Part 5

1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Sir Masseh Manasseh Lopez, Bart., entered the field at this election against the former members, and after six days’ poll, the numbers of votes recorded stood thus—Manning, 494; Lopez, 334; Howorth, 320. This result was obtained by the returning officer admitting 122 freeholders to the poll, contrary to former decisions, which had determined that freemen and paymasters alone had the right to vote. “A most gratifying interchange of compliments passed,” says the reporter of the period, “during the closing of the poll books, between the candidates, the mayor (W. Soley, Esq.), the assessor, and the professional gentlemen employed; and though perhaps there never was a severer contest, yet never was the conduct observed more honourable to all parties.” It seems to have been altogether, and undisguisedly, a matter of money. In a few days after the election an address was presented to Mr. Howorth, by E. Rudge, Esq., and 189 burgesses, complimenting him upon his conduct in the House of Commons, and begging him “to bring their joint cause before a committee of the House,” assured that “their insulted rights will be henceforward fixed on such a basis as will baffle the attempts of those who will dare to violate them.” A petition was accordingly presented, and in 1808, February 22nd, the report of the committee was brought up, and Sir M. M. Lopez, Bart., was declared to have been unduly elected, and Mr. Howorth ought to have been returned; opposition to petition not frivolous. Mr. Howorth, in his published address after this result, declares that he was ousted at the election by the votes of “a class of persons having no common interest or common feeling with the freemen and inhabitants of the borough.” He had “vindicated their rights, and triumphed over this foreign influence.” Mr. Howorth’s constituents afterwards presented him with a piece of plate.

1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—W. Manning and H. Howorth, Esqs., reëlected without opposition.

1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—A very sharp contest distinguished by all sorts of manœuvres, violence, and questionable practices. The poll was kept open for twelve days, and the numbers at its close were—for Mr. Howorth, 410; Mr. Rouse Boughton, 359; and Sir Charles Cockerell, 341. Mr. Rouse Boughton was son of Sir Charles William Rouse Boughton, Bart., and Sir Charles Cockerell, was a brother to Lord Northwick. Two petitions were presented as soon as Parliament met, against Mr. Rouse Boughton’s return; one from Sir Charles, alleging bribery, and another from voters of Evesham, against the admission of the votes of certain persons. It seemed that it had actually been the custom to admit any man to vote who had paid poor-rates for six months prior to an election, so that Evesham almost enjoyed universal suffrage. It was, however, against these votes that the petition was presented. The committee decided that Mr. Boughton was not duly elected, and struck off all the scot and lot voters from the roll, declaring that the election of members for Evesham was vested in the mayor, aldermen, capital and other burgesses, members of the corporation. The name of Sir Charles Cockerell was ordered to be inserted in the return in lieu of that of Mr. Rouse Boughton. Lord Palmerston was taken into custody for not being present when this committee was ballotted for, but discharged, of course, on payment of the fees, amounting to £30. A handsome piece of plate was afterwards presented by the supporters of Mr. Boughton, to Mr. Edward Lawes, of Sergeant’s Inn, for his exertions on that gentleman’s behalf.

1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell, Bart., and Mr. William E. Rouse Boughton elected without opposition; Mr. Howorth having retired from the representation because of continued ill-health.

1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—There were three candidates in the field when this election was first talked of: Sir Charles Cockerell (one of the former members), Sir Roger Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Protheroe; but a coalition was formed between Sir Charles and Mr. Protheroe, and Sir Roger Gresley retired from the contest. Mr. William E. Rouse Boughton did not again offer himself. Many of the electors were very angry at being “sold,” as they called it, and looked out for a third candidate, who would spend a proper quantity of money, and they found one in the person of Patrick Grant, Esq., of Spring Gardens, London, who drove up to the hustings just in time to be put in nomination. Having stood a three days’ poll, however, he retired; the numbers then being—Cockerell, 235; Protheroe, 137; Grant, 87.

