Chapter IV (2)

“The Independent Electors of the City and Liberty of Westminster” held their anniversary festival at Vintners’ Hall, on the 19th of March, 1747. The Stewards were the Earl of Lichfield, Earl of Orrery, Viscount Andover, Sir R. Bamfylde, George Heathcote, and Thomas Carew. On this occasion the stewards for the ensuing year were chosen; they were Lord Ward, Lord Windsor, Sir James Dashwood, Sir Charles Tynte, Sir Thomas Clarges, and George Cooke (who was then canvassing Middlesex). On the conclusion of the business of the afternoon, and after the festivities, toasts, as was customary, began to be proposed. _The London Evening Post_ gives a list of these healths, beginning with “The King;” but, as an implication of Jacobite proclivities, it is added in another paper that the royal health was honoured in the recognized Jacobite fashion--to “Charley over the Water:”--“Each man having a glass of water on the left hand, and waving the glass of wine over the water,”--but this accusation was probably a bold electioneering _ruse_. The succeeding toasts were as follows:--“The Prince;” “The Duke;” “Prosperity to the independent electors of Westminster;” “Prosperity to the city of London and the trade thereof;” “Thanks to the Worshipful Company of Vintners’ for the use of their Hall;” “The Lord Mayor of London;” “Success to the arms of Great Britain by sea and land;” “To the annexing _Cape Breton_ to the Crown of _Great Britain_;” “That the spirit of independency may diffuse itself through the nation;” “That the enemies of _Great Britain_ may never eat the bread nor drink the drink thereof;” “That the Naturalization Bill may be kicked out of the House, and the foreigners out of the kingdom;” “That the darkening our windows may enlighten our understanding” (tax upon light); “To all those that dare--be honest;” “The stewards elect;” “The late stewards, with thanks for the trouble they have taken;” “Our old Friend ----.”

According to the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, “amidst this mirth, one Mr. Williams, Master of the ‘White Horse’ in Piccadilly, being observed to make memorandums with a pencil, gave such offence that he was severely cuffed and kicked out of the company.” It appears that a Jacobite complexion was given to the rather forcible expression of public contempt bestowed upon the Ministerial notetaker, who was branded as “the Spy.” A spirited version of this incident, executed closely in the manner of Hogarth, if not by that master, to whose portrait of Lord Lovat it in style approximates (the artist was himself one of the free electors of Westminster), exhibits the ignominious ejectment of “the Spy,” whose detection is further indicated by the paper he has dropped on the ground, marked “List of the persons, etc.” The pictorial view of an episode to which undue importance was attached, owing to the excited relation of parties at the time, is accompanied by a quotation from “Hudibras” appropriate to the subject:--

“Honour in the Breech is lodg’d
As wise philosophers have judged;
Because a kick in that part more
Hurts Honour than deep wounds before.”

[_Page 109._]

A few days later a second entry shows that it was seriously entertained at that emergency to carry the matter farther; in any case--although they do not seem to have eventually made anything of it--the complaint was taken up by the Commons, and referred to the managers of Lord Lovat’s trial, then just concluded. On the 24th of March--

“Complaint being made to the House that John Williams,
keeper of the ‘White Horse Inn’ in Piccadilly, was on
Thursday last, in a public assembly, assaulted and severely
treated, upon a public assertion made by some persons in
that assembly--‘_that_, Fraser, _said by them, to be one of
the principal witnesses against the Lord Lovat, was in his
custody_’ ORDER’D. That a committee be appointed to
enquire into the matter of this complaint, and examine persons
in the most solemn manner; that this committee be the managers
against Lord Lovat.”

The whole matter is obscured by party misrepresentations. One James Fraser, who was pronounced a Jacobite, was active against the Ministerial candidates at the Westminster contest of 1749, where all opponents of the Court were denounced as Jacobites, while the “patriots,” “country party,” and “independent electors of Westminster,”--as they indiscriminately christened themselves--retorted upon Earl Gower, through his son, Lord Trentham, the Ministerial candidate for that city, the accusation of Jacobite leanings:--“_Ask_ Lord Trentham _who had his foot in the stirrup_ in the year 1715.”

