Part 6

1848—APRIL 17—The candidates on this occasion were Viscount Mandeville, son of the Duke of Manchester (Conservative), and the Hon. Spencer Lyttelton (Liberal). On the hustings, Mr. Lyttelton was proposed by Mr. Skey and Mr. Pierce Baldwin; and Viscount Mandeville by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lyttelton, but Viscount Mandeville headed the poll throughout; the numbers at the close being—Mandeville, 171; Lyttelton, 156. Of course this election was, to a great extent, free from the corrupt practices of former ones, but the circumstances under which it occurred furnished matter enough for excitement.

KIDDERMINSTER.

KIDDERMINSTER once returned two members to Parliament, but not liking to have to pay them was, upon its own petition, relieved of the “honour.” It was again enfranchised by the Reform Bill; but had only one member allotted to it. The constituency here is remarkably small, in comparison with the population, owing to so few of the operatives living in houses which pay £10 a year rent. The number of electors now on the register, including duplicates, is 490.

1832—(General Election.)—In anticipation of the passing of the Reform Bill, Richard Godson, Esq., a barrister on the Oxford Circuit, who was very popular with the weavers because of his successful defence of some of their number when tried for riot, made an entry into the town on the 4th April, 1831, and gave a public statement of his political principles. He was not, he said, the nominee of some lord, but one of the people, come to represent the people. The Reform Bill was merely a restoration of the good old constitution, which would give every man his proper weight in the national assembly. All other reforms must follow it; the defects of the church must be removed; and, especially, there must be a free trade in corn. And though he was interested in a West Indian estate he should advocate Emancipation, &c. &c. His reception was, altogether, most enthusiastic. He was, however, opposed by G. R. Phillips, Esq., of Weston House, Warwickshire, also professing reform principles. Mr. Phillips was proposed, on the hustings, by J. Newcombe, Esq., and H. Talbot, Esq.; and Mr. Godson by William Boycot, jun., Esq., and Mr. James Cole. A very severe contest took place, and the numbers at the close were—Godson, 172; Phillips, 159: majority for Godson, 13. The total constituency was 388.

1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was again opposed by Mr. Phillips. Mr. Godson still professed to be a Reformer, but was supported by the Conservatives. The show of hands was almost even, but decided by the High Bailiff in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Phillips, who was, eventually, returned by a majority of 73; the numbers being—Phillips, 197; Godson, 124. Mr. Phillips refused to be chaired, saying that he should spend the money amongst the people in other ways. On the 10th of June, a piece of plate (ornament for the dinner table, in silver, worth £150) was presented to Mr. Godson, by 1,975 inhabitants of the borough, “in grateful remembrance of his ever watchful, independent, and patriotic conduct when in Parliament.” The presentation was made by Mr. Alderman Joseph Boycot, on the balcony of the Lion Hotel, in the presence of some 7,000 persons.

1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Phillips, some time before the writ was issued for this election, declared his intention of withdrawing all pretensions to the representation; being evidently afraid of a defeat, or that a triumph could only be purchased on terms too dear. Mr. Godson, however, found an opponent in the person of John Bagshaw, Esq., ex-M.P. for Sudbury. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr. Bagshaw by Mr. Turner and Mr. Joseph Newcombe. The show of hands was considerably in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded for Mr. Bagshaw. Mr. Godson headed the poll from the first, and in the course of the afternoon Mr. Bagshaw retired; the numbers being—Godson, 198; Bagshaw, 157.

1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was opposed by Mr. Sampson Ricardo, brother of Osman Ricardo, Esq., who came forward at the last moment, after the Liberals had been disappointed by the candidate they had fixed upon—a Mr. Rennie. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr. Ricardo by Mr. Charles Talbot and Mr. H. Worth; and the Mayor fairly enough declared the show of hands to be in his favour, though, for so doing, he was assailed by the Conservatives in a most discourteous manner. The contest was, what Kidderminster contests always have been, a very sharp one; but Mr. Godson was returned by a majority of 12; the numbers being—Godson, 212; Ricardo, 200.

