A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 54

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 54

One of the most animated pictures which can be found of the humours of

canvassing is that drawn from life by William Cowper, at the time the

poet’s mind was influenced to cheerfulness by the company of the lively

Lady Austen, who, with the more gravely solicitous Mrs. Unwin, made

Olney an halcyon abode. The year the “Task” was published, and while

Cowper was touching up his spirited ballad of “John Gilpin,” he has

set down the visit of an aspiring young senator, no less than Pitt’s

cousin, Mr. W. W. Grenville, who, with a retinue of zealous supporters

at his tail, quite “without your leave,” bursts upon the poet’s

retirement in pursuit of suffrages; this was at the general election of

1784:--

 

“As, when the sea is uncommonly agitated, the water finds

its way into creeks and holes of rocks, which, in its calmer

state, it never reaches; in like manner, the effect of these

turbulent times is felt even at Orchard Side, where in general

we live as undisturbed by the political element as shrimps or

cockles that have been accidentally deposited in some hollow

beyond the water-mark by the usual dashing of the waves. We

were sitting yesterday after dinner, the two ladies and myself,

very composedly, and without the least apprehension of any

such intrusion, in our snug parlour; one lady knitting, the

other netting, and the gentleman winding worsted, when, to

our unspeakable surprise, a mob appeared before the window,

a smart rap was heard at the door, the boys halloed, and the

maid announced Mr. Grenville. ‘Puss’ [Cowper’s tame hare] was

unfortunately let out of her box, so that the candidate, with

all his good friends at his heels, was refused admission at the

grand entry, and referred to the back door as the only possible

way of approach. Candidates are not creatures to be very

susceptible of affronts, and would rather, I suppose, climb in

at the window than be absolutely excluded. In a minute, the

yard, the kitchen, and the parlour were filled. Mr. Grenville,

advancing towards me, shook me by the hand with a degree of

cordiality that was extremely seducing. As soon as he, and as

many more as could find chairs, were seated, he began to open

the intent of his visit. I told him I had no vote, for which

he readily gave me credit. I assured him I had no influence,

which he was not equally inclined to believe, and the less, no

doubt, because Mr. Ashburner, the draper, addressing himself

to me at this moment, informed me that I had a great deal.

Supposing that I could not be possessed of such a treasure

without knowing it, I ventured my first assertion by saying

that, if I had any, I was utterly at a loss to imagine where it

could be, or wherein it consisted. Thus ended the conference.

Mr. Grenville squeezed me by the hand again, kissed the ladies

and withdrew. He kissed likewise the maid in the kitchen, and

seemed, upon the whole, a most loving, kissing, kind-hearted

gentleman. He is very young, genteel, and handsome. He has a

pair of very good eyes in his head, which not being sufficient,

as it should seem, for the many nice and difficult purposes

of a senator, he has a third also, which he wore suspended by

a riband from his button-hole. The boys hallooed, the dogs

barked, ‘Puss’ scampered, the hero with his long train of

obsequious followers withdrew. We made ourselves very merry

with the adventure, and, in a short time, settled into our

former tranquillity, never probably to be thus interrupted

more.”

 

It may be added that this persuasive young politician, W. W. Grenville,

succeeded in securing his return at the top of the poll for the county

of Buckinghamshire in 1784, as Pitt wrote to James Grenville (Lord

Glastonbury)--“William was safe.”

 

[Illustration: A MOB-REFORMER. 1780.]

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER X.

 

THE GREAT WESTMINSTER ELECTION OF 1784.

 

 

The excitement caused by Wilkes’s election for Middlesex in 1768

was forgotten in the great Westminster contest of 1784. Although on

each occasion the conflicts were in opposition to those ministerial

interests which enlisted the Crown, the courtiers, and the following

of placemen, state pensioners, with both branches of the service upon

the Tory side in antagonism to popular rights and the freedom of

election, in both instances of overstrained influence the Government

had to submit to the mortification of defeat. The circumstances

preceding the Westminster election were exceptional. The Fox and North

Coalition Administration had, by an overstrained exercise of the royal

prerogative, through a “back-stair” Court intrigue, and by defiantly

unconstitutional means on the part of the king, lost their hold on

power, temporarily--as they then supposed--but, as subsequent events

proved, beyond recall.