The parliamentary dissolution followed in June, 1747, when the favourite manœuvre of those in power was to recklessly accuse their opponents of belonging to the Stuart faction. The odium attaching to the suspicion of Jacobite tendencies was sufficiently strong to place the “Independent party” in a smaller minority than at the previous election, and thus the outbreak in favour of the Pretender served to recruit the strength of the Court party, which had been jeopardized at the 1741 election, and had shown signs of declension before the rising in 1745. The Government candidates for Westminster, Admiral Sir Peter Warren and Lord Trentham, were again chosen from the Admiralty. Lord Trentham was the son of that Earl Gower who was for some time the head of the Opposition, and at this juncture was one of the recent recruits of the Court party.

“See Gower, who the Court had opposed thick and thin;
Was out, then was in, then was out and now in;
He kiss’d hands, then look’d pensive--as much as to say,
“I can’t judge which is best, to go or to stay.
Derry Down.”

(_Place Book for the Year 1745._)

Lord Trentham’s selection as a lord of the admiralty occurred somewhat later (1749). The second candidate was Admiral Sir Peter Warren, who, as usual, was supported by a mob of Jack Tars, or of ruffians dressed in sailors’ clothes for the occasion, a common party subterfuge at the Westminster elections. The candidates put forward for the suffrages of the “Independent Electors,” and who came out of the contest ingloriously, were, as first announced, Sir Thomas Clarges (one of the stewards of the association) and Sir John Phillips (who was a steward in 1744); after a ten-days’ canvass the latter declined to proceed in his candidature, on the plea of ill health, and Sir Thomas Dyke was put up in his stead. Early in the contest a well-executed caricature, in the manner of Boitard or Gravelot, both artists being contemporary with Hogarth, was offered to the public under the title of “The Two-Shilling Butcher.” It was at this election that the highest personages canvassed. The Duke of Cumberland and the Prince of Wales appeared in support of the rival factions. In the pictorial view of this situation, Lord Trentham, a dandified person dressed in the extreme of French taste, is in conference with his “backer” the “Two-Shilling Butcher,” who has been supposed by Thomas Wright and other authorities to represent the “Culloden Butcher,” _i.e._ the Duke of Cumberland. Mr. F. G. Stephens, who has described all the early caricatures in the Hawkins Collections with the utmost pains and minutiæ, sets down this personage as Mr. Butcher, the agent to the Duke of Bedford, whose residence is introduced in the rear. However, the figure in the present version corresponds with similar representations of the stout Cumberland Butcher; moreover, an allusion to cattle put into the mouth of this personage strongly indicates, by analogy with other caricatures on “horned cattle,” that none other than the duke is meant. The results of the election were at this time uncertain. The affected lordling, also satirized as Sir Silkington, is drawling, “Curs me! you’d buy me, ye Brutes, at 2_s._ p. Head _Bona fide_?” to which the figure travestied as a butcher, with apron, knife, and steel, is responding, “My Lord, there being a Fatality in ye Cattle, that there is 3000 above my Cut, tho’ I offered handsome.” The “3000” presumably refers to the Association of Independent Electors, who, at the previous poll (1741), registered for the “patriot” candidates (Vernon and Edwin), but were found wanting in 1747, as the figures at the close of the poll demonstrated. The Duke of Bedford’s residence is introduced to recall the circumstance that he and the candidate were close matrimonial connections, the duke having married the eldest daughter of John, Earl Gower. In front of this building, with the “bustos” of sphinxes above the posts of the gateway, is another important personage, who is bribing rival canvassers with gold openly filched from the pockets of Britannia, who is highly indignant at the proceeding; she is made to exclaim, with reason, “Ye Gods, what pickpockets!” The people seen in the dark transaction of being bribed were defectors from “Phillips and Clarges,” demoralized by the spell of gold; another voter is hastening away, denouncing the venality of these persons. One of the sphinxes is exclaiming--“We can’t decoy them in!” while labels, carried through the air by pigeons, record “The Independent has it,” and “For Yorkshire.” On the opposite side is shown the front of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, with its dial and the motto “So passes ye glory of ye world.” Before its portals stand the rival candidates, Sir Thomas Clarges and Sir Thomas Dyke; they are showing their contempt for mere “placemen representatives” by trampling upon government bribes: “Places in Exchequer we tread on,” and “No lucrative Employment.” Near them are the poll clerks, and the returning officer, with the poll-book under his charge. Beside the “independent” candidates are shown their supporters: one of these, bearing in his hand the cap of liberty, is pressing the latter on the acceptance of the electors, and assuring them, “Those candidates will serve you!” while a scroll, borne above the heads of the voters, carries the warning, “No Trentham!”

