. Canning’s admirable

parody was founded upon Southey’s poem, “The Widow,” and written in

English sapphics, in imitation of the original.

 

 

“FRIEND OF HUMANITY.

 

“Needy knife-grinder! whither are you going?

Rough is the road; your wheel is out of order--

Bleak blows the blast--your hat has got a hole in’t,

So have your breeches!

 

 

“Weary knife-grinder! little think the proud ones,

Who in their coaches roll along the turnpike

Road, what hard work ’tis crying all day, ‘Knives

And scissors to grind, O!’

 

“Tell me, knife-grinder, how you came to grind knives?

Did some rich man tyrannically use you?

Was it the squire? or parson of the parish?

Or the Attorney?

 

“Was it the squire for killing his game? or

Covetous parson for his tithes distraining?

Or roguish lawyer made you lose your little