A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days / Showing the State of Political Parties and Party Warfare at the Hustings and in the House of Commons from the Stuarts to Queen Victoria

It will be observed in this “bill” that bribery is not put down as one of the prominent features of an election at this period; violence was, as yet, found to be more effective than corruption.

In March, 1721, when the first of the succession of triennial parliaments dissolved, the country was already in a state of fermentation at the prospect of the coming contest. Violence was now utilized in new methods, such as beating off voters of opposition candidates; while hostile electors were surrounded by mobs hired for the purpose, and cut off from the polling-booths; and in some cases voters were carried off forcibly, and locked up until the election was over.

In country boroughs much agitation was manifested, and in several places, such as Coventry, formidable riots took place.

The metropolis shared the general excitement. It was on this occasion that the Westminster contest began to be regarded as of the first consequence, it being a point of ambition with the rival parties to return their candidates for this constituency, the results of which conflict were expected to exercise an influence upon other places. The election for this city set in uproariously in 1721, and, as the progress of these electioneering memorials will demonstrate, it continued the same throughout its history, even when in other places the elections were tranquil and uneventful.

The Tories did not allow Walpole to triumph without a struggle for the ascendency, although, by his foresight, and a lavish employment of his universal salve—gold, he managed to diminish the influence both of his opponents and of the mobocracy; and in the new House the Government secured a powerful majority, leaving the Tory organs, towards the close of the elections, when the results were no longer doubtful, to vent their spleen in political squibs and caricatures. Thus, on the 31st of March, the Post Boy announces two satirical prints—one, “Britannia stript by a Villain, to which is added, the True Phiz of a Late Member,” which seems to have disappeared completely; and the other, “The Prevailing Candidate; or the Election carried by Bribery and the D——l;” which, according to all accounts, is the earliest existing contemporary caricature upon the subject of electioneering; and is, moreover, one of the best examples of these productions as published in the reign of George I.

The candidate, it is implied, is a Court nominee; the screen is used to conceal the true movers of the wires, who are at the back of the canvasser; their reflection is shown in the mirror behind, above the console-table, on which bags of money are in readiness to be used for bribery. The wooden shoes symbolize a threatened relapse to slavery. The screen is to typify the seven years of the last parliament—the first of the septennial parliaments; the year 1716 is marked “Septennial Act”—“Part of the Succession Act repealed;”—1720 registers the “South Sea Act,”—“Act to indemnify South Sea Villains;” and 1721 the “Quarantine Act, cum multis aliis;” the other years are blanks. The accompanying verses explain the meaning intended to be conveyed by the principal figures. The personage bribed is the mayor of the place. These functionaries for a long time held the elections in their power, and were amenable to corrupt treatment; in fact, they were expected to make the bargain most advantageous for the court of livery or aldermen, in whom the votes were generally vested. Hence the old saying, “Money makes the mayor to go.”

The elections of 1727, in spite of the exertions of Bolingbroke and Pulteney in the Craftsman, and the intrigues of the former with the Duchess of Kendal, mistress of George I., were a disappointment to the Tories and “patriots,” i.e. Jacobites. On the death of George I. their prospects were even less promising. Queen Caroline, the consort of George II., was the steadfast friend of Walpole, and although the Bolingbroke faction paid their court to the mistress of the new king, as they had done in the last reign to that of his predecessor, they gained nothing by their motion, as George II. was governed by his wife in political questions. The hopes placed by the Tories in the elections were altogether frustrated; in the parliament chosen in 1727 the ministerial majority was greater than before, and their opponents were reduced to vent their mortification in strictures against the bribery, corruption, undue influence, and those secret intrigues in which they were themselves such adepts.