[_Page 113._]

Other caricatures appeared on the same subject, which excited, as usual, the largest share of public interest during the elections throughout the country. One of these first appeared, in compliment to the Scottish Rebellion, the latest novelty of the time, as “The Jaco-Independo-Rebello-Plaido.” In this version the business of the election is represented to take place before Westminster Hall, as a further allusion to the Jacobites and Lord Lovat’s trial there. The two parties and their respective head-quarters, established at taverns, are represented, and above all hovers the power of Destruction, always pictured as an important agent of “the other side,” according to the respective allegations of the contending parties. The Devil, in the present instance, is made “to take care of his own,” and has a stock of halters and axes for the rebels. “I have the Fee in my hands,” saith the Evil One. One side is appropriated to Ministerialists at the sign of Jolly Bacchus and the (Rabbit) Warren. Two persons are leaning from the first-floor window, and exhorting those with votes to “Give the Devil his due”--_i.e._ the Jacobites. The most prominent figure is a butcher; and no doubt, according to Mr. F. G. Stephens’s suggestion, the person thus implied is Mr. Butcher, the Duke of Bedford’s agent, and a less distinguished person than the “Cumberland Duke” pictured in the “Two-Shilling Butcher.” He is waving a scroll endorsed, “Trentham and Warren.” The butcher agent is surrounded by partisans; Admiral Sir Peter Warren’s sailors (a Lascar among them) are asserting “bludgeon law;” the people are pushing to the Governmental head-quarters, crying “No independency” and “No Pretender,” as if the terms were synonymous; a Frenchman may be identified in the crowd; and a person is offering the butcher a paper, “They squeak.” The head-quarters of the opposite party is shown as a Jacobite house. The flag displayed is adorned with the figure of an owl dressed in a full wig and a counsellor’s bands, and indicates “Morgan’s Ghost,” the Morgan thus favoured having been a Jacobite barrister who had the misfortune to be implicated in the abortive rising of 1745 in the interests of the Pretender, which cost Morgan his life. The adherents rallying round this questionable house, intended as a reflection upon the Association of Independent Electors of Westminster, who were stigmatized as friends of the Jacobites, are dressed for the most part in plaids, and wear Scotch bonnets, to imply their Jacobite sympathies. This caricature was republished, with the hustings at Covent Garden substituted for Westminster Hall, and the Devil very civilly giving place to the figure of an angel, with the legend “Faithful to King and country.” The title was changed to “The Humours of the Westminster Election; or, the Scald Miserable Independent Electors in the Suds,” 1747, with the following lines:--

“Britons brave are true and unconfin’d,
To lash the Coxcombs of the Age design’d;
Fixt to no Party, censure all alike,
And the distinguish’d Villain sure to strike;
Pleas’d we behold the great maintain the Cause,
And Court and Country join the loud applause.”

[_Page 114._]

Strong Jacobite imputations are farther conveyed in the pictorial version of “Great Britain’s Union; or, the Litchfield Races, 1747.” Both Whig and Tory parties, not content with the legitimate and recognized contests of the hustings, and their ultimate goal, the senate, carried their partisan proclivities on to the racecourse, and ministerial and opposition stakes were alternately put into competition on the same turf. Thus, at Lichfield were held Tory race weeks, succeeded by similar gatherings on the part of their opponents. Some rather extraordinary doings occurred there, the general description of which is conveyed by the caricature; the two factions by some means came into collision, and his Grace of Bedford received a sound hiding with a horsewhip as an acknowledgment of his services to the House of Hanover and his antagonism to the Patriotic party, denounced as Jacobites by their Hanoverian rivals; Earl Gower, and his modish son, Lord Trentham, were also roughly handled. Various freaks of an extravagant nature were performed, ladies and gentlemen of the Patriotic faction appearing dressed in Scottish plaids. In the design this circumstance is specially embodied: a party of enthusiasts, assembled in a booth on the course, are toasting the Pretender, whose sun is seen in the distance, falsely depicted as in the ascendant. A despondent grenadier outside the Jacobite head-quarters, is grumbling, “We are rode by Germans;” a cradle, a Gallic cock, and a _fleur-de-lis_ allude to the Chevalier and the French assistance lent to his pretensions; overhead several hands are seen clasped, with the suggestive legend, “A-greed.” A Frenchified person, pointing to a gamecock fighting his own shadow, is denouncing the Duke (of Bedford) in no measured terms; under his right arm is the whip with which the duke was castigated, and in the left hand of this valorous bravo is a paper, “We have courage.” As usual, the Devil is present, and this time he is flying off with “Information,” possibly to be laid before his dear friends in office. A sort of zany, seated beneath a flag marked, “And curse upon denial” (alluding to equivocation on the part of several), is giving the starting signal. The Scotch plaid-clad jockey riding for the Chevalier is beating the Hanoverian jockey on the traditional “White Horse.” This highly fanciful conception, the reverse of actual experience, is hailed with extravagant delight by the excited assembly; the occupants of the Grand Stand are described as “Don Juan and his friends at the place of Desert.” Various ballads and satirical productions were evoked upon the transaction related.

