The great change in constituencies and elections which divides with so marked a line the period over which the records of this volume extend has long been accepted by all parties as un fait accompli, and few, if any, would revert to the system of former days, even if it were possible. All now see that by its means we have been enabled to take Reform as our watchword, instead of Revolution, and to escape anarchy and despotism—the Scylla and Charybdis into which the continental nations have been continually falling. Elections in Worcestershire have of course been much the same as elections elsewhere; often scenes of riot and corruption, now and then the occasions of an irresistible burst of popular feeling, but very far from being at any time exercises of calm, deliberative, and patriotic judgment. As to the changes which should be made in the constituencies with a view to remedy existing evils, and to add strength to our constitutional edifice, everybody now-a-days has his own crotchet, and the writer’s is an educational franchise. He believes that it would be perfectly feasible to make a register of all parties who could read and write, in the presence of the revising officer, some declaration of the privileges and responsibilities of a vote, and who could satisfy him that they understood the functions of a representative. No one that had not so far qualified himself for the exercise of the franchise could in these days reasonably complain of being denied it, and it would give a greater impulse to elementary education than all the grants of public money that ever have or ever will be made for the establishment of schools.

COUNTY OF WORCESTER.

Before the passing of the Reform Bill the number of electors on the county register was not much more than 3,500. At the last revision there were in the eastern division, 6,515; western, 4,135.

1802—July 12—(General Election, the old Parliament having run out its legal term.)—The Hon. Edward Foley, of Stoke Edith, and Wm. Lygon, Esq., reËlected without opposition.

1803—July 19—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of the Hon. E. Foley.)—The Hon. W. Ward elected without opposition.

1806—March 3—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of Wm. Lygon, Esq., to the Peerage.)—The nomination takes place in the Castle Yard, Worcester. The Hon. W. B. Lygon, son of the peer recently created, was proposed by the Rev. Mr. Pyndar, and seconded by Thomas Hornyold, Esq. The Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, undeterred by the Beauchamp influence, then thought to be overwhelming, came forward “to assert the independence of the county,” and was proposed by John Amphlett, Esq., of Clent, and seconded by the Rev. Mr. Onslow, Vicar of Kidderminster. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lygon, and a poll demanded by his opponent. After five days’ polling Mr. Lyttelton resigned, the numbers then being—Lygon, 1,502; Lyttelton, 1,145—majority for Lygon, 357. A sharp correspondence, imputing artifices, fraud, &c., afterwards took place between the candidates. The representation of the county had not been contested previously since the general election of 1741 (64 years before), when the numbers were Lechmere, 2,309; Pitt, 2,120; Deerhurst, 1,930; Lyttelton, 1,412.

1806—November 7—(General Election on the accession of the short-lived Fox ministry.)—The Hon. Mr. Lygon, and the Hon. Mr. Lyttelton, returned together without opposition; the Hon. Mr. Ward having retired from the representation in consequence of ill health.

1807—May—(General Election—Change of Ministry, and Appeal by the King to the country on the Catholic Question.)—Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, reËlected without opposition. A storm came on while the election was proceeding, and the Sheriff was obliged to retire into the Castle to finish the proceedings. It is noticed that the accommodation in the Castle Yard was of the worst possible description.

1812—October—(General Election.)—The Hon. W. B. Lygon, and Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, returned again without opposition.

1816—November—(On the elevation of Lord Elmley, the Hon. W. B. Lygon, to the peerage by the death of his father, Earl Beauchamp.)—Col. H. B. Lygon, younger brother of the former member, elected without opposition.

1818—June—(General Election.)—Col. Lygon, and the Hon. W. H. Lyttelton, reËlected without opposition.

1820—March—(General Election on the demise of George III)—The Hon. W. H. Lyttelton retired from the representation from family considerations, and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., offered himself as a candidate in his stead. At the nomination, Col. Lygon was proposed by Sir A. Lechmere, and seconded by Sir William Smith, Bart.; and Sir Thomas Winnington was proposed by T. S. Vernon, Esq., and seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. There was no opposition.

1826—June—(General Election. Parliament dissolved by George IV, its possible sands having almost run out.)—Col. Lygon and Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., reËlected without the shadow of an opposition.

1830—August—(General Election on the accession of William IV.)—Sir Thomas Winnington retired from the representation, and the Hon. Thomas Henry Foley, son of Lord Foley, was elected in his stead, with Colonel Lygon, who thus for the fifth time was returned without opposition.