1847—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was reëlected without opposition.

1849—SEPTEMBER—(Vacancy occasioned by the sudden demise of Mr. Richard Godson.)—The first candidate in the field was John Best, Esq., a barrister of short standing, son of W. B. Best, Esq., of Blakebrook House, who came forward as a Conservative and Protectionist. Thomas Gisborne Esq., of Yoxall Park, near Burton-on-Trent, next made his appearance on the Reform side, professing very liberal opinions. He had, formerly, been member for Nottingham. A diversion was speedily effected by the arrival of a third man, in the person of Crawshay Bailey, Esq., of Tredegar, South Wales, who was also Conservative in his views, and apparently entertaining similar opinions to those of Mr. Best upon all subjects. He was supported by a very influential section of the Kidderminster Conservatives, and a downright split amongst them seemed inevitable. However at the end of a week Mr. Bailey finding he had little chance, withdrew from the contest, and left the two first to fight it out. Considerable soreness of feeling, however, was felt amongst the Conservatives by this temporary division, and the opponents built thereupon very sanguine expectations of success. At the nomination Mr. Best was proposed by Mr. William Boycot, sen., and Mr. Henry Chellingworth; and Mr. Gisborne by Mr. William Holmes and Mr. Henry Brinton, in whose favour the show of hands was declared to be. Mr. Gisborne headed the poll till twelve o’clock, when some thirty voters, who had been supporters of Mr. Bailey up to the time of his retirement, and who, it was hoped by one party, and feared by the other, would now remain neutral, came to the booths and recorded their votes for Mr. Best. This decided the struggle; and when the clock struck four, Mr. Best was found to have 217 votes against 200 only recorded for Mr. Gisborne. The election, on the whole, passed off quietly, and with decorum.

In the session of 1850 a petition was presented by some of the Liberal electors against Mr. Best’s return, on the score of bribery and corruption, and the matter came before a committee of the House of Commons, on the 15th of April. The committee consisted of Mr. Bouverie (chairman), Lord Enfield, Mr. Augustus Stafford, Mr. David Morris, and Sir William Joliffe; the majority being Liberals. Mr. Sergeant Kinglake led the case for the petitioners, and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., for Mr. Best. The committee sat seven days, and a variety of witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners; but bribery was only attempted to be proved in two cases, the evidence, on all points, being decidedly weak. The committee confirmed Mr. Best’s return.

DUDLEY.

THE privilege of sending a member to Parliament was conferred on this borough by the Reform Bill. The number of voters now on the register is 912.

1832—(General Election.)—Sir John Campbell—then the Whig Solicitor General, and long a practitioner on the Oxford Circuit, now Lord Chief Justice of England—was returned. He had an opponent in the person of Horace St. Paul, Esq., who contested the election on Tory principles. Sir John was proposed by Mr. Twamley and Mr. Braidley; and Mr. St. Paul by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Salisbury. The numbers, at the close of the poll, were—Campbell, 315; St. Paul, 225: majority for Campbell, 90.

1834—FEBRUARY 27—(Election rendered necessary by Sir John Campbell’s elevation to the Attorney Generalship.)—Sir John was this time opposed, on the Conservative interest, by Thomas Hawkes, Esq. The show of hands, at the nomination, was in favour of Sir John; whereupon a poll was demanded by Mr. Hawkes’s friends, and commenced immediately with great briskness. At three o’clock, Sir John’s committee, finding great difficulty in bringing their friends to the poll, gave up in a huff, and Mr. Hawkes was declared duly elected; the numbers being—Hawkes, 322; Campbell, 242: majority, 80. This result was said to be mainly owing to the Dissenters and ultra-radicals refusing to vote for Sir John, “in order to teach ministers a lesson;” but the effect was rather to disgust the Whigs than to urge them forward with church reform. Sir John had also made enemies by an attack, in the House, on the Dudley magistrates.

1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes returned by a majority of 93 over his Whig opponent, Captain Forbes.