Lord Trentham, his father, Earl Gower, and their great relative, the Duke of Bedford, are, with various references to the late election for Westminster, introduced into several caricatures which followed, and notably in “Great Britain’s Union; or, Litchfield Races transposed,” “A Sight of the Banging Bout at Litchfield,” and “An Exact Representation” of the same occurrence. The circumstances to which these pictorial satires refer are traceable to the national ferment succeeding the suppression of the Rebellion, when, as recapitulated, various eccentricities were committed by those who favoured the Pretender’s cause; among others, certain Staffordshire sportsmen made themselves conspicuous. Smollett, in his “History of England,” describes these vagaries: the Stuart partisans--

“appeared in the Highland taste of variegated drapery, and,
their zeal descending to a very extraordinary exhibition of
practical ridicule, they hunted with hounds clothed in plaid, a
fox dressed in red uniform. Even the females at their assembly
and the gentlemen at the races affected to wear the chequered
stuff by which the prince-pretender and his followers had been
distinguished. Divers noblemen on the course were insulted
as apostates; and one personage of high rank is said to have
undergone a very disagreeable flagellation.”

The sequel of this adventure is related in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ (1748):--

“Before Mr. Justice Burnett, took place the trial of the
information against Toll (a dancing-master) and others,
for insulting and striking the Duke of Bedford, and other
gentlemen, upon Whittington Heath, at the late Litchfield
horse-races; when it was likewise proposed by the counsel for
the defendants, that the several rioters, to the number of
thirteen, should submit to be found guilty: if the counsel for
the crown would consent to withdraw the information against
several other persons concerned in that riot.”

The circumstances of the _fracas_ are also alluded to in the “Letters of Junius” (xxii.):--

“Mr. Heston Humphrey, a country attorney, horsewhipped the duke
with equal justice, severity, and perseverance on the course at
Litchfield. Rigby and Lord Trentham were also cudgelled in a
most exemplary manner.”

These incidents gave rise to various ballads as well as caricatures; a parody on “Chevy Chase” offers the liveliest version of the affair:--

“THE LORDS’ LAMENTATION; OR, THE WHITTINGTON DEFEAT.

