A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 43

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 43

“The merchants of London, to the number of six or eight

hundred, amongst whom were Dutch, Jews, and any officious

tools that they could assemble, having signed one of those

servile panegyrics [addresses], set out in a long procession of

coaches, to carry it to St. James’s.”

 

The _modus operandi_ by which the address was promoted is fancifully

summed up in the plate of the _Oxford Magazine_, vol. ii., p. 134, “The

Principal Merchants and Traders assembled at the Merchant Seamen’s

Office, to sign ye Address.” This print represents a further stage in

the progress of the transaction. The _Public Advertiser_, March 11,

1769, announces, “For these two Days past, numbers of the Merchants

and principal Traders of London have attended at the Merchant Seamen’s

Office, over the Royal Exchange, in order to sign an Address to his

Majesty, etc.”

 

It is stated in the _Oxford Magazine_, “So eager were the ministers to

procure a long list of subscribers that, it is credibly reported, some

of the addresses of the then ‘City Merchants,’ were signed by cobblers,

porters, chairmen, livery-servants, and the very meanest of the rabble;

for as the number of hands was the chief point of view, they cared

but little of what rank or condition they were.” The caricaturist has

carried out this view of the signatories. The chairman or president is

a butcher, whose tray, containing a shoulder of mutton, is laid down

at his feet; he is filled with loyal frenzy, and, with his butcher’s

knife grasped ready for action, is exclaiming, “I shall stick my knife

in _Magna Charta_, and cut up the carcase of the Bill of Rights.” A

porter, with his knot, is anathematizing Wilkes’s “swivel eyes,” and

wishing he “may sink under his load.” The petition is being signed by

a barber, with his bowl under his arm, together with an aldermanic wig

just ordered: “Ah, I’ve got an order for a new wig, only for signing

my name.” A Scotch pedlar, with pack and staff, one of Lord Bute’s

followers, declares, “Sawney mun sign too, gin it be to the De’il, for

my guid laird’s sake.” A journeyman baker, with a basketful of loaves

on his back, is coming in succession, well paid for his assistance:

“Brother Merchants, follow my example, and you’ll never want bread;”

and even a sooty chimney-sweep has expectations of ministerial

patronage, “Who knows but I may be appointed to a Chimney at Court?”

Prominent among those at the table whereon is the much-denounced

“Address,” is a Jew money-jobber, who is elated at his prospects of

a Treasury “job,” “Oh! for a large portion of scrip!” and the Dutch

stockbroker, Van Scrip, is exclaiming, “Ah! de gross Scrip for Mynheer

too,”--the subscription scrip to government loans, profitable to those

who secured preference allotments, and, as described, alleged to be

manipulated by the ministry in the nature of bribery.

 

The strictures provoked upon the underhand methods by which these

addresses were forced upon the public are exemplified in an “Epistle

to the _North Briton_,” which appeared in the _Oxford Magazine_, to

accompany the engraving of the “Addressing Merchants.” The epistle is

lengthy, and we have only room for the opening passages. It is possibly

written by the “Brentford Parson;” indeed, the manner as well as matter

indicates the authorship suggested. The motto is given, “There is

nothing new under the sun” (_Eccles._ i. 9)--

 

“And so, sir, what you have often foretold is at last come to

pass. We are fairly fallen back into the very dregs of the

Stuart reigns. The party of _Abhorrers_ is once more revived;

of those _Abhorrers_, who, in the reign of King Charles the

Second, expressed their detestation of all the patriotic and

public spirited, as I would say--but, as they were pleased

to call them, the factious and insolent petitions that were

presented to the king for assembling a parliament, and for

securing the other rights and liberties of the People.

 

“That such wretches should have existed at a time when the

Sovereign claimed, and many of his subjects were willing to

allow him, a divine, indefeasible, hereditary right to play the

tyrant, and to destroy the constitution is nothing strange; but

that any such should be found in the reign of a prince, whose

family was advanced to the throne in direct contradiction to

this absurd principle, would be really surprising, did we not

know that human nature is always the same, and that though the

seeds of slavery may be smothered for a time, yet whenever

they meet with the vivifying influence of court sunshine, they

immediately begin to quicken, and to spring up with vigour. And

never, sure, did these seeds meet with a more fertile soil,

or a more benign sky, than under the present arbitrary and

despotic administration, when every man is sure to be rewarded

in exact proportion to the servility of his character.