Of the few caricatures to which this contest gave rise that best known is entitled “Ready Money the Prevailing Candidate; or the Humours of an Election;” and even in this the satirical allusions appear to have a general rather than a specific application. This picture, like most of the caricatures of the time, is slightly allegorical; the scene is evidently the outskirts of a town; colossal statues of “Folly” and “Justice” are shown at either side. As the title implies, bribery is the motive power of the entire action. In the centre is a figure with his back to the spectator; the rear of this person’s coat is covered with pockets, into which those interested in the work of buying votes are dropping money; the recipient is declaring, “No bribery, but pockets are free.” Another gentleman, with his hat raised in the air, is crying, “Sell not your country.” A whole body of electors behind these plausible individuals are standing ready to be bought; an agent is canvassing this group for their votes, with a money-bag to meet their requirements. To the right, a man is kneeling to secure a heap of pieces, which are lavishly scattered about, while another person is stooping to press a well-filled bag of money upon his acceptance as “a small acknowledgment.” One of the candidates, handsomely attired, and with a feathered hat, is carried on a litter by four bearers, much like “Chairing a member;” he has bags of money in both hands, and his progress is marked by a shower of gold “for his country’s service.” At the door of an inn stands a figure whose head is supplemented with antlers—“He kissed my wife, he shall have my vote!” “Folly” is personated by a male effigy, also emptying out money-bags to his votaries: before his altar a candidate is kneeling amidst his canvassing tickets; he is exclaiming, “Help me, Folly, or my cause is lost.” In the foreground is the figure of an ancient philosopher, who is made to say, “Let not thy right hand know what thy left does;” his left hand is accommodatingly held behind his back, and this an agent is filling with pieces. A person dressed like a Covenanter is crying, “See here, see here!” The emblematical figure of “Justice,” blind, and with her attributes of sword and scales, has her altar deserted. One man is admonishing his neighbour to “Regard Justice;” the other, who has a sack of unlawful treasure on his shoulder, replies, “We fell out: I lost money by her.” A modishly dressed candidate, hat in hand, is pressing a bag of money on another individual, who seems to have been bribed already, but is willing to accept further emoluments—“’Twill scarce pay, make it twenty more.”

A copy of verses sets forth the morality of this plate:—

A realistic version of the hustings appeared under the title of “The Kentish Election, 1734.” The locality of the gathering here represented is probably Maidstone in Kent. A large open space on the outskirts of the town is the scene of action. The candidates and their numerous supporters are raised above the multitude, and standing on the hustings. Round this erection is a great crowd of electors, many of whom are on horseback.

In the foreground, a mounted clergyman is at the head of a procession of his flock, all wearing favours in their hats, and professing themselves supporters of the “Protestant Interest,” i.e. Whigs; two of them carry staves and books; the “gauges” in their hands seem to indicate that they are gaugers or excisemen, i.e. placemen: it must be noted that the chief grievance against Walpole and his administration at this time was the attempt to tax tobacco and wines. The Opposition party-cry is “No Excise,” with the names of “Vane and Dering,” the successful candidates, in whose honour, with that of the “Country Interest,” i.e. Tories, which they had pledged themselves to promote, the followers of their party wear sprigs of oak in their hats—a memorial of the Restoration of the Stuarts. The party-cry of their antagonists is for “King and Country,” and “Middlesex and Oxenden.” Sir George Oxenden had voted for the Government and in favour of the Excise Bill; he sat for Maidstone before the dissolution, April, 1734. The Earl of Middlesex was not a member of the former Parliament. These gentlemen finally threw up the poll, the victory of their opponents being assured, May 16, 1734. Of the successful candidates, Viscount Vane and Sir Edward Dering, the former had voted against the Excise Bill, and the latter was absent on the division. Something in the way of influencing suffrages seems to have been done on a large scale by Viscount Vane. Two hogsheads of French brandy were sent down to his seat in Kent (according to the Daily Post), together with sixty dozen of knives and forks, in preparation for the entertainment his lordship offered the freeholders. The Grub Street Journal devotes some attention to the treats with which the successful candidates regaled their constituents at an early stage of their canvass, and these hospitalities were returned in kind.