1830—AUGUST—(General Election.)—Sir C. Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (heir apparent of the Earl of Cassilis) returned. Alexander Raphael, Esq., of London, was a third candidate, but retired after two days’ poll; the numbers then being—Cockerell, 231; Kennedy, 148; Raphael, 110. The return was immediately petitioned against, on the score of bribery and treating, and it was proved that sixteen freemen had gone down from London and received £12 each (for their loss of time it was said), independently of their expenses. The election was declared void (Mr. Raphael being implicated in this bribery), and both Sir Charles Cockerell and Lord Kennedy were thus incapacitated from sitting in that Parliament. The issue of another writ was suspended, on the motion of the Marquis of Chandos, to allow of time for further Parliamentary inquiry. The Marquis afterwards brought in a bill for the disenfranchisement of the borough, which was read a second time; but Parliament was dissolved before it could be passed, and a writ was, therefore, issued to the returning officer in the usual course.

1831—MAY—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Lord Kennedy (the lately ousted members), and Thomas Hudson, Esq. (Reformer), a Portuguese merchant, were the candidates at this election; and the numbers at the close of the poll were—Sir Charles, 208; Mr. Hudson, 157; Lord Kennedy, 136. The two former gentlemen were then declared duly elected. Lord Kennedy did not appear in the town at all during the election.

Evesham having been retained in schedule C of the Reform Bill, continued to send two members to Parliament in spite of the smallness of the population—at that time only numbering 3,998 individuals. The out-voters being deprived of their right to poll, the number of electors was only 359.

1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell and Mr. Hudson reëlected. Mr. Rudge, Mr. Skirrow, and other gentlemen had “come like shadows and so departed,” declaring their intentions to be third candidates, but suddenly retreating from the field. However, at the eleventh hour, Mr. Peter Borthwick, who had signalised himself by lectures in favour of negro slavery, was put forward by the Tory party, but only received 126 votes—Sir Charles Cockerell polling 234, and Mr. Hudson 212. The number of electors who voted was 329.

1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell again came forward as a candidate; but Mr. Hudson retired at the last moment, being opposed by Mr. Peter Borthwick, the unsuccessful candidate at the previous election. However, Mr. Rudge was put in nomination in his absence by the Liberals, and a poll demanded on his behalf; the show of hands being in favour of Sir Charles and Mr. Borthwick. On the hustings Mr. George May charged Mr. Borthwick with having failed as a bookseller in Dalkeith, and having been excommunicated by the Scotch United Secession Church. Mr. Borthwick denied it, and said it was a relative whose debts he had paid for him. Mr. Rudge eventually declined to stand the poll, and Sir Charles Cockerell and Mr. Borthwick were declared duly elected. In June a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick in the Guildhall, the chair being taken by Lieutenant Amherst; and a party of 160 sat down. The charge made against Mr. Borthwick having been repeated in the _Bath Guardian_, near which town he then lived, he commenced an action against the proprietors for libel, which was tried in April, 1836, and ended in a verdict for Mr. Borthwick on some counts of the indictment, with £100 damages; but the jury held it proved that Mr. Borthwick had been a bookseller in Dalkeith—had failed—had been in gaol—and had been a professional, but unsuccessful, performer on the stage of the Surrey Theatre.

1837—FEBRUARY—(Election in consequence of the death of Sir Charles Cockerell.)—The candidates were Lord Marcus Cecil Hill, brother of the Marquis of Downshire, on the Liberal interest, and George Rushout Bowles, Esq., nephew of Lord Northwick and the Dowager Lady Cockerell, on the Conservative side. On the hustings, Lord Hill was proposed by Mr. Benjamin Workman and Mr. T. N. Foster; and Mr. Bowles by Mr. Thomas Blayney and the Rev. Joseph Harling. The Mayor declared the show of hands to be in favour of Mr. Bowles, though his decision was questioned. The contest was a close one, ending in Mr. Bowles’s election; the numbers being—Bowles, 165; Hill, 140. About 60 electors did not vote.

