Leadership debates, as experienced in modern elections, were not a feature of 18th-century contests. However, as Dr Robin Eagles shows in the latest post for the Georgian Elections Project, that does not mean that there was not plenty of opportunity for candidates to address their prospective constituents and be quizzed on their record.
As Frank O’Gorman has shown, the qualities looked for in 18th-century MPs, while having a number of features that would be recognizable now, were subtly different from those looked for in modern candidates. In the absence of the kinds of organized party structures that emerged in the 19th century, people looked for alternative markers:
“The ideal candidate should be accessible, approachable, and sensitive to the wishes of the constituency. This meant that he should be a local man, of honour, reputation, and integrity, known to everybody. He should be a gentleman but he should be cordial with all classes.” [O’Gorman, 123]
Obviously, candidates might take the opportunity of years of careful cultivation to become known to their prospective constituents and in the case of county elections, in particular, selection of candidates might happen months in advance. Elections brought all of that into sharp focus, though, and ultimately candidates were expected to perform well in pre-election meetings convened in inns and town halls and ultimately on the hustings. Here, it was expected they should:
“command the platform, silence the heckler, and amuse the crowd” [O’Gorman]
While some national issues did play at times of election, the interests of each constituency were normally paramount, so every contest was subtly different. Again, as O’Gorman has argued:
“Questions of political significance to Westminster politicians seemed much less real to voters than critically important issues concerning the welfare and prosperity of the constituency at a time of rapid social and economic change” [O’Gorman, 124]
The first opportunity for candidates to set out their stalls and gauge the interests of the voters was normally a series of meetings, sometimes convened long before the date of the election was known. These were held with the clear intention of avoiding expensive and divisive contests. Many seats were settled in this way, such that in the period 1715-1754 when there were six general elections, the county of Berkshire only had contested elections twice, Cumberland once and Cornwall had no contests at all. Borough constituencies might be more likely to see contests, but even here there were places that rarely experienced a contested election. Again, in that period 1715-1754 there were no contests in Brackley (Northamptonshire) or Camelford (Cornwall). Bath, by contrast, had elections each time.
These sorts of pre-election meetings might also be an opportunity for candidates to address each other – as well as their prospective constituents. Arguments might also play out in the local press. As Perry Gauci has shown, one prominent 18th-century politician, William Beckford, who was both an MP and Lord Mayor of London, had to battle hard in 1761 to retain his seat in the City of London, amid criticisms from the Livery that he had neglected them in favour of Parliament. At a meeting of the Livery in advance of election day, Beckford argued strenuously in favour of his record, noting the importance of spending time in Parliament for London’s benefit.
Beckford did not just deal defensively, though. Having settled the issue of his own attendance, he turned to what he thought was the rank injustice of London’s under-representation:
‘By his calculations, “this great City” paid one-sixteenth of the land tax and one-eighth of taxes in general but elected only 4 of the 558 MPs’. He then continued with further examples of his own contribution and ‘defied anyone to contest that he had not done his utmost “where the trade, liberty and franchises of the City were concerned”’ [Gauci, 102]
All of this built up to the day of the poll, when everyone gathered at the hustings and the candidates had a further chance to address the crowd. The liveliness of the occasions offered perfect opportunities for print satirists to capture the atmosphere and the desperation of some candidates to win over their voters. In one James Gillray print, The Hustings, Charles James Fox is shown at St Paul’s Covent Garden during the 1796 election for Westminster, addressing a ragged crowd and assuring them of his opposition to the Pewter Pot Bill. In response they cry ‘We’ll have a Mug, a Mug, a Mug’. Fox ended at the top of the poll, largely aided by the second votes of those supporting his competitors.
Even at such a late point of an election, efforts were usually made to decide the contest without going to the trouble of actually polling with a show of hands being called for from the assembled voters. It was only once this mechanism had failed to reveal a clear decision that those qualified to do so were finally invited to come forward to cast their votes, and all along the candidates continued to be free to discourse with the crowd to try to sway them right up to the moment they presented themselves to the clerks.
RDEE
Further Reading:
Perry Gauci, William Beckford: First Prime Minister of the London Empire (2013)
Frank O’Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parties: The Unreformed Electorate of Hanoverian England, 1734-1832 (1989)
Find out more about hustings over on the History of Parliament’s TikTok channel!