“At a meeting lately at the Swan Tavern in Cornhill, of about 100 substantial worthy citizens of London, freeholders of the County of Kent, the Right Hon. the Lord Vane and Sir Edw. Dering, Bart., candidates in the Country Interest, were entertained in an elegant manner by the freeholders,” etc. It is further stated that “these candidates were met at about two miles from Westerham, in Kent, by 300 freeholders on horseback, and dined at the George Inn, where healths were drunk to the glorious 205”—this being the number of members whose votes placed the Government in a minority upon the Excise Bill. Nor was wanting what later statesmen have termed “the fine old English Institution” of parading the Minister in effigy.

“The populace, to show their zeal on this occasion, dressed up a figure of a certain Excise gentleman (Sir Robert Walpole to wit) with blue paper round his shoulders (intended for the riband of the Garter, always alluded to with spite by the prime minister’s adversaries), a pipe in his mouth (Tobacco Bill), and several Florence flasks about his neck (referring to the proposed duty on wines), then mounted him upon a mule, and led him round the town in procession.” (The Grub Street Journal.)

On the same authority (No. 230), under date Wednesday, May 23, 1734, is announced the sudden demise of the leading candidate: “On Monday, about five in the afternoon, the Right Hon. the Lord Visc. Vane dropt down dead of an apoplexy, just as he was taking leave of a gentleman, at his seat at Fairlawn in Kent” (Daily Post).

An early design upon bribery at elections is attributed to Hogarth. This plate was produced during the canvass in 1734, just twenty years before the commencement of the famous “Election” series by the same artist. The print is a small etching, and represents Sir Robert Fagg, an old baronet, seated on horseback, holding a purse in one hand, and offering a bribe of money to a young woman who is standing by his horse’s head; on her arm is a basket of eggs; she is laughing at the canvasser. Sir Robert Fagg was member for Steyning, Sussex. Concerning the baronet it is written, in “The Art of Politicks”—

“The Humours of a Country Election,” of which the first version appeared in 1734, beyond the light it offers upon the subject in question, is curious and interesting, as Mr. F. G. Stephens is inclined to suggest40 that Hogarth may have borrowed the idea of illustrating the chief incidents of an election from the “Humours” therein described. The plate is in three divisions, and forms the frontispiece to the collection of songs published under the title of “the Humours of a Country Election” in 1734, at which time there was a general election; it was republished in 1741,41 under similar circumstances. The print is sufficiently described by the original advertisement, inserted at the time of its publication in the Grub Street Journal (No. 233), June 13, 1734. “This Day is publish’d (Price One Shilling), Neatly printed, and stitched in blue paper, ‘The Humours of a Country Election.’”

“With a curious frontispiece explanatory of the same in the following particulars:—

“I. The candidate welcomed into the town by music and electors on horseback, attended by a mob of men, women, and children. The candidates saluting the women, and amongst them a poor cobbler’s wife, to whose child they very courteously offer to stand God-father. II. The candidates are very complaisant to a country clown, and offering presents (a bag marked 50l.) to the wife and children. The candidates making an entertainment for the electors and their wives, to whom they show great respect; at the upper end of the table the parson of the parish sitting, his clerk standing by him. III. The place of electing and polling, with mob attending. The members elect carried in procession in chairs, upon men’s shoulders, with music playing before them; attended by a mob of men, women, and children huzzaing them. To which is added the character of a Trimmer in verse, &c.”

“A new Year’s Gift (for the year 1741) to the Electors of Great Britain,” contains the information that “The Oath imposed upon Electors—the only preservative of public Liberty from the secret and fatal attacks of Bribery and Corruption,” was as follows:—

“‘I, —— ——, do swear, I have not received, or had myself, or any person whatsoever, in Trust for me, or for my Use and Benefit, directly or indirectly, any sum or sums of money, Office, Place, or employment, gift, or reward, or any promise, or security for any money, office, employment, or gift, in order to give my vote at this Election, and that I have not been polled before at this Election,

‘So Help me God.’

