“I would use my best endeavours not merely to enlarge the constituencies, but to popularize the Government of this country. With no feeling but that of goodwill towards those leading aristocratic families who are administering the chief offices of the State, I believe it could be benefited by the skill and talent of persons less aristocratic, and that the country thinks so likewise.... The usefulness of a member of Parliament is best tested at home; and should you think fit to elect me as your representative, I promise to use my utmost endeavour to increase and advance the social happiness, the knowledge, and the power of the people.”
One point in his speech at the hustings, a characteristic allusion to the paramount influence of the Marlborough dukes, for many generations masters of the Oxford elections, was in the true Titmarshian vein, and worthy of the occasion:—“I hear that not long since—in the memory of many now alive—this independent city was patronized by a great university, and that a great duke, who lived not very far from here, at the time of the election used to put on his boots, and ride down and order the freemen of Oxford to elect a member for him.” By a curious coincidence, not altogether reassuring, Thackeray’s reputation at Oxford had somehow failed to reach the majority with whom he was thrown into contact, as one of his committee-men has assured the writer. They mainly asserted that “he could not speak,” to which the candidate retorted “he knew that, but he could write.” Unaccountable as it appears, the fame of his writings had not, in those days, penetrated to any extent this short distance, as the novelist learned by direct and disenchanting experience. He said, in his valedictory remarks, “Perhaps I thought my name was better known than it is.” This illusion, natural in itself, ought to have been dispelled by a former revelation of unsuspected ignorance, which, though unflattering to the author, had, as related by the sufferer, its ludicrous side. Thackeray had betaken himself to Oxford on a previous occasion, with the intention of addressing his lectures on “The English Humorists” to the rising youth at Alma Mater, and, as it was necessary to obtain the licence of the university authorities, he waited upon the chancellor’s resident deputy, who received him blandly.
“Pray, what can I do to serve you, sir?” inquired the functionary. “My name is Thackeray.” “So I see by this card.” “I seek permission to lecture within the precincts.” “Ah! you are a lecturer. What subjects do you undertake—religious or political?” “Neither; I am a literary man.” “Have you written anything?” “Yes; I am the author of ‘Vanity Fair.’” “I presume a Dissenter. Has that anything to do with John Bunyan’s book?” “Not exactly. I have also written ‘Pendennis.’” “Never heard of those works; but no doubt they are proper books.” “I have also contributed to Punch.” “Punch! I have heard of that. Is it not a ribald publication?”
On his reception in Oxford in the character of a canvasser, Thackeray addressed the electors with sturdy independence, beyond electioneering persuasive beguilements:—“You know whether I have acted honestly towards you; and you on the other side will say whether I ever solicited a vote when I knew that vote was promised to my opponent; or whether I have not always said, ‘Sir, keep your word. Here is my hand on it. Let us part good friends.’” Although beaten by the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell, Thackeray retained his good humour, energetically enjoining the extension of courtesy to his successful opponent and to the opposition party. A cry of “Bribery” being raised against them, he continued: “Don’t cry out bribery. If you know of it, prove it; but, as I am innocent of bribery myself, I do not choose to fancy that other men are not equally loyal and honest.” He attributed his defeat to the advanced views he avowed—and which, as he asserted, “he would not blink to be made a duke or a marquis to-morrow”—on the question of “allowing a man to have harmless pleasures when he had done his worship on Sundays. I expected to have a hiss, but they have taken a more dangerous shape—the shape of slander. Those gentlemen who will take the trouble to read my books—and I should be glad to have as many of you for subscribers as will come forward—will be able to say whether there is anything in them that should not be read by any one’s children, or my own, or by any Christian man.”
The most characteristic anecdote which has survived of this interesting incident in Thackeray’s experience as an “electioneerer,” exhibits him in a thoroughly John Bull attitude. While looking out of the hotel window, amused at the humours of the scene, in which he was only the second performer, a passing crowd, from hooting, proceeded to rough-handling, and the supporters of Mr. Cardwell, being in the minority against their assailants, would have been badly maltreated, but for Thackeray’s starting up in the greatest possible excitement, and, rushing downstairs, notwithstanding the efforts to detain him of more hardened electioneers, who evidently were of opinion that a trifling correction of the opposite party might be beneficial pour encourager les autres; he was not to be deterred, but, expressing in strong language his opinion of such unmanly behaviour, he hurled himself into the thick of the fray; and, awful spectacle for his party! his tall form—Thackeray, be it remembered, stood upwards of 6ft. 2in.—was next seen towering above the crowd, dealing about him right and left with frantic energy in defence of his opponent’s partisans and in defiance of his own friends.
SUMMARY OF BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.—BRIBERY ACTS.
In 1854, an important Act was passed consolidating and amending previous Acts relating to this offence, from 7 Will. 3 (1695) to 5 and 6 Vict. c. 184.
| Messrs. Sykes and Rumbold fined and imprisoned for bribery | 14 March, 1776 |
| Messrs. Davidson, Parsons, and Hopping, imprisoned for bribery at Ilchester | 28 April, 1804 |
| Mr. Swan, M.P. for Penryn, fined and imprisoned, and Sir Manasseh Lopez sentenced to a fine of £10,000 and two years’ imprisonment for bribery at Grampound | Oct. 1819 |
| The members for Dublin and Liverpool unseated | 1831 |
| The friends of Mr. Knight, candidate for Cambridge, convicted of bribery | 20 Feb. 1835 |
| Elections for Ludlow and Cambridge made void | 1840 |
| Sudbury disfranchised, 1848; St. Alban’s also | 1852 |
| Elections at Derby and other places declared void for bribery | 1853 |
| Corrupt Practices Act passed | 1854 |
| In the case of Cooper versus Slade it was ruled that the payment of travelling expenses was bribery | 17 April, 1858 |
| Gross bribery practised at Gloucester, Wakefield, and Berwick | 1859 |
| Mr. William H. Leatham convicted of bribery at Wakefield | 19 July, 1860 |
| Government commissions of inquiry respecting bribery, sat at Great Yarmouth, Totnes, Lancaster, and Reigate, and disgraceful disclosures were made | Aug.-Nov. 1866 |
| The boroughs were disfranchised by the Reform Bill, passed | 5 Aug. 1867 |
| The Parliamentary Elections Act enacted that election petitions should be tried by a court appointed for the purpose, passed | 31 July, 1868 |
| First trials under this Act: Mr. Roger Eykyn (at Windsor) was declared duly elected, 15 Jan., and Sir H. Stracey (at Norwich) was unseated | 18 Jan. 1869 |
| Dr. Kinglake, Mr. Fenelly, and others, were sentenced to be fined for bribery in parliamentary elections | 10 May, 1870 |
| Beverley, Bridgwater, Sligo, and Cashel disfranchised for bribery and corruption | 1870 |
| Much corruption during the elections of April. Members for Oxford, Chester, Boston, and other places unseated | 1880 |
| Stringent bill against bribery brought in by Sir Henry James, attorney-general | 7 Jan. 1881 |
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.
[October, 1886.