1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected. Mr. Merryweather Turner was the candidate on the Liberal interest, and obtained the show of hands at the nomination; but at the poll the numbers were—Hawkes, 385; Turner, 289: majority for Hawkes, 96. A challenge resulted from some speeches at this election, and the Dudley magistrates issued their warrants to bind over both Mr. Turner and Mr. Hawkes to keep the peace. Mr. Turner did not get the challenge till half an hour after he had been bound over at the instigation of Mr. Hawkes’s friends.

1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Hawkes again elected; though opposed, on the Liberal interest, by Mr. W. A. Smith, son of the then member for Norwich. Mr. Downing and Mr. B. Best proposed Mr. Hawkes at the hustings; and Mr. Thomas Lister and Mr. Thomas Hill proposed Mr. Smith, who had the show of hands. The numbers on the poll were—Hawkes, 436; Smith, 189: majority for Hawkes, 247.

1844—AUGUST 8—Mr. Thomas Hawkes’s acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, in consequence of the embarrassed state of his affairs, having caused a vacancy, John Benbow, Esq., agent for Lord Ward, and, therefore, possessing much influence in the borough, was put in nomination on the Conservative interest, and opposed by Mr. William Rawson, an Anti-Corn-Law lecturer. Mr. Benbow was proposed, on the hustings, by Mr. Thomas Badger and Captain Bennitt; and Mr. Rawson by Mr. Charles Twamley and the Rev. J. Palmer. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Rawson. The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close the numbers were—Benbow, 388; Rawson, 175: majority, 213.

1847—(General Election.)—A Mr. Joseph Linney, Chartist operative from Bilston, was put in nomination on the day of election, in opposition to Mr. Benbow—addressed the crowd, and got the show of hands; but having no money to pay his share of the expenses of a poll, was obliged to withdraw, and Mr. Benbow was declared duly elected.

ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS.

THE number of coroners appointed for each English county was formerly regulated by usage, the statute of 3 Edw. I, cap. 10, merely enacting that “in all shires a sufficient number of men should be chosen as coroners;” but it was competent for the Lord Chancellor to issue a writ for the election of additional coroners, upon a petition from the freeholders of the county and the approbation of the justices in quarter sessions. The manner of the election was regulated by the statute of 58 Geo. III, cap. 35, and the poll might be kept open ten days. By cap. 6 of 28 Edw. III, it was enacted, “that all coroners of the counties should be chosen in the full counties, by the commons of the said counties, of the most meet and lawful people that should be found,” &c. Although by this statute the election is not expressly confined to freeholders, yet as none but freeholders are suitors at the county court (who were “the commons of the counties” referred to by this statute) the usage has been for freeholders only to vote. The amount of estate not being defined, any _bonâ fide_ freehold interest in lands in the county, however small, will confer the right to vote. Previous to the division of the counties into districts—power to do which was given to the Privy Council, on petition of the County Justices, by 7 and 8 Vic., cap. 92—each coroner acted throughout the whole county, and every freeholder was entitled to vote at each election. Now, however, the coroners, though still considered coroners for the whole county, cannot hold inquests out of their respective districts, except in special cases; and only the freeholders residing within the district are entitled to vote at the election for that district. The justices, of course, virtually assign the districts; and a dispute which arose in this county, between the magistrates and one of the coroners, on his claiming compensation for loss of emolument by the division they had made, will be found noticed in a subsequent part of this work. The poll at elections for coroners is now limited to two days.

1801—AUGUST 13—Richard Barneby, Esq., elected coroner in the room of Humphrey Littleton, Esq., deceased. No opposition.

1809—APRIL 26—Election of a coroner for the county, in the room of Mr. George Best, removed, took place this day at the Talbot Inn, Claines. Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, Mr. Cheek, of Evesham, and Mr. Griffiths, of Broadway, were the candidates; but to save the expenses of a poll, they agreed to leave the choice to three gentlemen—one nominated by each candidate. The gentlemen chosen were—J. Philips, Esq., H. Wakeman, Esq., and T. Bund, Esq.; and they determined (by drawing lots) on Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, who was thereupon declared duly elected.