“God prosper long our noble King,
Our lives and safeties all,
A woeful Horse race late there did
At Whittington befall.
Great Bedford’s duke, a mighty prince
A solemn vow did make;
His pleasure in fair Staffordshire
Three summer days to take,
At once to grace his father’s race,
And to confound his foes;
But ah! (with grief my muse does speak)
A luckless time he chose.
For some rude clowns who long had felt
The weight of tax and levy,
Explain’d their case unto his Grace,
By arguments full heavy.
‘No Gow’r,’ they cried, ‘no tool of pow’r!’
At that the Earl turned pale.
‘No Gow’r, no Gow’r, no tool of pow’r!’
Re-echo’d from each dale.
Then Bedford’s mighty breast took fire;
Who thus enrag’d did cry,
‘To horse, my Lords, my knights and squires;
We’ll be reveng’d or die.’
They mounted straight, all men of birth,
Captains of land and sea;
No prince or potentate on earth
Had such a troop as he.
Great Lords and Lordlings, close conjoin’d,
A shining squadron stood;
But to their cost, the Yeomen Host
Did prove the better blood.
‘A Gow’r, a Gow’r! ye son o’ th’ w--e,
Vile spawn of Babylon!’
This said, his Grace did mend his pace,
And came full fiercely on.
Three times he smote a sturdy foe;
Who undismay’d replied,
‘Or be thou devil, or be thou Duke,
Thy courage shall be tried.’
The charge began; but, on one side,
Some slackness there was found;
The smart cockade in dust was laid,
And trampled on the ground.
Some felt sore thwacks upon their backs.
Some, pains within their bowels;
And who did joke the royal oak,
Were well rubbed with its towels.
Then terror seized the plumed troop,
Who turned themselves to flight.
Foul rout and fear brought up the rear,
Oh! ’twas a piteous sight!
Each warrior urg’d his nimble steed,
But none durst look behind;
Th’ insulting foe, they well did know,
Had got them in the wind.
Who ne’er lost scent, until they came
Unto the gallows tree:
‘Now,’ said their foes, ‘we’ll not oppose,
Your certain destiny.
No further help of ours ye lack,
Grant mercy with your doom!
Trust to the care o’ the three-legg’d mare,
She’ll bring ye all safe home.’
Then wheel’d about with this fierce shout,
‘Confusion to the Rump!’
Leaving each knight to moan his plight
Beneath the triple stump.
Now Heaven preserve such hearts as these
From secret Treachery!
Who hate a knave, and scorn a slave,
May such be ever _Free_!”

In 1749, Lord Trentham, having been appointed one of the lords of the admiralty, had to vacate his seat, and every exertion was made by the Opposition to hinder his re-election.

“With this view they held consultations, agreed to resolutions,
and set up a private gentleman named Sir George Vandeput as
the competitor of Lord Trentham, declaring that they would
support his pretensions at their own expense; being the more
encouraged to this enterprise by the countenance and assistance
of the Prince of Wales and his adherents. They accordingly
opened houses of entertainment for their partisans, solicited
votes, circulated remonstrances, and propagated abuse; in a
word, they canvassed with surprising spirit and perseverance
against the whole interest of St. James’s. Mobs were hired,
and processions made on both sides, and the city of Westminster
was filled with tumult and uproar.”

“Ye ELECTORS who hate all the French strolling Clan,
If you love yourselves, chase not the MINISTER’S MAN,
But give all your Votes to the _Man_ of the KING,
SIR GEORGE VANDEPUT’S he--and GEORGE we will sing.”

This election occurred in the midst of a violent popular anti-Gallican feeling, which had been shown particularly against a company of French players who were performing at the Haymarket, and who were spoken of by the mob as the “French vagrants.” An attempt had been made to hinder them from acting, and they had been protected only by a mob hired by Lord Trentham, who appears to have affected Gallic manners, and to have been vain of his proficiency in the French language. The night after his ministerial appointment there was a great riot at the French theatre, in which Lord Trentham was accused of being personally active, although he denied it to the electors. This was made the most of by his opponents, who stigmatized him in ballads and squibs as “the champion of the French _strollers_;” and common people said that learning to talk French was only a step towards the introduction of French tyranny.

An “Elector” writes, by way of warning to others:--

“Being the other evening at the French Theatre, who should
I see at the head of a mob of foreign varlets, cooks,
etc., signalizing himself in a laudable attack upon his
fellow-citizens, but this very young man, whom they had
so lately made choice of as the defender of their rights
and privileges. I was indeed amazed to see, at so critical
a juncture, that sword, which had hitherto kept peaceful
possession of its scabbard, brandished over the heads and
planted at the hearts of several of his own electors, and that
in support of a parcel of foreign vagabonds, who, from being a
nuisance in their own nation, are now come to be the disgrace
of ours. Certain I am this fit of Gallic valour could never be
communicated by the touch of that Royal British hand he had
but that very morning kissed for his employment. Perhaps an
impatient desire to prove himself qualified for the warlike
Board to which he was appointed might induce him to seize the
first opportunity of displaying his prowess; being willing to
convince the public, that how deficient soever the sea may
have been, the land is, at least, able to produce a fighting
Admiral. However, I cannot help concluding him a very unfit
person to defend me _against_ the French in one House, who is
ready to cut my throat _for_ them in another.”