1831—May—(General Election to take the sense of the country on the Reform Bill.)—The Reformers from the first moment that this election became imminent, looked about for a candidate to oppose Col. Lygon. First, Mr. Sergeant Russell was mentioned, and then John Richards, Esq., of Stourbridge. The last named gentleman actually did one week issue an address to the freeholders, but, frightened at hearing that the Dowager Lady Beauchamp had subscribed £50,000 to fight the country, he hastily withdrew on the next. However, a few days before the election, Captain Spencer, brother to Lord Althorp, allowed himself to be named as a candidate, and a tremendous struggle ensued. Col. Lygon, while canvassing in the Corn Market, Worcester, was attacked by a town’s rabble, and compelled to take refuge in a neighbouring tavern. On the morning of the nomination, Col. Lygon assembled his friends at Madresfield; Mr. Foley at the New Inn, Ombersley Road; and Captain Spencer, at the Talbot, Tything. The nomination took place in the Castle Yard, Osman Ricardo, Esq., High Sheriff, being returning officer. John S. Pakington, Esq., proposed Col. Lygon, who was seconded by John Phillips, Esq.; T. T. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and T. C. Hornyold, Esq., seconded, the Hon. Mr. Foley; and Sir C. S. Smith, Bart., and Robert Berkeley, Esq., were Captain Spencer’s proposer and seconder. Before the show of hands was taken, Dr. Beale Cooper demanded proof of Captain Spencer’s qualification, whereupon the Captain said he had expected such a demand, and handed to the under sheriff a deed bearing date April 30, purporting to be a grant from Earl Spencer to Captain Spencer, of a rent charge to the amount of £600 upon manors and estates in the county of Herts. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Foley and Spencer, whereupon Col. Lygon demanded a poll, which immediately commenced. Col. Lygon headed the poll the first day, but never afterwards; and on the morning of the seventh day he resigned all further contest, the numbers then being—Foley, 2,034; Spencer, 1,765; Lygon, 1,335. At the close of each day speeches were made by the candidates and their friends, from the booths at the back of the Talbot Inn, Tything; and the coalition formed between Foley and Spencer, on finding that Colonel Lygon’s friends were plumping for him, formed a most fertile topic for talk. A riot took place in Broad Street one evening, in consequence of one of Col. Lygon’s friends having imprudently irritated the mob by throwing a decanter amongst them from the committee-room. The windows of the room were immediately broken, and other disturbances took place. There can be no doubt that the result of this election had great effect upon the country generally.

A dinner was given in the next week to the Hon. Mr. Foley and Captain Spencer, at the Bell Inn, with Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., in the chair. Sir C. S. Smith was in the vice-chair, and Lord Lyttelton and about 100 other gentlemen were present. Dinners were also given to the successful candidates at Hagley, Kidderminster, Evesham, Stourbridge, Dudley, and Birmingham. The Birmingham dinner was held at Dee’s Hotel, with Dr. Edward Johnstone in the chair.

Immediately after the election a meeting of Col. Lygon’s friends was held at the Hoppole, Worcester, “to take into consideration the best mode of testifying their approbation of his manly, spirited, and patriotic conduct upon the late election; and for his faithful services during the fifteen years he represented this county in Parliament.” J. S. Pakington, Esq., was called to the chair, and there was a very respectable attendance. Mr. Pakington asserted that the minority who had voted for the Colonel, comprised the majority of the education and respectability of the county. The “discreditable coalition” proved the theme of much lamentation. Resolutions approving of Col. Lygon’s Parliamentary career and general conduct were agreed to, and a subscription entered into for the purchase of plate. This was presented at a dinner at the Hoppole, in February, 1832. It was a superb vase, 57 inches in circumference, supported on a massive column and plinth, decorated with embossed Acanthus leaves, and weighing in the whole 600 oz. It was designed by the inscription to be “a testimony of the gratitude of his political friends for his long and faithful attention to their interest in Parliament, and especially for his support of our glorious and long cherished constitution.” John S. Pakington, Esq., was the president of the evening, and presented the testimonial.

1832—December—(Election rendered necessary by the passing of the Reform Bill.)—The county now divided into two divisions.—West Worcestershire.—The Hon. T. H. Foley (Whig), and Col. Lygon (Conservative), returned without opposition. The nomination took place in the space fronting the County Gaol, and the candidates were not proposed or seconded, the cries of “Foley and Lygon” by the crowd, without any other person being named, being taken by the Sheriff as sufficient.

East Worcestershire.—The nomination of candidates took place at Droitwich, Mr. Pakington (Conservative), being proposed by James Taylor, Esq., and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall; Thomas Henry Cookes, Esq., (Whig) by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and C. E. Hanford, Esq.; and Wm. Congreve Russell, Esq., (Whig) by T. T. Vernon, Esq., and W. Acton, Esq. The High Sheriff declared the show of hands to be in favour of Mr. Pakington and Mr. Cookes, whereupon a poll was demanded for Mr. Russell. After the two days’ poll the numbers were declared to be—Russell, 2,576; Cookes, 2,516; Pakington, 1,916. The whole proceedings were conducted in a peaceable and gentlemanly manner, and Mr. Pakington, who addressed the electors at the “Declaration,” as well as the successful candidates, was very well received. He complained of broken promises, and the coalition of his opponents as fettering the “independence” of the county, but declared himself neither disheartened nor offended.

