A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 48
After His Majesty had been pleased to make the foregoing answer, the
lord mayor requested leave to reply, which, being granted, Beckford
made the dignified and noble response which is a matter of history:--
(“If worth allures thee, think how Beckford shone
Who dar’d to utter Truths before the throne.”)
“Most Gracious Sovereign--Will your Majesty be pleased so
far to condescend as to permit the Mayor of your loyal City
of London to declare in your Royal presence, on behalf of
his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your
Majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect their minds.
The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them
with inexpressible anxiety, and with the deepest affliction.
“Permit me, Sire, to assure your Majesty that your Majesty has
not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more
dutiful, or more affectionate to your Majesty’s person and
family, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in
the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your Crown.
“We do, therefore, with the greatest humility and submission,
most earnestly supplicate your Majesty, that you will not
dismiss us from your presence without expressing a more
favourable opinion of your faithful citizens, and without some
comfort, without some prospect at least of redress.
“Permit me, Sire, further to observe, that whoever has already
dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations
and suggestions, to alienate your Majesty’s affections from
your loyal subjects in general and from the city of London in
particular, and to withdraw your confidence in and regard for
your people, is an enemy to your Majesty’s person and family,
a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy
Constitution, as it was established at the glorious revolution
of 1688.”
At the conclusion of these __EXPRESSION__s of enlightenment for the royal
mind, the lord mayor waited more than a minute for a reply of “some
more favourable opinion,” but none was given.
“On this occasion,” says the satirist, “Nero did _not_ fiddle while
Rome was burning.” The humility and serious firmness with which the
dignified Beckford--who enjoyed the friendship of the great Earl of
Chatham, and with whom he had many points in common--uttered these
words, “filled the whole Court with admiration and confusion;” for
they found very different countenances amongst the citizens than they
expected from Lord Pomfret’s description, who declared in the House of
Lords--
“that, however swaggering and impudent the behaviour of the low
citizens might be on their own dunghill, when they came into
the royal presence, their heads hung down like bulrushes, and
they blinked with their eyes like owls in the sunshine of the
sun.”
On the 19th of May, the king prorogued that parliament which, by
approving addresses from both Houses, had fortified the royal censure
returned to the popular remonstrances. “The prevalence of animosities
and of dissensions among their fellow-subjects” was specially alluded
to in his Majesty’s speech, while the conduct of both branches of his
legislature received in return such flattering encomiums as their
servile pliability had earned by despicable means:--
“The _temper_ with which you have conducted all your
proceedings has given me great satisfaction, and I promise
myself the happiest effects from the firmness, as well as the
moderation, which you have manifested in the very _critical_
circumstances which have attended your late deliberations.”
However undignified the reception accorded at the time to these
petitions addressed to the throne from its truest supporters, the
good cause eventually triumphed, in defiance of the chicanery of
counter-__EXPRESSION__s of servility, fabricated at the instance of
those whose prospects depended on the continuance in power of false
politicians, despising alike the voice and interests of the people, and
resting their reliance on the venality of their adherents, and the base
instinct of self-aggrandisement at the expense of the state existent in
minds equally mercenary with their own.
“Eventually the citizens succeeded, in spite of the united
efforts of the Court, the Ministers, and the Parliament; and
their cause has since been solemnly and universally recognized
as that of the Constitution and of liberty. It is impossible to
appreciate too highly the national importance of the conduct
they pursued.”
It was well said by “Junius,” the integrity of whose sentiments bears
more than a casual resemblance to the utterances of that patriotic
statesman, Lord Chatham, with whose fame the authorship of Junius’s
“Letters” may one day be identified:--
“The noble spirit of the metropolis is the life-blood of
the state, collected at the heart; from that point it
circulates with health and vigour through every artery of the
Constitution.”
The great Chatham and his friend, William Beckford, stand out
conspicuous from their fellow-men in association with that corrupt
time when statescraft was for the most part a question of ability for
debasing the largest number on the easiest terms contrivable; they
lived at a time when liberty ran especial risks, and, as champions of
popular rights, proved worthy of those emergencies with which they
were confronted. In days when the chief magistrate of the city may
degenerate to a subservient courtier, the history of Beckford’s firm
attitude may be regarded as no longer the worthiest part of the civic
traditions. That his fellow-citizens appreciated his exertions is shown
by the thanks he received for his able and dignified speech to the
king; his reply was ordered to be inserted in the city records, and
afterwards, at his death, was inscribed on the monument erected in the
Guildhall to his memory.
The blow struck at a corrupt administration by the Westminster and
other remonstrances seems to have damped the ardour of the ministers;
in any case, no Court candidate was put forward for Westminster
in 1770, and consequently the election of a liberal candidate was
unopposed.
On the 30th of April, at noon, came on at St. Paul’s, Covent Garden,
the election of a representative in parliament for the City and
Liberty of Westminster, in the room of the Hon. Edwin Sandys, created
Lord Sandys. A considerable number of the electors assembled early
in the morning at the “Standard Tavern” in Leicester Fields; and
proceeded from thence with a band of music, etc., in procession
through Piccadilly to the residence of Sir Robert Bernard, in Hamilton
Street. When they came to Covent Garden, the whole square was full.
Proclamation of silence being made, Sir John Hussey Delaval, Bart.,
addressing himself to the people, said--
“he rejoiced to see such a prodigious number of the Electors
present, to support the nomination in Westminster Hall the
previous Thursday; that Sir Robert Bernard had stood forward in
support of the rights of the people in their just complaints
against the late flagrant violation of their liberties; and
concluded with observing, that they were come to confirm with
their votes this their free and glorious choice.”
Lord Viscount Mountmorres seconded the motion in a spirited speech, in
which he stated--
“the services and principles of Sir Robert Bernard; the
grievances under which the people laboured; the great violation
of their rights in the case of Middlesex; the impossibility
that any king, that any parliament, that the courts of
justice, or that all together, could annihilate the people’s
constitutional rights.”
These speeches were received with acclamation by the twenty thousand
people present, amongst whom strict good order was preserved.
The proper proclamations being made, and no other candidate appearing,
the return was signed by the gentlemen present on the hustings.
The election being entirely over, the gentlemen retired into the
vestry-room, where the indenture was signed by them, and finally
returned to the Crown Office. On the day following, Sir Robert Bernard
was introduced into the House of Commons by the Hon. Henry Grenville
and William Pulteney, and took his seat as member for Westminster. The
Westminster returns being generally looked upon with interest by other
constituencies, this election was held out as a proper example to every
city in the kingdom, and to all the counties and towns, to choose their
members with a spirit of freedom and without expense. It was resolved
by the freeholders of Westminster, in advance--
“that if this election had been contested, it would not
have cost Sir Robert Bernard a shilling, the electors being
determined to support their free choice.”
This particular return is a case in point, which goes to prove that
the authors of corruption in electioneering matters were more guilty
than those they corrupted. At the Covent Garden hustings--where, on
previous occasions, the ministers had spent enormous sums, besides
moving every power and art of intrigue to get their own nominees
returned--the entire proceedings were one long scene of bribery,
trickery, and illegality, brute-force, and disorder. On the occasion in
question, 1770, the administration seems to have been slightly cowed
by the results of their ill-advised manœuvres to impose placemen upon
the county: the recent Middlesex proceedings were still a source of
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기