“Let every man of common sense judge whether an oath so wisely framed and strictly worded can possibly admit of any equivocation, to cover the base villainy of taking a bribe to his country’s ruin; and what shall we think of those men who dare tempt others to the breach of a duty so sacred! Ought they not to be stoned, or hooted out of society, as the destroyers of public Faith, Virtue, Religion, and Liberty? Do not such agents for the Devil compass his ends most effectually, by seducing men from the indispensable duties they owe to God and their country, to themselves and their posterity?

THE HUMOURS OF A COUNTRY ELECTION. 1734.

[Page 90.

“Wisely, therefore, hath that good Law annexed the shameful penalties of the pillory to the breach of that Sacred Oath, with a large Fine of Five Hundred Pounds; and justly excluded all base perjurers from the most valuable Rights and Privileges of Englishmen, in the following paragraphs:—

“‘And be it enacted, That whosoever shall be convicted of false swearing, shall incur and suffer the Pains and Penalties as in a case of wilful and corrupt Perjury.

“And whosoever shall receive or take any money or other reward, by way of Gift, Loan, or other device, or agree or contract for any Money, Gift, Office, or Reward whatsoever, to give his vote, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of Five Hundred Pounds, and be for ever disabled to vote in any Election of any Member to Parliament, and be for ever disabled to hold any public office.’

“Will any man, pretending to common honesty, thus basely forfeit his Birthright, his most glorious privilege as an Englishman, by a shameful perjury for the Lucre of a Bribe? Can such a Bribe make him and his posterity happy in the midst of his country’s ruin, and the just contempt and abhorrence of all his neighbours? No, surely: but when the small wages of his iniquity are spent, he must, like the Traitor Judas, hang himself, or starve to death; because no man can either pity, or deal with such a perjured abandoned wretch.

“Artful corruptors of the present times may flatter weak minds with hopes of being admitted to vote without taking the Oath; but it is a vain delusion; since the Law allows the Candidates or any two of the Electors to put the Oath to whomsoever they please; and surely there are at least Two Honest Men in every Borough of the Kingdom, who will think it their duty to bring Corruption to the Test of this just and necessary Oath, to the eternal infamy of all Corruptors, and the Corrupted.”

The oath thus explicitly explained was in sober earnest administered by the lawyers retained in the respective interests, as illustrated by Hogarth in his “Polling Booth,” 1754. It is rather alarming to think of the huge amount of perjury which has followed electioneering. The general elections of the spring of 1741 were a trying ordeal for Walpole; all the well-worn clamours were revived, the “Convention” was once more torn to shreds, and fresh attacks upon the “excise projects” were turned to bitter political account. Amidst a shower of squibs, both literary and pictorial, we find the caricature, “Dedicated to the worthy Electors of Great Britain,” of “The Devil upon Two Sticks,” in which Walpole, as the “Asmodeus” of the situation, is represented as being supported upon the shoulders of two of his bought-majority to ford the “Slough of Despond,” already crossed by some of his followers, who, though in safety on the bank, bear evident marks of the dirty ordeal through which they have been compelled to struggle upon “Robin’s” account. Britannia and her patriotic friends(?) remain high and dry on the other shore; below the satire appears a pointed indication of the unpopular Walpolians, as “Members who voted for the Excise and against the Convention.”