1837—JULY—(General Election.)—The Hon. George Rushout and Mr. Peter Borthwick, the former members, coalesced to prevent the return of Lord Marcus Hill—who, for the second time, came forward on the Liberal interest—and they were successful; the numbers being—for Rushout, 168; Borthwick, 166; Hill, 156. Of 490 votes recorded, 124 were plumpers; and 119 of these were for Lord Hill. The Liberal party were loud in their indignation against the bribery which they asserted to have been practised. The return was petitioned against; and the committee ballotted for, consisted of six Conservatives and five Liberals: Sir Robert Peel, Bart., being chairman. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Rushton were the counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Thessiger, Mr. Austin, &c., for the sitting members. Shortly after the opening of the case, the petition, as far as regarded Mr. Rushout, was abandoned, and Mr. Borthwick alone proceeded against. Mr. Borthwick was charged with bribery, both by himself and his agents; he was also declared to want qualification; and as many as 100 of his votes were objected to. The cases of bribery alone were gone into; and the one proved was that of Ebenezer Pierce, to whom Mr. Borthwick had presented a silver snuff box. He canvassed this voter personally, about a week before the election, and promised him a silver snuff box, which Mr. Charles Best afterwards brought him, with Mr. Borthwick’s compliments, and told him to put it by till after the election. It was proved that the box had been purchased at Stow and Mortimer’s by Mr. Borthwick, in the interim, and he had ordered them to engrave on it—“_Ex dono amici sui conducit_.” The committee, upon this, decided that Mr. Borthwick had been guilty of bribery. Mr. Austin abandoned the scrutiny, and permitted Lord Marcus Hill to be put in a majority of one, by permitting the votes of several persons, who admitted that they had been Mr. Borthwick’s paid agents, to be struck off; but he declared that the decision of the committee in the snuff box case had struck him with the utmost surprise, and begged to be allowed to call evidence to clear Mr. Borthwick’s character. Mr. Cockburn did not object, but the committee refused to hear any more evidence. The committee reported on March 20, 1838, and the return being amended, Lord Marcus Hill took his seat immediately afterwards. Soon after the decision of the committee was known, a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick, and he was presented with an oblong silver salver, which had been subscribed for by the wives and daughters of the Conservative electors. The Rev. Mr. Harling presented the plate, and J. Amherst, Esq., presided at the dinner. Mr. Borthwick made a very long speech, reviewing his connection with the borough, and animadverting upon his late colleague, Mr. Rushout, in unmeasured terms, for having forsaken him before the committee. The language he made use of caused a challenge, and the two gentlemen met at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge, without effect, Mr. Borthwick withdrew the offensive expressions. Lord Marcus Hill was also entertained at a dinner at the Town Hall, over which T. N. Foster, Esq., (the Mayor) presided; and a party of 200 gentlemen sat down to the tables.

1841—JULY—(General Election.)—The candidates were again Lord Marcus Hill, Mr. Rushout, and Mr. Peter Borthwick; the latter, indeed, did not make his appearance throughout the election, but he was strongly supported by a section of the Conservatives, who thought he had been ill used by Mr. Rushout in the matter of the previous election—and, generally, he seemed to be a favourite with the populace. At the hustings, Lord Marcus Hill was proposed by Edward Rudge, Esq., and the Rev. B. Bonaker; Mr. Rushout by Dr. Beale Cooper and the Rev. M. Shaw; and Mr. Borthwick by R. Blayney, Esq., and G. Eades, Esq. Mr. Francis Holland spoke for Mr. Borthwick; and on the show of hands, three-fourths of the meeting held up theirs for that gentleman, about one half for Lord Marcus, and but few for Mr. Rushout. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Hill, 188; Borthwick, 161; Rushout, 137. Lord Hill had 108 plumpers; Borthwick, 42; and Rushout, 34. After the canvass, but prior to the election, Lord Marcus was made a privy councillor, and appointed to the office of Comptroller of the Royal Household.

1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. Borthwick retired from the representation, and his place was taken by Sir Henry Willoughby, a moderate Conservative and free trader. A third candidate came into field, late in the day, in the person of Sir Ralph Howard, formerly member for Wicklow, who professed Radical views. At the nomination, Lord Marcus Hill and Sir Ralph Howard had the show of hands. The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close of the struggle Lord Marcus Hill was found to have 195 votes; Sir Henry Willoughby, 172; and Sir Ralph Howard, 131.

DROITWICH.

