A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 53

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 53

“Lincoln’s Inn, Thursday Night, Nov., 1780.

 

“MY DEAR MOTHER,

 

“I can now inform you that I have seen Sir James Lowther, who

has repeated to me the offer he had before made, and in the

handsomest manner. Judging from my father’s principles, he

concludes that mine would be agreeable to his own, and on that

ground--to me of all others the most agreeable--to bring me

in. No kind of condition was mentioned, but that if ever our

lines of conduct should become opposite, I should give him

an opportunity of choosing another person. On such liberal

terms I could certainly not hesitate to accept the proposal,

than which nothing could be in any respect more agreeable.

Appleby is the place I am to represent, and the election will

be made (probably in a week or ten days) without my having any

trouble, or even visiting my constituents. I shall be in time

to be spectator and auditor _at least_ of the important scene

after the holidays. I would not defer confirming to you this

intelligence, which I believe you will not be sorry to hear.”

 

It is added (Dec. 7, 1780),--

 

“I have not yet received the notification of my election. It

will probably not take place till the end of this week, as Sir

James Lowther was to settle an election at Haslemere before

he went into the north, and meant to be present at Appleby

afterwards. The parliament adjourned yesterday, so I shall not

take my seat till after the holidays.”

 

This confidence discloses that such a thing as a contest, let alone a

defeat, was not for a moment entertained.

 

“I propose before long, in spite of politics, to make an

excursion for a short time to Lord Westmoreland’s (Althorp,

Northamptonshire), and shall probably look at my constituents

that should have been, at Cambridge, in my way.”

 

About three years later, William Pitt, by that time the most

conspicuous statesman of his day, and already prime minister of

England by the royal will, on the downfall of the coalition, realized

his former ambition, and he offered himself successfully for the

University of Cambridge. In order to enter for this distinction, Pitt

had declined two seats, voluntarily placed at his disposal: when the

war-cry arose from the hustings throughout the kingdom, he was put in

nomination, without either his knowledge or consent, for the city of

London, as usual the first election in point of time; the show of hands

was declared to be in the young statesman’s favour, but when apprised

of the fact he declined the poll. Such were the honours heaped upon

this proud juvenile premier, that he was constantly refusing favours

solicitously placed at his acceptance.

 

“He was pressed,” says Earl Stanhope, “to stand for several

other cities and towns, more especially for the city of Bath,

which his father had represented, and the king was vexed at his

refusal of this offer. But the choice of Pitt was already made.

He had determined, as we have seen, to offer himself for the

University of Cambridge.”

 

He held at this time all the state patronage, and, moreover, with the

king at his back, he meant mischief to the members of the ministry

recently displaced from power by his royal master; and was about to

trust to his faculties and the reserve forces he could command for a

great electioneering campaign. He found time to write to his friend in

Yorkshire:--

 

“DEAR WILBERFORCE,

 

“Parliament will be prorogued to-day and dissolved to-morrow.

The latter operation has been in some danger of delay by a

curious manœuvre, that of stealing the Great Seal last night

from the Chancellor’s, but we shall have a new one ready in

time. I send you a copy of the Speech which will be made in two

hours from the Throne. You may speak of it in the past tense,

instead of in the _future_.... I am told Sir Robert Hildyard

is the right candidate for the county. You must take care

to keep all our friends together, and to _tear the enemy to

pieces_. I set out this evening for Cambridge, where I expect,

notwithstanding your boding, to find everything favourable. I

am sure, however, to find a retreat at Bath.

 

“Ever faithfully yours,

 

“W. PITT.”

 

Though Pitt had the “good things” to give away he did not escape

sarcasm: thus it was suggested--it is said by Paley, who was then at

Cambridge--as a fitting text for a university sermon, “There is a lad

here which hath five barley loaves and two small fishes; but what are

they among so many?”

 

“The author of this pleasantry,” declares Stanhope, “did not

allow for the public temper of the time; in most cases the

electors voted without views of personal interest; in some

cases they voted even against views of personal interest.”

 

Pitt was supported by Lord Euston, the heir of the Duke of Grafton, and

between them they defeated the late members, the Hon. John Townshend,

and James Mansfield, both members of the coalition ministry, the

former as lord of the admiralty, the latter as solicitor-general.

After a keen contest, Pitt and Lord Euston were returned, Pitt at the

head of the poll. It was a marked triumph, and exercised an influence

elsewhere; nor was it a fleeting victory or a temporary connection,

for Pitt continued to represent the university during the remainder of

his life. Pitt, now, as he called himself, “a hardened electioneerer,”

entered into the spirit of the warfare, and carried his forces into the

strongholds of the Whig estates:--

 

“But,” writes Earl Stanhope, “of all the contests of this

period the most important in that point of view was for the

county of York. That great county, not yet at election times

severed into Ridings, had been under the sway of the Whig

Houses. Bolton Abbey, Castle Howard, and Wentworth Park had

claimed the right to dictate at the hustings.”

 

The spirit of the country in 1784 rose still higher; the independent

freeholders of Yorkshire boldly confronted the great Houses, and

insisted on returning, in conjunction with the heir of Duncombe Park,

a banker’s son, of few years and of scarcely tried abilities, though

destined to a high place in his country’s annals--Mr. Wilberforce.