“A Satire on Election Proceedings” was given to the public in pictorial guise on the occasion of the appeal to the constituencies in May, 1741; the specific part of this squib was aimed at Walpole’s unpopular taxes and similar enactments, and the whole was dedicated to “Mayors and Corporations in general.” A dying elector—who, from the evidence of a paper inscribed “£50,” and seen in his pocket, has sold himself to party—is in the hands of a ministerial candidate and the personage of Evil; who are, between them, dragging the moribund and venal voter towards a precipice, “the Brink of Despotism, poverty, and destruction, inevitable if such courses are continued.” The candidate or agent is apparently heedless of the precipice at his feet; he is waving his hat in exultation, and shouting, “A vote, a vote, a dead vote for us!” The devil, who is the deepest of the party, is asserting with plausibility, “I’ll have the Majority, I warrant you!” His pocket contains the measures which had destroyed Walpole’s popularity and at that time foreshadowed his fall—fancifully supposed to have had their suggestion in the brain of the arch-fiend himself: “Standing Army,” “Lotteries,” “Cyder” (tax), “Stamp Act,” “Bribes,” and “Address.” The demon is expelling “False reports against the City of London—all wind”—patriotism having at that era its head-quarters in the corporation; his hoof has trampled upon the shield of Britannia, crushed down by “Press-warrants,” “Council of Satan,” and the ministerial policy—“Neglect the seamen till the moment they are wanted, lest my beloved press-warrants should be forgot—my friends shall boldly call them lawful.” Walpole, whose tenure of office notoriously depended on the results of the elections in progress when this violent squib was launched, is further indicated in “The Foundation we go upon;” “we” being by implication the prime minister and the devil; the foot of the latter rests upon these “Ways and means—Public Money, Promises, Titles, Contracts, Pensions, Preferments, Places—and by threatening to displace,” etc., besides current coin for corruption. A further instance of Walpole’s disfavour is embodied in a paper concerning the army: “My Majority shall vote for a numerous Land Force in time of Peace; to be established with a double proportion of officers!—the best proof of my influence:”—the source of that vaunted influence is shown in a bag of money, marked “Sinking Fund,” from whence pours the stream of corruption—in the shape of broad pieces—upon which the prime minister placed a reliance he did not attempt to disguise, but, on the contrary, of which he cynically boasted.

Beneath is a coat of arms, a favourite figure with the satirists, as if designed for the sign of a tavern; the bearings are, 1. A fox running away with a goose. 2. “Checquy,” i.e., as in the sign of the Chequers; the words, “Time-servers Intire;” behind appear a bottle and two glasses, tobacco-pipes, and bribes. “£100, £50, £40, £2,”—to suit all appetites; on a riband above the shield is the legend:—“Votes are sold for Wine and Gold.” The crest of the card would be a suitable escutcheon for Hogarth’s comprehensive election satires which appeared in the contest of 1754.

Another coat of arms, also aimed at the credit of the prime minister, was reissued as appropriate to this season:—“To the glory of the Rt. Honble. Sir Robert Walpole,” “A great Britt.,” alluding to the motto of “S(ir) R(obert) W(alpole)’s Arms,” supplies an ironical and explanatory text:—

“There is another Device at the Base, the Arch, in the shape of a Coat of Arms, which is bound round with a Garter, and hath these words inscribed upon it:—Honi soit qui Mal y pense; ‘Evil be to him, that evil thinks.’ What is most remarkable in this Coat is, that it bears three axes on one side, and that the crest is a Man’s Head, with a strange sort of Cap, which hath a Ducal Coronet at the bottom by way of Border;”

—thus suggesting that Walpole deserved decapitation, while the ballads of the day were all for finding a gibbet for “false Bob.” As to the print itself, it is said:—

“I am glad to hear that it hath already met with the approbation and encouragement of a very great Family; and I hope shortly to see it displayed in the richest colours upon Fans, and wrought into Screens and Hangings for the use and ornament of the Palace of Norfolk;”

—referring to Houghton Hall, the seat of Sir Robert Walpole, a residence well known to fame.

