To call a Lord a 'thing' is voted treason:
To call him 'no-thing,' then, must be in season."
The elections for the new Parliament now engaged the popular attention; and, as elections were conducted in the "good old times" on very different principles than at present, one or two little items respecting them may be acceptable. Times, May 10th.
"A police constable belonging to a division at the east end of the Metropolis, who has a vote for a borough not more than thirty miles from London, applied to his inspector for permission to go into the country to poll for one of the anti-reform candidates, on Saturday morning. 'What do you expect to make by going down?' inquired the inspector, from motives of curiosity. 'Only £10 and the payment of my expenses,' was the reply of the 'independent freeman.' 'Is that all?' exclaimed the inspector. 'I thought you would make double that sum by your vote.' 'Oh no,' replied the policeman, 'they don't come down now as they used to do. I have had as much as £40 for my vote, and never less than £25; but now I am glad to get £10.' 'Well, you may go,' said the inspector; 'it will be the last time you will be wanted to vote, I have no doubt.' 'I hope not, sir,' ejaculated the policeman, with a long-drawn sigh; 'and if that Reform Bill passes, it will be a sad loss to me and my brother freemen.'"
Again (ib., May 11th), quoting the Scotsman:—
"Strange stories are abroad as to the sale of services at the election for the City of Edinburgh. Two persons are named as having received round sums; and the daughter of one of them, when asked by some civic functionaries of a humble class whether her father had not received £500, is said to have answered, 'No; he only received £300.'"
In connection with electioneering, there was a curious action for libel tried on June 18th, at the Court of King's Bench, before Lord Tenterden and a jury. It arose out of certain proceedings at Great Grimsby, during the General Election in 1830. The plaintiff was lieutenant of the Greyhound Revenue cutter; the defendant, an attorney at Great Grimsby. The libel was the following letter, dated from Great Grimsby, and published in some of the London papers. The blues were the Whig party; the reds, their opponents:—
"At the late election, some extraordinary interferences took place on the part of the persons employed in his Majesty's Revenue Service here. The Collector of the Customs was observed to join in the parade of the red party, and in its greetings and huzzas. His Majesty's Revenue cutters, Greyhound and Lapwing, landed from seventy to eighty of their crews, who kicked up occasional rows, to intimidate the peaceful inhabitants and the blue party; and in one of these, which became a serious riot and affray, they were actually led on by one of their commanders, Lieutenant Howe, of the Greyhound. This gentleman canvassed for the reds, attended their parades in their uniform, and wore a red ribbon, the cognizance of the party his efforts were intended to support. Several sailors were employed to erect a booth in front of the lodgings of the red candidates. A top-mast from the stores of the Greyhound was raised up, to which a stage was fixed, for the red candidates to make speeches from. Custom House flags were carried in the red parades, and hung out of public-houses in the red interest, and a Custom House ensign was suspended from the top-mast in front of the red candidates lodgings. The Greyhound was laid in the Humber, about two miles from Grimsby, to receive such of the blue party as could be made intoxicated, and kidnapped on board her; and two of them were actually confined there until the election was over. Are such things tolerated by Government?"
This letter, with the exception of the passage in italics, was published in the Globe of August 6, 1830. A similar letter, with that passage included, was published in the Courier on the 20th of the same month. Evidence was given confirming the truth of the libel in every respect, whilst Captain Harris and Colonel Challoner, the red candidates, stated that they and the plaintiff did every thing in their power to prevent disturbance, though the attack was commenced by the blue party. These and several other witnesses went into details in contradiction to the testimony of the defendant's witnesses, but the jury found for the plaintiff, damages £10.
There was a law case much talked about at this time. The King v. Cobbett, tried before Lord Tenterden, in Court of King's Bench, on 7th July. It was an action against the notorious William Cobbett, charging with the publication, in the Weekly Political Register, of December 11, 1830, of a libel, with intent to raise discontent in the minds of the labourers in husbandry, and to incite them to acts of violence, and to destroy corn, machinery, and other property. The trial lasted all day, and as the jury could not agree, they were locked up all night. Lord Tenterden came to Court next morning, at eight o'clock, and finding that the jury, after having been locked up for fifteen hours, could not agree, discharged them.