A flight of satirical ballads appeared upon these events. The best of these compositions, which were remarkable for point and spirit, was entitled:--

“PEG TRIM TRAM IN THE SUDS; OR, NO FRENCH STROLLERS.

“I sing you a song of a right noble Lord,
Whose name must, for ever, stand FOOL on Record;
Who, losing a _Seat_, by accepting a Place,
SUBSCRIB’D to _French Strollers_, so fell in disgrace.

“This right noble Lord, when elected before,
To preserve us, in our _ev’ry Privilege_ swore;
How well he maintain’d them will quickly appear,
Deduc’d from right Reason, unaided by Sneer.

“Got snug in the House, he exerted his zeal,
Not for his Constituents, or the Common-Weal;
But to serve his own ends, and aid _Gentleman_ HARRY,[43]
Lest his Glorious Views, for our Good, should miscarry.

“Have you heard a pert _Parrot_ cry ‘_Quaker-a-quer;
A cup of Good Sack; Pretty Poll; Saucy Cur_’?
You’ve then heard this Lord to great HARRY reply,
And echo, _Yes, No,--No, Yes_;” anything cry.

“Have you seen a young _Puppy_ leap over a stick,
Fetch, carry, yelp, fawn, and learn every fond Trick?
Then you’ve seen this sleek Lordling on HARRY attend,
And, aw’d by his nod, most obsequiously bend.

“To reward such bright parts and so ductile a mind
The Dispenser of PLACES was strongly inclin’d;
When deeply reflecting what he could afford,
He fix’d him (slap dash!) at the Admiralty Board.

“This little Lord, conscious that he had no right
To a _Post_ which requir’d, not to Fiddle, but Fight;
Resolved that for once he’d assume martial airs,
And in the _Haymarket_ protect the FRENCH PLAYERS.

“He flew, he appear’d, and he heard a strange roar;
The like had ne’er tickl’d his soft ears before;
Then to set an example to future _Protectors_,
He drew forth his TILTER--_and at his_ ELECTORS.

“Shock’d at this rough treatment, in print they demand,
Why, ’gainst his best Friends, he thus lifted his hand;
His answer was full of mean _Equivocation_,
Which made them the jest and contempt of the Nation.”

[_Page 121._]

The caricaturists endorsed this view. In “Britannia Disturbed, or an Invasion by French Vagrants, addressed to the worthy Electors of the City of Westminster,” 1749, Lord Trentham is trying to force these importations on Britannia, who is nursing “Lunn” (Rich), and “Fribble;” these she declares “are my only Theatrical children, I will cherish no Foreign vagrants.” “Peg” Trentham, with drawn sword, is asserting that he will perforce cram these “entertaining dear creatures” down the throat of the nation; the strollers are like marionettes, and wear wooden shoes, as a hint of French neediness. Earl Gower is anxious for his rash scion’s future prospects: “My long-headed son will smart for this scheme.” “Push on, my Lord,” is the encouragement of “a subscriber.” “Bludgeon-men, at two shillings a day,” engaged for the election, are making a demonstration of force, and shouting for their employer’s glorification.

This Westminster election is said to have been one of the most expensive contests that the Government had as yet experienced. The following epigram describes a supposed conversation between Lord Trentham and his father:--

“Quoth L--d G--r [_Lord Gower_] to his son, ‘Boy, thy frolic and place
Full deep will be paid for by us and his g----e [_grace_]:
Ten thousand twice over advanced!’--‘_Veritable,
Mon pere_,’ cry’d the youth; ‘but the D--e [_Duke_] you know’s able:
Nor blame my _French frolics_; since all men are certain,
You’re doing behind, what I did ‘fore the curtain.’”

At the conclusion of the polling there appeared a majority for Lord Trentham, but his opponents demanded a scrutiny; and this scrutiny proved so laborious and difficult, or the parties interested in opposing the Court threw so many obstacles in the way, that it led to a quarrel with the House of Commons, which lasted some months, and gave a double celebrity to the Westminster Election of 1749.

The most was made of Lord Trentham’s Gallic proclivities, which were held up to ridicule in ingenious satires. The following handbill is an example of the squibs circulated by his opponents during the election:--

“AUX ELECTEURS TRÈS DIGNES DE WESTMINSTER.

“MESSIEURS--

“Vos suffrages et Interêts sont desirés pour le Très Hon. mi
Lord Trentham,

“UN VERITABLE ANGLOIS.