The popular interest excited by the Westminster contest generally seemed to make that election the most prominent in every appeal to the country. On the dissolution of parliament, April 28, 1741, when the fate of Walpole’s Administration was known to depend upon the aggregate return of his nominees, the ministers expected to bring in their friends who had previously sat for Westminster; the first great opposition to the Government had its rise there, where the Court was supposed to possess an unbounded influence. In the “Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole” the circumstances of the contest are thus summarized:—

“The representatives in the last Parliament were Sir Charles Wager, First Lord of the Admiralty; and Lord Sundon, a Lord of the Treasury; and it was supposed they would have been rechosen, as usual, without opposition. But Lord Sundon was very unpopular; he had been raised from a low condition to an Irish Peerage through the interest of his wife, who had been favourite bed-chamber woman to Queen Catherine, wife of George II. The other candidate, Sir Charles Wager, was unexceptionable, both in his public and private character; but his attachment to the Minister was a sufficient objection. Some electors of Westminster proposed, very unexpectedly, Admiral Vernon, then in the height of his popularity, and Charles Edwin, a private gentleman of considerable fortune. The opposition, at first despised, became formidable; and Sir Charles Wager being summoned to convoy the King to Holland, the management of the election was entrusted to ignorant vestrymen and violent justices. The majority of the electors were decidedly in favour of the Ministerial candidate; but Lord Sundon was imprudently advised to close the poll, to order a party of Guards to attend, and, while the military power surrounded the hustings, the High Bailiff returned him and Sir Charles Wager. This imprudent conduct highly exasperated the populace, the Guards were insulted, Sundon was attacked, and narrowly escaped with life. The example of the opposition at Westminster diffused a general spirit throughout the kingdom, and violent contests were excited in all quarters. Large sums of money for supporting the expenses were subscribed by Pulteney, the Duchess of Marlborough, and the Prince of Wales, who contracted great debts on this memorable occasion, and the managers of the opposition employed this money with great advantage.”

This account, by W. Coxe, epitomizes the situation. George (Bubb) Dodington was active on this occasion, directing the manœuvres of the Leicester House faction, on behalf of the heir to the throne, in opposition to the ministers of his father, the king. Naturally the view taken by Walpole’s biographer is favourable to that minister, who was at this time looked upon as the under-hand enemy of his country. He was accused of favouring Spain and France; and the taking of Porto Bello by Admiral Vernon, which was not, after all, a brilliant affair, but chiefly due to the cowardice of its defenders, was regarded as quite as much of a victory over the prime minister as over England’s foes. These sentiments characterize the spirit abroad on the Westminster contest of 1741, which gave rise to many songs, broadsides, and pictorial satires uniformly unfavourable to the minister and his adherents.

The kind of influence or coercion brought to bear is described in an “Address to the Independent and Worthy Electors,” which was issued by the “patriotic party,” May 5th:—

“Notwithstanding the extraordinary methods used by some of the Burgesses of the Westminster Court, the select vestries of several of the parishes, and the High Constable; who has in his own name, and by his own power, taken upon him to summon the inhabitants to give their Poll against Admiral Vernon and Mr. Edwin; we have been already so successful in our endeavours to retrieve the independency of this City and Liberty, in the Election for the next Parliament, that the old members have but a very inconsiderable majority (if any) of Good Votes against

The Glorious Admiral Vernon, And Charles Edwin, Esq.,

who stand upon the Country Interest.

Therefore, Gentlemen, now is the time for completing what we have so successfully begun; since it is certain that almost the whole of the Interest on the other side is already near poll’d, and not one-fourth of ours. And considering the great and perhaps decisive turn that the Election of this City and Liberty may give to the Elections all over the kingdom, it is hoped that no man who has a regard for the Liberties of his Country, and the Independency of Parliament, will lie by or remain neuter upon this occasion.

Therefore your Votes and Interest in favour of

Admiral Vernon, and Charles Edwin, Esq.,

who have no other views than the good of their country and the prosperity of this ancient City and Liberty.”