1810—FEBRUARY 14—Election for a coronership in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Richard Barneby. The candidates on this occasion were Mr. J. H. Griffiths, of Broadway, and Mr. George Hill, of Worcester. Both candidates rested their claim for support on the locality of their residence—Mr. Griffiths saying that, as the other coroners lived one at Chaddesley and the other at Tenbury, the Evesham side ought to have one resident there—and Mr. Hill contending that there should be one, at least, living in the county town. The nomination took place at the Talbot, in the Tything, Worcester; and Mr. Griffiths was proposed by T. Bund, Esq., of Wick, and seconded by — Knowles, Esq., Broadway; Mr. Hill by R. Berkeley, Esq., Spetchley, and seconded by Philip Gresley, Esq., High Park. The numbers after the first day’s poll were—Hill, 395; Griffiths, 79: and then Mr. Griffiths retired from the contest.

1815—FEBRUARY 10—Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, elected a county coroner, in the room of Mr. Fidkin, deceased. Mr. H. Robeson, of Bromsgrove, had been a candidate, but retired before the election. Mr. Hallen was proposed by E. M. Wigley, Esq., of Shakenhurst, and seconded by the Rev. R. F. Onslow, vicar of Kidderminster.

1822—SEPTEMBER 27—Election to supply the place of William Godson, Esq., of Tenbury, then lately deceased. The nomination took place in the College Yard, at the east end of the Cathedral. Earl Mountnorris proposed Mr. Charles Best, of Evesham, and this nomination was seconded by Thomas B. Cooper, Esq.; T. S. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall, seconded, Mr. S. H. Godson, of Tenbury, son of the deceased coroner. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Best, and Mr. Godson demanded a poll. This went on vigorously till five o’clock in the evening, when the numbers were—Best, 635; Godson, 230. Mr. Godson then retired from the contest, and Mr. Best was duly sworn in.

1826—DECEMBER 13—The most determined contest ever known in this county for a coronership commenced this day. Immediately on the death of Mr. George Hill, five candidates announced themselves for the office—viz., Mr. William Smith, Worcester; Mr. Frederick Stokes, Worcester; Mr. Stephen Godson, Worcester; Mr. Charles Beville Dryden, Worcester; Mr. Thomas Davis, Worcester; and Mr. Skey, Upton. Of these, however, all had withdrawn before the nomination day, excepting Mr. Smith and Mr. Stokes. The Sheriff had at first fixed that the nomination should take place in the Castle Yard, but this property had recently been sold by Government to Mr. Eaton, with a reservation of it for the nomination of members of Parliament; but nothing had been said (according to Mr. Eaton’s view of the matter) about coroners, therefore he refused to allow it to be used. The nomination, therefore, took place at the Hare and Hounds Inn, Sidbury; where Mr. Smith was proposed by Major Bund and John Williams, Esq.; and Mr. Stokes by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and the Rev. George Turberville. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Mr. Smith, and a poll was demanded for his opponent; and this was continued for ten days—the utmost period allowed by law. For the first three days Mr. Stokes headed his adversary considerably; Mr. Smith, on the fifth day, however, obtained the ascendancy, and kept it, though with varying numbers, to the last day, when he very materially increased his majority, which, in the end, amounted to 189 votes. The numbers polled were—Smith, 3,875; Stokes, 3,686: total number of freeholders polled, 7,561. The contest resolved itself quite into a political struggle—Mr. Smith representing the Tory and Mr. Stokes the Whig interest. The city, during the progress of the election, was in a state of the utmost excitement—the voters being brought in to the sole polling place, with flags and bands of music, in every possible description of vehicle. On the sixth day, a fierce fight took place between the partisans of the two candidates, on their accidental meeting in the Tything; and several men with broken heads were taken to the Infirmary. Mr. Stokes, at the conclusion of the poll, demanded a scrutiny; and the matter of right and power, on the part of the Sheriff, to grant one, was formally argued; but it was ultimately refused, and Mr. Smith was sworn into the office. The contest cost each of the candidates about £3,000 a day, while it lasted. [The copy of the reservation clause in Mr. Eaton’s conveyance was afterwards produced, on special application to Government, and it seemed that the Sheriff was empowered to hold any court in the Castle Yard which he pleased.]

