About a year or two after this long-forgotten loan, I received a letter from a gentleman whose name I did not recognize as being one of my too numerous correspondents. It commenced thus:—“Sir, I am the gentleman to whom you lent sixpence in the omnibus.” He then went on to state, in terms too flattering for me to repeat, that he had watched the Finsbury election with the greatest interest, and much deplored the taste of the electors in rejecting so, &c. &c., a candidate. My friend then informed me of an approaching vacancy in the borough of Stroud, in which town he resided. He proceeded to give me an outline of the state of opinion, and of the wants of the electors, and concluded by saying he was certain that my opinions would be very favourably received. He also assured me, if I decided on offering my services to the constituency, that he should have great pleasure in giving me every support in his power. In reply, I cordially thanked him for his generous offer, but declined the proposed honour. In fact, I was not peculiarly desirous of wasting my time for the benefit of my country. The constituency of Finsbury had already expressed their opinion that Mr. Wakley and Mr. Thomas Duncombe were fitter than myself to represent them in Parliament, and in that decision I most cordially concurred.
During some of the early contests for the borough of Marylebone, it too frequently occurred that ladies drove round to their various tradesmen to canvass for their votes, threatening, in case of refusal, to withdraw their custom. This unfeminine conduct occasionally drew upon them unpleasant though well-deserved rebukes.
〈DISGRACEFUL CANVASSING.〉
In one of those contests I took a considerable interest in favour of a candidate whom I shall call Mr. A. Meeting {275} a very respectable tradesman—a plumber and painter, whom I had employed in decorating my own house—I asked him how he intended to vote. He replied that he wished to vote for Mr. A., but that one of his customers had been to his shop and asked him to vote for Mr. Z., threatening, in case he declined, never to employ him again.
I inquired whether his customer’s house was larger than mine, to which he replied that mine was twice the size of the other. I then asked whether his customer was a younger man than myself, to this he replied, “He is a much older man.”
I then asked him what he would do if I adopted the same line of conduct, and insisted on his voting for my friend Mr. A. This query was unanswerable. Of course I did not attempt to make him violate his extorted promise.
Such conduct is disgraceful, and if of frequent occurrence would have a tendency to introduce the vote by ballot; a mode of voting for representatives which, in my opinion, nothing short of the strongest necessity could justify.
The election for Finsbury gave occasion to the following jeu d’esprit, which, as a specimen of the electioneering squibs of the day, I give in extenso:—