 

“In this respect, indeed, the present ministers have greatly

the advantage of all that have gone before them; for I do

not remember a single compliment paid to the _Abhorrers_, in

the reign of King Charles the Second, except the honour of

knighthood conferred upon Francis Withers, Esq., who procured

and presented the Address from the City of Westminster. But

how much more grateful and generous have been our present

ministers! They have made the late chief City Magistrate a

Privy Councillor, and have given him a contract with government

for clothing soldiers, worth £1000 per annum. They have

pardoned the murderers MacLaughlin, Balfe, and McQuirk, and

have even granted them pensions. This, say the ministry, is

only supporting their friends; but, if murderers be their

friends, I believe few people will envy them the credit of such

a connection.

 

“Some of the addresses in the reign of the Stuarts breathed a

very free and independent spirit. That of the Quakers, upon the

accession of King James the Second, may serve as an instance.

It was conceived in the following terms:--

 

“‘We come,’ said they, ‘to testify our sorrow for the death of

our good friend Charles, and our joy for thy being made our

governor. We are told thou art not of the persuasion of the

Church of England, no more than we; wherefore we hope thou wilt

grant us the same liberty which thou allowest thyself. Which

doing, we wish thee all manner of happiness.’

 

“There we see the Quakers, with their usual plainness and

simplicity, very roundly tell his majesty, that he was not a

member of the church of England; a circumstance, which was

then thought by many, and hath since been declared by law, to

be sufficient to disqualify him for wearing the crown of these

Kingdoms.

 

“But how much more courtly and polite is the language of our

present Addressers. They not only pay the highest compliments

to the King, which he certainly deserves, they even offer

the most nauseous and fulsome flattery to his ministers and

servants, and express their entire approbation of every part

of their conduct. They must therefore approve of the robbery

committed upon the Duke of Portland, of the massacre in St.

George’s Fields, of the riot and murders at Brentford, of

withdrawing MacLaughlin from the cognizance of the laws, and of

pardoning Balfe and McQuirk after they had been fairly tried

and condemned by their country.

 

“But, not satisfied with declaring their approbation of the

conduct of the ministry, they express their utter abhorrence

and detestation of the conduct of those who have had the

presumption to oppose them. They must, therefore, _abhor_ the

conduct of the Freeholders of Middlesex, who chose Mr. Wilkes

and Mr. Serjeant Glynn, their representatives in parliament,

in spite of all the violent, outrageous, and illegal attempts

which the ministry made to prevent them. They must _abhor_

the conduct of the 139 independent members who voted against

the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes from an august assembly, of

which they form the respectable, and perhaps even the most

wealthy, tho’ not the most numerous part. They must _abhor_

the conduct of the Citizens of London, of the Citizens of

Westminster, of the Freeholders of Middlesex, and of all the

other counties and corporations, who, in their instructions to

their representatives, have disapproved of those very measures

which the Addressers approve. In a word, they must abhor the

conduct, at least the sentiments, of ninety-nine parts in a

hundred of the people of England, who, if taken separately, and

fairly interrogated, would be found to entertain opinions very

different from those of the Addressers.”

 

The “Battle of Cornhill,” otherwise the fight for the signatures to the

servile loyal address as already described, was followed by another

stage in the contest, an attempt to carry the address in state through

the city, the procession being stopped by a conflict in Fleet Street,

of which turbulent episode a caricature appeared, March 22, 1769, under

the title of the “Battle of Temple Bar.” The engraving offers a vista

of Fleet Street; the Devil Tavern, the arched entrance to the Temple,

and Nando’s Coffee-house are shown to the right; the gates of the bar

are closed, and around is a scene of confused conflict. The decapitated

heads of Fletcher and Townley, stuck on poles over Temple Bar, are

represented in conversation. The Jacobites executed for their share in

the Scottish raid of 1745 are inquiring whether the Addressers are not

“friends to the cause which we all love so dear,” and which had planted

their heads on the bar over twenty years before. A carriage, drawn by

two horses, is the centre of the struggle; the coachman is observing

“They all seem in a fair way;” the rabble are pelting the vehicle,