 

Fox had introduced his vast measure of reform for the reconstitution of

our Eastern Empire. Passed by the majority commanded by the Coalition

Ministry in the Commons, the Bill was--in direct deference to the

king’s written instructions, freely heralded about--thrown out on the

second reading in the Lords. Fox was feared by the king and the East

India Company alike; it was apprehended that the great “Carlo Khan”

was but beginning the work of revolution, and that all charters would

be in equal jeopardy if that of the East India House was allowed to

be revised. The wealth of the company was put into requisition to hurl

from power the ministers who dared to legislate for the administration

of the huge empire confided to their government; and the king chiefly

aimed at the dismissal of the great Whig chief, against whom an

unreasonable prejudice long continued to exist in the royal mind. On

Fox’s defeat it was left to Lord Temple to constitute an administration

which should satisfy the king; but although this juncture brought

William Pitt to the front, it was found impossible to carry on the

business of the country, the ministry, too weak to divide, being beaten

on every measure introduced by their rivals; finally, the opposition

majority carried the following damaging resolution by nineteen votes:--

 

“That it is the opinion of this House that the continuance of

the present ministry in power is an obstacle to the formation

of such an administration as is likely to have the confidence

of this House and the people.”

 

An address to the king in the same spirit was passed, and similar

motions and addresses were repeated until parliament was prorogued with

a discontented speech from the throne, and it was dissolved on the day

following, March 25, 1874; thus ending for the time this threatening

contest between the Crown and the most important part of the

legislature, and transferring the arena of conflict to the hustings.

By the royal will, Pitt, though only in his twenty-fifth year, was

established as Prime Minister of England, uniting in himself the

offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer;

his colleagues being those already known as “the king’s friends,” or

youthful aspirants to power willing to tread in their steps. At the

elections, the opposition laboured under the disadvantage of leaving

the patronage of administration in the hands of their antagonists,

and though the contests were obstinate, the Court influence and the

king’s name, which was used openly in defiance of the privileges

of parliament, secured a majority of seats at once, confirming the

apprehensions of the Whig party, and fixing Pitt in security at the

pinnacle of power. Horace Walpole has pictured the feelings of the

day:--

 

“The Court struck a blow at the Ministers, but it was the gold

of the East India Company, that nest of monsters (which Fox’s

Bill was to demolish), that really conjured up the storm, and

has diffused it all over England. On the other hand Mr. Pitt

has braved the majority of the House of Commons, has dissolved

the existent one, and, I doubt, given a wound to that branch

of the legislature, which, if the tide does not turn, may be

very fatal to the constitution. The nation is intoxicated, and

has poured in addresses of thanks to the Crown for exerting

the prerogative _against_ the palladium of the people. The

first consequence will probably be, that the Court will have a

considerable majority upon the new Elections.”

 

The aversion to the late Coalition Ministry was turned to account by

the Court; the elections showed the opposition, so strong before the

dissolution, in a woeful minority; the great Whig families, Horace

Walpole wrote--

 

“have lost all credit in their own counties; nay, have been

tricked out of seats where the whole property was their own;

and, in some of those cases, a _Royal_ finger has too evidently

tampered, as well as singularly and revengefully towards Lord

North and Lord Hertford.... Such a proscription, however, must

have sown so deep resentment as it was not wise to provoke,

considering that permanent fortune is a jewel that in no Crown

is the most to be depended upon.”

 

The Westminster election of 1784 was an event of importance in the

political history of the last century; it was the only serious check

that the Court encountered in the attempt to return a subservient House

of Commons; and circumstances combined to render it the most remarkable

struggle of the kind that has been witnessed. The metropolis was kept

in a state of ebullition for weeks; the poll was opened on April

1st, and continued without intermission until May 17th. During this

time, Covent Garden and the Strand were the scenes of daily combats

between the rival mobs; the papers were filled with squibs of the most

personal nature, according to their respective sides in politics, and

hundreds of pictorial satires appeared on every incident, and embodying

all the successive stages of the struggle. Rowlandson, who entered

with spirit into the contest, chiefly in the Foxite interests, alone

produced on an average a fresh caricature every day; the best of these

are reproduced in the life of the caricaturist, and a selection of

these subjects, from the work in question, are given among the present

illustrations of the subject. The representatives of Westminster in the

previous parliament were Fox and Sir Brydges Rodney. Sir Cecil Wray,

lately a follower of the Whig party, had been nominated for the last

parliament by the Whig chief, but on this occasion Wray ungratefully

deserted his political leader, and was put forward as the ministerial

nominee. The king and Court had resolved to exert every influence to

cause Fox’s defeat on personal grounds. Admiral Lord Hood was also a

Court candidate, but it was Wray who was more especially held forth

as the antagonist of the “Man of the People.” The political apostate

was stigmatized as “Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his master.” Other

charges against him were certain proposals he is said to have made

for the suppression of Chelsea Hospital and a project for a tax upon

maid-servants; to these were added the general cries against his

supporters of attempting an undue elevation of the prerogative, and

also against the prevalent “back-stair” influence.