“N.B.--L’on prie ses Amis de ses rendre à l’Hôtel François dans
le Marché au Foin.

“TO MY LORD TRENTHAM.

“The King of France (my most glorious Monarch) being touched
with a lively sense of the obligations he owes your Lordship,
for the powerful protection you have given to his subjects
in England, honours you with his thanks, and commands me to
assure you, that your Lordship shall be the _Chief Manager_ of
his _Playhouse_ in England, as soon as your Lordship and your
Friends have brought those insolent rascals, the English, under
his dominion, being satisfied the measures your Lordship and
Friends now pursue cannot fail of your desired success.

“I have the honour to be

“Your Lordship’s most obliged humble Servant,

“MIREPOIX.
[French ambassador to the Court of
St. James’s, 1749-1751.]

“N.B.--Translated from the Original French.”

Great favour was shown to docile voters, while the refractory were subject to crying injustices. The following handbill, circulated at the time, exposes the meannesses to which a Duke of Bedford could descend in the interests of his candidate:--

“TO THE WORTHY ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER.

“A true Copy of a Letter sent to an inhabitant of Covent
Garden, who thought himself at liberty (though a Tenant to the
Duke of Bedford) to vote according to his _own conscience_;
which having done, he received the following:--‘I hereby give
you Notice, that you are to quit the house you rent of his
Grace the Duke of Bedford, situate in Bedford Street, in the
parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden, at Lady-Day next, or to pay
his Grace _Seventy-two pounds_ a year for the same from that
time.

“‘RT. BUTCHER, Steward to His Grace.

“‘_Nov. 29, 1749._

“‘_To_ MR. MATTHEW CREYGHTON.’

“NOTE.--I acknowledge to have received the above letter by the
hands of Mr. Becuda, one of his Grace’s stewards, and accept
the notice therein. The rent I at present pay is _thirty-six
pounds_ per annum. I voted for and to my utmost have served Sir
George Vandeput. Who would not?

“⁂ _No_ rent due to his Grace.

“MATTHEW CREYGHTON,

“An insulted Elector of Westminster.

“N.B.--The House to Let.”

The general election of 1747 furnished Hogarth with a suggestion which employed his attention anterior to his more ambitious election series. The House of Commons dissolved on the 18th of June, and the artist, taking time by the forelock, had his engraving “A Country Inn-yard at the Time of Election” ready for publication while the contests were occupying the public. As the print in question informs us, the cry of a “Babe of grace,” heard at the City election of 1701, was repeated in 1747. The subject of the stage-coach and inn-yard is generally familiar. It contains the figures of the fat woman of abnormal proportions being assisted into the coach by the efforts of her meagre husband; while the equally obese landlady, seen at the bar window, which she fills, is vigorously pulling the bell to summons the coach passengers. It is the background of the picture which illustrates the present subject. The sleek landlord, wearing an apron, and with a pair of snuffers pendent at his girdle, is presenting to an election agent a bill for the expenses incurred for the entertainment of his party; that the amount is excessive is conveyed by the expression of suspicion which pervades the features of the agent, who is preparing to settle the account; the landlord is evidently protesting as to his immaculate reputation, while a part of the _Act_ against bribery on elections is projecting from his pocket. The galleries of the inn-yard are filled with spectators, who are favoured with a sight of the humours of an election procession--a posse of men carrying sticks and bearing an effigy of a more than life-size baby, with a child’s rattle and hornbook, or A.B.C. Behind the chair, in which this figure is seated, is carried a flag with the inscription, “No Old Baby.” Nichols and Stevens, in their “Notes to Hogarth” (1810) have explained that the “Old Baby” effigy and cry were resorted to by the antagonists of the Hon. John Child, whose family, by Act of Parliament, took the name of Tylney in 1735. This candidate stood member for the county of Essex in opposition to Sir Robert Abdy and Mr. Bramstone. At the election, a man was placed on a bulk, with a mock infant in his arms, who, as he whipped the babe in effigy, exclaimed, “What, you little Child, must you be a member?” The member in question was then Viscount Castlemaine, and afterwards Earl Tylney. At this disputed election, it appeared, from the register book of the parish where this candidate was born, that he was a “Child” in more than one respect, being but twenty years of age when returned for parliament.