1832—NOVEMBER 7—Mr. W. S. P. Hughes, solicitor, elected a county coroner, in the room of Mr. Smith, who had absconded. Mr. Hughes was proposed by the Rev. George Turberville, seconded by John Williams, Esq., and no other candidate having offered himself, he was at once declared duly chosen.

1838—NOVEMBER 28—Election for county coroner, in the room of Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, who had resigned. Mr. William Boycot, jun., of Kidderminster, Mr. Henry Corser, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Ralph Docker, of Kingsnorton, had offered themselves as candidates; but the two first withdrew, and it was expected that Mr. Docker would “walk over.” It was said that the three gentlemen had “tossed up,” and so decided the matter, but that was denied. However, on the evening before the election, Mr. Thomas Waters, Clerk of the Peace for the city, offered himself to the freeholders for election, and there was every expectation of a sharp contest. Mr. Spooner proposed Mr. Docker, who was seconded by Mr. Ellis; Mr. Waters was proposed by Mr. Alderman R. Evans and Mr. Alderman Stephenson. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Docker, and Mr. Evans demanded a poll for Mr. Waters. At the end of the first day the numbers were—Docker, 246; Waters, 138: and Mr. Waters then retired from the contest.

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

IT may be that the interest attaching to many of the meetings detailed here is gone for ever, but the interest of others will perhaps increase as time advances, and curiously serve to mark the ebb and flow of human feelings and affairs. Though there is often reason to coincide with the Duke’s apothegm—“Public meetings are public farces,” yet they at least give us the results of the popular instinct, which is often as sure a guide as the popular reason would be; and, when most foolish in their conclusions, they are to be regarded as fortunate escapements for those excitements without which a community cannot exist long together. If any explanation should be felt necessary by the reader, of the public occurrences which called forth these meetings, he will find it in another portion of this work.

1800—MAY 14—County meeting held in Worcester Town Hall, to consider what steps should be taken in consequence of the high price of provisions, which was very numerously attended. Resolutions were passed, begging holders of corn to bring it into the market at reduced prices; and requesting millers to grind for the poor at half their usual charge. The Town Hall was granted as a place of deposit for corn, to be retailed to the poor at prime cost. The greatest pleasure was evinced by the meeting at hearing that vessels were arriving from abroad with importations of wheat. It is recorded that many farmers attended Worcester market, in consequence of this meeting, and sold wheat at 15s. to 18s. a bushel.

1800—JUNE 7—County meeting to congratulate the King on his escape from assassination by Hadfield; and meetings for a similar purpose held at Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, &c.

1800—OCTOBER 9—A common hall held at Worcester, at which resolutions were passed to petition Parliament for fresh enactments against “engrossing,” &c., and begging the legislature _to fix a certain price_, _beyond which it might be unlawful to sell wheat_.

1801—MAY 25—Common hall held at Worcester, at which a petition to Parliament was unanimously agreed to, praying that wheat, and all other grain, might be made saleable by weight only.

1806—MAY 28—A public meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester convened in the Town Hall, John Dillon, Esq., in the chair, to petition against the proposed tax on beer. Amongst other reasons against it the petition alleged—“That it will prevent, in a great measure, the frugal offices of hospitality and charity.”

1807—APRIL 24—Common hall at Worcester to take into consideration the critical state of public affairs, at which an address, thanking His Majesty for his strenuous opposition to the Catholic Services Bill, and rejoicing in its rejection, was unanimously agreed to.

1808—APRIL 14—A common hall, convened in Worcester, over which Mr. J. Palmer presided; at which petitions were agreed to to both houses of Parliament, in favour of the Bill then pending, for restricting the grants of offices in reversion.