The contest thus stood: the king, Duke of Cumberland, and the ministers,—with all their patronage, but overburdened with unpopularity, especially as regarded certain acts touching the navy, the standing army, and excise and other new taxes disliked by most,—supporting candidates looked upon with disfavour, on the one side; opposed by the Prince of Wales and his active friends of the “patriotic party,” with a popular naval commander and “a friend of his country” as candidates, and the voice of the multitude, on the other; the arena being the hustings at Covent Garden, supposed to be regarded expectantly by all the constituencies in the country.

A pictorial version of the scene of the Westminster Election, 1741, dedicated “to the brave Admiral Vernon and his worthy colleague, Charles Edwin, Esq.,” appeared with a copy of verses “To the Independent and Worthy Electors of this Ancient City of Westminster.” The candidates are exhibited before the front of Covent Garden Church; in the pediment is shown a dial, with the motto which at that time caught the eye of the moving crowd, “So Passes Ye Glory of Ye World.” Seated at a table in the portico beneath, are the poll clerks, with the returning officer casting up the votes: one clerk is directing a list to be set down in the “Poll Book” for “Vernon and Edwin;” while the representative of the other side says, “Few for my Lord.” Vernon’s ships, and the benefit of increased commerce in the shape of bales of merchandise, are shown in the distance; the favoured admiral himself, with laced cocked hat and a staff in his right hand, is declaring, “For the Glory of Britain, down with the Spaniards.” In front of the platform, and next the popular favourite, stands Charles Edwin, who is declaring his sentiments to be for “My King and my Country.” The candidates of the opposition are received with enthusiasm: “Vernon for ever, no dribbers here;” “Edwin at home, Vernon abroad,” is shouted by the persons to the left of the picture. The results of the election were undetermined when this engraving appeared, so the engraver has anticipated the ultimate results of the petition, and made the ministerial candidates unsuccessful. Sir Charles Wager, in a dejected state, is exclaiming, “I don’t know where to put up next.” Lord Sundon, represented as a mere “fribble,” is in conference with Justice De Veil, who had a large share in the control of the Westminster election, and being in the Government pay and a powerful partisan, was, together with the returning officer, on these accounts the object of popular indignation. Lord Sundon is declaring for “The Excise and another place:” the duties on “cyder” and fermented liquors gave extreme offence to the multitude. The magistrate is made to exclaim, “I, Justice De Veil, say so, and will justify it.” The good folks on the right are hissing, and crying, “No pensioners!” A female is pronouncing for the gallant admiral, “Vernon among the women to a man;” and a voter is denouncing “Spithead Lights,”—in reference to the reviews and home displays of the Admiralty, represented by Sir Charles Wager.

Below the design are the lines—

Towards the close, the state of the poll stood thus:—

At this stage of the proceedings, when the independent candidates claimed to have many votes in reserve, while the ministers had exhausted every subterfuge and all their resources, Lord Sundon very injudiciously appealed to an armed intervention, forcibly closed the poll, and ordered a body of grenadiers to surround the hustings, and prevent any further voting; while the high bailiff countenanced these high-handed illegalities, and made his return accordingly. This proceeding ruined the chances of the Government in this contest of 1741: a petition was presented against the return of Wager and Sundon, and, although Walpole fought with all his influence, the subject was made a party question; in the new session, a warm contest arose in the Commons, which reassembled June 25, 1741, and the return of the sitting members was decided against by a majority of four, the numbers told being 220 to 216. The circumstance of “the election being declared void,” is alluded to in a letter from Horace Walpole to Sir H. Mann, December 10, 1741: “Mr. Pulteney presented an immense piece of parchment, which he said he could but just lift; and was the Westminster Petition, and is to be heard next Tuesday, when we shall all have our brains knocked out by the mob.” A new election ensued; Charles Edwin and Lord Perceval were returned without opposition. Vernon had been chosen for several places, and had already taken his seat for Ipswich. The admiral was regarded by the populace as a hero of the first water, whose victories, though for the honour of his country, were thorns in the side of the Administration, the members of which were accused of taking bribes from the enemy. The bards compared Vernon to Cincinnatus:—

The admiral is further alluded to in another engraving produced upon this same election—“The Funeral of Independency,” where the mourning procession is passing a tavern with the loyal sign of the Crown and Anchor. Among other episodes is a man on a donkey, who is galloping “post to Ipswich 10s. 6d.”—in allusion to Vernon’s return for that place; while another man is apostrophizing the rider, “Thou art as tedious as the law.”