DROITWICH was formerly one of the closest of Whig boroughs, and was entirely under the influence of the Foley family. To the return for the first election recorded below, the names of nineteen persons are appended in the books of the Droitwich Corporation; and at a much more recent date, ten persons returned two members to Parliament. The present constituency of the borough numbers 368.

1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Edward Winnington, Bart., and the Hon. Andrew Foley, reëlected.

1805—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of Sir Edw. Winnington.)—Thomas Foley, Esq., son of the Hon. Andrew Foley, elected.

1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—The Hon. Andrew Foley, and Lieutenant Colonel Foley.

1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Colonel Foley becomes a candidate for Herefordshire, and the Hon. A. Foley and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., are returned for this borough.

1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and Sir T. Winnington reëlected.

1816—APRIL—Sir Thomas Winnington having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, Lord Sefton is elected in his stead.

1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Hon. A. Foley and the Earl of Sefton reëlected.

1819—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of the Hon. Andrew Foley.)—Colonel Foley, son of the late member, elected.

1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and Colonel Foley reëlected.

1822—FEBRUARY—(Vacancy on the death of Colonel Foley.)—John Hodgetts Hodgetts Foley, Esq., elected.

1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—Lord Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq., reëlected.

1830—(General Election.)—Earl of Sefton and J. H. H. Foley, Esq., reëlected.

1831—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. J. H. H. Foley and Sir T. E. Winnington elected; the Earl of Sefton making way for the hon. baronet.

1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—The borough was deprived of one of its members by the Reform Bill; and on this occasion J. H. H. Foley, Esq., was returned alone, having been proposed by Sir A. Lechmere, Bart., and seconded by T. T. Vernon, Esq.

1835—(General Election.)—For the first time since 1711 this borough was contested and a Tory returned. The candidates were J. H. H. Foley, Esq. (the former member), and John Barneby, Esq., of Brockhampton. The former was proposed by Captain Vernon and Mr. Francis; the latter, by Dr. Steward and Mr. Lilley, of Wichbold. The Rev. Mr. Topham also addressed the populace in Mr. Foley’s favour, and bore testimony to his attachment to the Church. The show of hands was in Mr. Foley’s favour. At the end of the first day the numbers were—Barneby, 115; Foley, 113: and at the close of the poll—Barneby, 125; Foley, 122: majority for Barneby, 3. Out of a constituency of only 281, 34 did not vote. The election issued in a petition against the return, and on the 17th of March a committee of the house was ballotted for to decide the matter; but it was constituted very unfavourably to Mr. Foley, having at least eight Tories upon it. They refused to reopen the register, so the inquiry was limited to a few disputed votes on either side. Mr. Foley succeeded in striking off three of Mr. Barneby’s votes, and so reducing matters to an equality; but Mr. Barneby then struck off Lord Southwell’s vote, objected to on account of his peerage. This left Mr. Foley in a minority of one, and Mr. Barneby retained his seat.

1837—JULY—(General Election.)—John Barneby, Esq., having determined to contest the county, made way for Mr. Pakington to come in for this borough, of which he has ever since been the representative. J. H. Galton, Esq., of Hadsor, made a canvass of the electors on the Liberal interest; but finding that his chances were not very good he retired from the contest. Mr. Allen, barrister, also made a flying visit to the place, intending to put up as a Reformer, but soon took his departure. Mr. Pakington was proposed at the hustings by W. H. Ricketts, Esq., and Mr. John Tolley; and having made a long confession of his political creed (in which he avowed himself a staunch Conservative, but would not vote for a repeal of the Malt Tax, and approved of the new Poor Law), he was declared duly elected.

1841—JULY—(General Election.)—J. S. Pakington, Esq., reëlected without opposition.

1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. C. Lloyd, nephew of Lord Mostyn, canvassed the electors on the Liberal interest, and had some promise of support from the agents of a noble lord in the neighbourhood (Lord Ward), who was expected rather to have thrown his influence into the Conservative scale; but, notwithstanding this, Mr. Lloyd found that he had very little chance of success, and consequently retired, leaving the field free for Sir John Pakington, Bart., who was reëlected.