With the help of the country gentlemen, they raised the vast sum of

£18,662 for the expense of the election (twenty-one years later this

“vast sum” would not have produced much effect on the same field,

when Wilberforce fought, in 1807, what has been described as the

“Austerlitz of electioneering,”--the candidates between them expending

above three hundred thousand pounds,--the details of which follow in

their chronological sequence); and so great was their show of numbers

and of resolution, that the candidates upon the other side did not

venture to stand a contest. Wilberforce was also returned at the

head of the poll by his former constituents at Hull. “I can never

congratulate you enough on such glorious success,” wrote the youthful

prime minister to his equally youthful friend. Rank and file, leaders

and spokesmen, of the coalition party fell before the masterly tactics

of the young chief, who stirred the minds of the people by extreme

views as to England’s sinister future (if the Whigs prevailed) menaced

with the onslaught of sweeping revolutions, and the destruction of

every moderate institution and every safeguard of the state. In this

manner, writes Pitt’s biographer, the party of the opposition was

scattered beyond rallying. “To use a gambling metaphor,” declares

Stanhope, “which Fox would not have disdained, many threw down their

cards. Many others played, but lost the rubber.” A witty nickname

was commonly applied to them. In allusion to the History, written by

John Fox, of the sufferers under the Romish persecution, they were

called “Fox’s Martyrs;” and of such martyrs there proved to be no less

than one hundred and sixty. Amidst all these reverses, however, Fox’s

high courage never quailed. On the 3rd of April, we find him write

as follows to a friend: “Plenty of bad news from all quarters, but I

think I feel misfortunes when they come thick have the effect rather of

rousing my spirits than sinking them;”--as set down by Earl Russell in

his “Memorials.”

 

One of the most remarkable features of the great electioneering contest

of 1784 was the fact of the ex-demagogue Wilkes being returned as

the ministerial candidate, to Pitt’s pronounced gratification too,

for the county of Middlesex. But the ways of statesmen are indeed

wonderful and manifold, and Wilkes, the man without prejudices, and

equally unburdened by principles, was an expedient ally (though a

redoubtable foe). Wilkes, very cleverly and plausibly, upon the score

of Pitt’s constant advocacy of Parliamentary Reform, was enabled to

press upon the freeholders of the county of Middlesex the advisability

of extending their entire support to the “virtuous young Minister,”

whose “liberal and enlightened principles promised to advance the best

interests of the country.”[61]

 

“Johnny Wilkes, Johnny Wilkes,

Thou boldest of bilks,

What a different song you now sing!

For your dear _Forty-five_,

’Tis _Prerogative_!

And your blasphemy--‘_God save the King_.’”

(_The Backstairs Scoured._)

 

Wilkes having made the most of his patriotism, after being elected lord

mayor, and subsequently obtaining the lucrative and permanent office

of city chamberlain, now exhibited himself in his true colours--a

remarkable instance of tergiversation, disclaiming his own acts, and

making no scruple of expressing his contempt for the opinions of his

former supporters. On his return for Middlesex in 1784, as one of

“the king’s friends,” the democrats represented the king and Wilkes

hanged on one tree, with the inscription, “Give justice her claims.”

The reconciliation of the “two kings of Brentford” was by no means

popular, and the wits were severe on the fresh departure. One of

these caricatures, May 1, 1784, is entitled, “The New Coalition.” It

represents the King and the ex-archdemagogue fraternally embracing;

Wilkes’s cap of liberty is cast to the ground; he declares to his

Sovereign, “I now find you are the best of princes.” While great George

discovers the erst agitator, his late aversion, “Sure! the worthiest of

subjects and most virtuous of men!”

 

[Illustration:

 

THE NEW COALITION - THE RECONCILIATION OF “THE TWO KINGS OF

BRENTFORD.” 1784. #/ ]

 

Charles James Fox, the most popular Whig statesman of history, was

returned for Midhurst in May, 1769. He was then only nineteen years and

four months old; notwithstanding this, he took his seat the November

following, thus becoming a member of parliament before he reached the

age of twenty. Curiously enough, his first speech, March, 9, 1770, was

on a point of order, arising out of the Wilkes case and the disputes

of the Middlesex election. In spite of his affected patriotism, Wilkes

made a jest of his insincerity: standing on the hustings at Brentford,

his opponent said to him, “I will take the sense of the meeting;” to

which the pseudo “champion of liberty” responded, “And I will take the

nonsense, and we shall see who has the best of it.” In the same way he

coolly disavowed his friend and advocate Serjeant Glynn, his colleague

for Middlesex, who had fought all his battles through the courts to

the hustings, and _vice versâ_. Some years later, as related by Earl

Russell, when the “two kings of Brentford” were excellent friends,

and Wilkes, by the irony of fate, became a ministerial candidate, he

was received at a levée, when George III., with his habitual practice

of asking awkward questions, inquired after Wilkes’s friend, Glynn.

“Sire,” said Wilkes, “he is not a friend of mine; he was a Wilkite, which I never was.”