The sequel of the memorable Westminster election of 1741 is pictured in “The Triumph of Justice” (Dec. 1741), an engraving of a satirical character, in which the late events, the triumph of opposition headed by the Prince of Wales, and the discomfiture of the Administration, are figured in allegorical guise. Walpole’s earthly career is assumed to be finished by the defeat in the Commons, who voted by a majority of four against the election of that minister’s placemen; and he is hurried to the tomb. A sarcophagus is displayed whereon a Satyr, with hour-glass and scythe, usurps the post of symbolical Time; on the base of the monument is inscribed “Hic Jacet;” in front is a medallion of the statesmen supposed to be departed, with the legend:—“Padera Robertas Ord: Perisci—tidis Eques;” the supporting “weepers” are the disqualified members,—they bear a band inscribed “Our Hopes are gone, the Election’s lost.” Sir Charles Wager, as representing the admiralty, is leaning on a broken anchor. Lord Sundon has beside him a coin, two keys, a loaf, some mice (one of which is caught in a trap), in allusion to the treasury “loaves and fishes,” parasites, etc. On the ground, across the reverse of Walpole’s medallion, which bears the legend “Regit dictus Animos,” are a sceptre and three bludgeons, “Boroughs” and “Bruisers,” both used for electioneering purposes, to which a plate marked “Covent Garden” further alludes.

Above the clouds, and surrounded by an angelic host, is seated the Prince of Wales, the deus ex machina of Walpole’s defeat; his sceptre is a bludgeon, and he is pointing to an orator, who is presumably denouncing “the king’s party,” whose power is broken. Beside the heir apparent is a female divinity, balancing the scales of justice above the figure of Edwin. At the prince’s feet is seen “the glorious 220,” the number of votes recorded by the opposition, disqualifying Wager and Sundon, and in favour of a new election for Westminster. The British crown, decorated with palms and laurels, caps the design; which is inscribed, on a riband beneath, “To the Independent Electors of Westminster.” A further allegorical engraving, appropriately due to Jo. Mynde, exhibits and commemorates the final stage in this contest, where the Court was defeated and the opposition scored a complete triumph; this version, which consists of a design and a petition, engraved on the same plate, is entitled, “The Banner of Liberty, displayed in the Petition of the Inhabitants of Westminster, with the Coat of Arms of the Glorious two hundred and twenty-two who voted in favour of the Petitioners.” The emblematical design displays the tutelary guardian of Westminster, a female figure, seated on the ground in deep dejection; her hand is resting on the armorial shield of Charles Edwin, which is placed before that of Lord Perceval (Earl of Egmont); the arms of Westminster are engraved on a stone, and the shield of Admiral Vernon also appears. The goddess of Liberty has arrived on the scene, she has summarily put “Slavery” to flight, and while she is assisting the guardian of the liberties of Westminster to rise, the muskets of the soldiery are trampled under foot, in allusion to the bold and impolitic step of ordering grenadiers to close the poll, resorted to at the previous election by Lord Sundon, to the damage of his patron Walpole. In the Commons it was suggested to indict the soldiers who had the temerity to interfere with “the rights of election.”

“THE INDEPENDENT WESTMINSTER ELECTORS’ TOAST.42
IN MEMORY OF THE GLORIOUS TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY.
To the Tune of ‘Come, let us prepare,’ etc.

1.