A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 40

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 40

Proctor declared that he was not only struck by “the banditti,” but in

the utmost peril of his life.

 

“If a signal was given,--if _Proctor and Liberty_ appeared in

the hats of the ruffians, how that might be contrived by the

election arts of my adversaries need not now be mentioned. It

was the opinion of my counsel, when a riot was artfully talked

of by my opponents, _above an hour_ before it happened, that

the sheriffs in that case should resort immediately to the

protection of parliament.” Finally, he expressed hopes “to

bring this dark transaction into open daylight, and to show the

world who has been the man of blood;” moreover, the writer “has

full confidence that on the last day of the poll lawless men

will not again dare to invade the rights of the freeholders.”

 

The disavowal, which “doth protest too much” as published by Proctor,

goaded the virtuous indignation of the friends of freedom up to fever

heat, and acted like a red rag on an infuriated bull in the instance

of John Horne (Tooke), “the Brentford parson;” he addressed a scathing

philippic to Proctor, declaring that Sir William’s refutations

“subscribed his own guilt, and that the Court candidate had signed his

name to a lie:”--

 

“I here declare in form, that you, Sir William Beauchamp

Proctor, did both hire and cause to be hired, that mob

which committed the outrages at Brentford; that mob, which

immediately after the total interruption of the poll, demanded

which was the house that belonged to the parson of Brentford;

and to whose fury a neighbouring clergyman, who heard them ask

after my house, was apprehensive of falling a sacrifice, by the

mistake of a person who called himself by my name. Boast of

your humanity, Sir William, to Captain Read; that gentleman,

to save his own life, declared himself your friend. Persuade

Mr. Allen they were not your mob; that gentleman brought you to

the side of the hustings where they were, and heard them answer

to his question, and to your face, that you, Sir W. Beauchamp

Proctor, were the person that gave them orders for what they

were about.”

 

As to the “band of writers,” Parson Horne frankly avowed himself the

author of most of the letters that appeared against Proctor in the

papers, and concluded with a stinging reference to those “new-fashioned

constables,” as Sir John Fielding termed the hireling bullies.

 

“Where you endeavour to justify your proceedings by the usage

of all contested popular elections, and where you affect

to consider your hired ruffians, the Irish chairmen, as

‘assistants to the civil magistrates.’ The business of the

approaching poll prevents my saying half what I have to tell

you; but I promise you, you shall hear from me again and again,

if you will please to issue out your orders to your ruffians to

grant me a _Reprieve_ till after the election.”

 

The main features of this ill-advised attack, which, it was believed,

was intended to put an end to the election should the polling prove

adverse to the party in whose pay the hired mob acted, are given in the

_Oxford Magazine_:--

 

“Thursday, Dec. 8, 1768. This day being appointed for the

Middlesex election, the candidates appeared on the hustings

at ten minutes before nine. Notwithstanding this, the opening

of the poll was delayed till near eleven. One of the narrow

avenues leading to Brentford butts was occupied very early

by a hired mob, with bludgeons, bearing favours in their

hats, inscribed, ‘Proctor and Liberty.’ A much larger, but

very compact body, armed as the former, and with the same

distinctions, were placed near the hustings, on an eminence,

and in a disposition which was evidently the arrangement of an

experienced sergeant. The rest of these banditti were stationed

in different quarters of the town, to strike a general terror

into the honest part of the freeholders; there was besides a

‘corps de reserve’ which was to sally forth on a signal given.

 

“When these dispositions were secured, a chosen party of

butchers, in the same interest, traversed the town, and

insulted the hustings with marrow-bones and cleavers. When Sir

William Beauchamp Proctor’s numbers were nearly exhausted, and

the course of the Poll declared decisively for Mr. Serjeant

Glynn, who had still great multitudes unpolled, the signal

was given. An instantaneous and furious, but regular attack,

was made on the hustings. The sheriffs, the candidates (Glynn

declares himself as having been the last to depart), the

clerks, and the poll-books, all vanished in a moment.

 

“The whole town was presently a scene of blood. It was not

enough to knock down an unhappy man; the blow was followed till

he was utterly disabled. Those who have been exposed to riots

declare they never saw such cruelty. All doors and windows were

barricaded. There was no shelter, nothing was safe; nor can

anything equal the consternation of the frightened people but

the abhorrence and execration with which every tongue repeats

the name of Proctor.

 

“It appears from every account of the above proceedings, that

the people who began the riot there were the friends of the

court candidate; and, in particular, it is affirmed that when

the Irish chairmen, and the professed bruisers at their head,

had proceeded so far in their cruel and villainous intention of

murdering and wounding the people, that the gentlemen upon the

hustings began to be in danger of their lives,--one gentleman

went up to the court candidate, and expostulated with him on

the base conduct of _his mob_. ‘My mob!’ replied the courtier.

‘Yes, sir, _your mob_!’ and the gentleman added, ‘Sir, I insist

upon your speaking to those fellows who are knocking down the

people there.’ But the courtier refused to say anything to

appease their fury; upon which the gentleman who had spoken

to him, finding himself in danger of his life, seized him by

the greatcoat, and showed his star to the armed ruffians,

who instantly took off their hats and huzza’d him; while the

ruffians were thus huzzaing, the gentleman escaped.”

 

When the mob had cleared the hustings, they went into the town

of Brentford, and attacked the Castle Inn, which was one of the

candidate’s houses of entertainment, and did considerable damage to it.

The inhabitants of the town, observing this mischief, and beginning to

fear their own houses would next be destroyed,--

 

“a general indignation took place: they sallied forth, attacked

the rioters with great spirit, and drove them out of the town;

and some of the voters vented their rage upon one or two of the

houses opened for the other candidate. A number of persons with

Proctor’s cockades in their hats assembled about ‘The Angel

Inn’ at Islington in a riotous manner, armed with bludgeons.”

 

These well-paid hirelings were the worse for their potations, and, with

the ringleader, were taken into custody.

 

It seems to have been a generally recognized stratagem imported into

election tactics, where, as in war, nothing was considered “unfair,” to

get freeholders locked up on some fictitious pretence, such as false

writs, actions, summonses, or impounded as witnesses at trials, etc.;

where the principal never appeared, and the hearing never came on,

while the victims “to error” were detained in durance until after the

poll was finished. On the occasion under consideration, it appeared

that a number of freeholders were particularly summoned as jurymen,

to prevent their voting for the popular candidate; this manœuvre was

defeated, as concerned the Old Bailey, where the lord mayor, Turner,

behaved in a truly patriotic manner.

 

“When the jury was called, his Lordship asked them, upon their

honour, if any of them were freeholders of Middlesex; it

appeared that about eighteen of them were so (specially called

in order that their votes might be lost), on which his Lordship

immediately dismissed them, that they might not be hindered

from discharging their duty at Brentford.”

 

“Richard Dingham maketh oath that ‘the morning after the

meeting of Sir William Beauchamp Proctor, at St. Giles’s, he

saw four link-lighters named Welch, Hinton, Brady, and Quinn,

disputing about some money they had received from Sir William,

and they said that they had signed an agreement to go down,

with several others, to Brentford on the day of Election to

head a mob, and to put an end to the said Election, when they

should receive orders, etc.’”

 

In the interval, and during the progress of the election, several men

were committed to prison, including a chairman recognized as having

acted as a leader, who was known as the “Infant,” being, in fact, a

Hercules over six feet high; the true facts of the case came out upon

examination, and, before the close of the poll, four affidavits were

published in the papers, the tenour of which went to prove criminal

complicity.

 

“Atkinson Bush maketh oath that he was at Brentford on the day

of the election, and seeing a large body of men with labels in

thei