BEWDLEY.

THIS, before the Reform Bill, was a close Tory borough, with some thirty or forty self-elected burgesses, who returned their member with no confusion or turmoil. Under the new state of things, Stourport joins with it in the exercise of the franchise, and the united constituency now includes 371 electors. Parties have been very evenly balanced here of late years.

1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Miles P. Andrews, Esq., who had for some time represented the town, again chosen.

1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.

1814—AUGUST—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Andrews.)—Charles Edward Wilson, Esq., of Bognor, Sussex, chosen.

1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., returned; Mr. Wilson having retired in his favour.

1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1830—JULY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1831—MAY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.

1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—After the passing of the Reform Bill, Mr. Roberts did not choose again to offer himself, and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., was elected without opposition. He was proposed by Arthur Skey, Esq., and Jonathan Worthington, Esq.

1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington reëlected without opposition.

1837—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington resigned in favour of his son, T. E. Winnington, Esq., who was elected without opposition.

1841—JULY—(General Election.)—For the first time this century this borough was contested, Mr. Robert Monteith, son of a Lanarkshire gentleman who had accumulated a fortune as a Glasgow merchant, coming forward to oppose Sir Thomas Edward Winnington. At the nomination Sir Thomas was proposed by A. Skey, Esq., and seconded by J. Williams, Esq.; and Mr. Monteith by W. A. Roberts, Esq., and K. Watson, Esq. Sir Thomas declared himself for an alteration of the Corn Laws, but for some measure of protection. Mr. Monteith declared himself a thorough Conservative. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Monteith, and the struggle throughout was a most severe one. In the Bewdley district Mr. Monteith had a majority of eight, but this was more than counterbalanced by Sir Thomas’s advantage at Stourport. The total numbers were—Winnington, 173; Monteith, 168: majority, 5. A scrutiny was threatened but not proceeded with. A dinner was afterwards given at the Swan Inn, Stourport, to congratulate Sir Thomas Winnington on his return. The chair was filled by George Harris, Esq., and the vice chairs by B. Devey and P. Baldwin, Esqs.; and the company numbered 180. In September, the Conservative party entertained Mr. Monteith at a dinner in a large marquee—400 persons sitting down to the tables; Slade Baker, Esq., presided. In the ensuing month Mr. Monteith sent £100 to be distributed amongst the various charities of the two towns.

1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir T. Winnington was again opposed, and this time successfully, by Thomas James Ireland, Esq., of Hooton Hall, Suffolk, professing high Church and State principles, and liberal in the expenditure of his money. At the hustings, Sir Thomas was proposed by Mr. Skey and Mr. Baldwin; and Mr. Ireland by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in Mr. Ireland’s favour, and after a most exciting struggle Mr. Ireland was declared to have 160 votes, and Sir Thomas only 158.

The return was petitioned against; and on the 4th March, 1848, the inquiry commenced before the Parliamentary committee, consisting of three Liberals and two Conservatives. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Sergeant Kinglake were the principal counsel employed by Sir Thomas Winnington; and Mr. Alexander, by Mr. Ireland. After five days’ examination of witnesses, the committee decided that Mr. Ireland was not duly elected—that it had been proved that a voter, named Price, had received £15 for his vote—and that treating had been proved against Mr. Ireland’s agents. The recriminatory case against Sir Thomas Winnington occupied six days, and the committee decided that he had been guilty of treating, by his agents, and that therefore the election was void. Mr. Elgie, his principal agent, was himself examined, and proved that 26 or 27 inns were opened on Sir Thomas’s side, some of which supplied as many as 1,000 gallons a day. The committee made a special report to the House that a most pernicious system of intimidation, kidnapping and treating prevailed in the borough, and the writ was suspended, on the motion of Mr. Hume, until the evidence was printed and laid before the house. On the 12th of April, Captain Rushout moved that a new writ should issue, but Sir John Hanmer proposed its further suspension. After a debate, in which the corruption disclosed in the evidence before the committee was pretty freely commented upon, the House came to a division, and 80 members voted for issuing the writ, and 38 against it; so the writ was ordered, and a fresh election took place in—