1833—May—West Worcestershire.—(Vacancy occasioned by the elevation of the Hon. T. H. Foley to the House of Peers, on the death of his father.)—The nomination took place in the field at the back of the Talbot Inn, Tything. Sir Christopher Smith, Bart., proposed Captain H. J. Winnington, who was seconded by Robert Berkeley, Esq. John Williams, Esq., and T. C. Brock, Esq., proposed and seconded John S. Pakington, Esq., who, to the great detriment of his cause, was not present during any part of the proceedings—having just previously sailed to America. Major Bund spoke at the hustings on his behalf. A Mr. Crowther also made many attempts to be heard, but was hissed down, and he afterwards explained in a letter to the newspapers that instead of being Mr. Pakington’s opponent, as formerly, he intended to be his supporter, because Captain Winnington and the Whigs had voted for the erection of the New County Courts, while Mr. Pakington, on the contrary, “had always opposed that unnecessary and shameful expenditure of the freeholders’ money.” The show of hands was very decidedly in favour of Captain Winnington, and the Court was declared adjourned (from the Wednesday) to the following Monday. At the end of the first day’s poll Captain Winnington was 79 a-head, and the utmost excitement prevailed. Lord Eastnor addressed the multitude on Mr. Pakington’s behalf, and the Rev. Thomas Pearson spoke for Captain Winnington. The second day only increased Captain Winnington’s majority, but the result was not certainly known till the declaration of the numbers by the High Sheriff, on Thursday morning, when they were announced to be—for Captain Winnington, 1,369; for Pakington, 1,278: majority for Winnington, 91. Mr. Pakington had a majority in the Worcester and Upton divisions, but was beaten in those of Stourport and Tenbury. Out of 3,122 voters, 2,647 were polled, and though there had never been so close a contest in the county before, it was carried on with very good humour. Captain Winnington’s return was celebrated by a dinner at the Star and Garter Hotel, with Sir C. S. Smith in the chair.

1835—January—East Worcestershire.—(General Election on the breaking up of the Grey and Spencer cabinet, and the accession of the Duke of Wellington and Sir R. Peel to power.)—Mr. Russell retired from the representation at this election, on the score of ill-health, and his place was taken on the Reform interest by Edward Holland, Esq., of Dumbleton. Mr. Horace St. Paul was brought forward late in the day by the Conservatives. Sir Thomas Winnington, M.P., and C. E. Hanford, Esq., proposed Mr. Cookes, the former member. James Taylor, Esq., of Moseley Hall, and Mr. Whitmore Jones, proposed Mr. St. Paul; and Mr. Bate, of Stourbridge, and Mr. Acton, Mr. Edward Holland. The choice of the people at the nomination was declared to have fallen on Messrs. Cookes and Holland, and a poll was demanded for Mr. St. Paul. At the end of the two days’ poll the numbers were—Holland, 2,254; Cookes, 2,192; St. Paul, 2,145. Majority of Cookes over St. Paul, 47. 4,125 persons voted out of 5,226 on the register. There was some rioting at Stourbridge, which necessitated the sending for two troops of lancers from Birmingham, and Mr. St. Paul, declaring that some of his voters had been prevented from coming to the poll by violence, presented a protest against the election. A petition was talked of on this ground, but it came to nothing. A dinner was given to the successful candidates, at the Golden Cross Hotel, Bromsgrove, at which Colonel Davies presided. A similar dinner at Stourbridge, with J. H. H. Foley, Esq., in the chair, gave rise to a correspondence between Messrs. Robins, Hickman, Hodgetts, and Trow, and Mr. Robert Scott and Lord Lyttelton. The first named gentlemen chose to believe that some remarks made by Mr. Scott on the partiality and incompetency of the county magistracy generally, were intended for themselves, and they appealed to Lord Lyttelton to institute an inquiry. The Lord Lieutenant not only refused to accede to their request, but rebuked them for the language they had used.

West Worcestershire.—The candidates were as before, Colonel Lygon and Mr. Pakington, who professed to coalesce on the Conservative interest, and Captain Winnington, Whig. Sir A. Lechmere and the Hon. W. Coventry proposed Col. Lygon; Mr. Osman Ricardo and Mr. Berkeley, Captain Winnington; and Lord Eastnor and Mr. T. C. Brock, Mr. Pakington. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Captain Winnington and Mr. Pakington. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Lygon, 1,945; Winnington, 1,938; Pakington, 1,773: majority for Winnington, 165. 3,619 persons voted out of 4,126 upon the register.

1837—July—(General Election on the death of William IV.)—West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and Captain Winnington reËlected without opposition.

East Worcestershire.—Here there was a fierce contest, ending in the return, for the first time, of two Conservatives. Before the election took place the Conservatives offered a compromise, and suggested that one of each party should be allowed to walk over, but the Liberals were so sanguine of winning that they would not listen to the proposal. Mr. Cookes had retired from the representation from ill-health, but his place was supplied by Mr. J. H. H. Foley, who, with Mr. Holland, came forward in the Liberal interest, while the Conservative candidates were Mr. H. St. Paul and Mr. Barneby. On the hustings Colonel Davies and Sir William Rouse Boughton, Bart., proposed Mr. Holland; T. H. Cookes, Esq., (the late member) and James Foster, Esq., Mr. Foley; James Taylor, Esq., and Thomas Hawkes, Esq., M.P., Mr. H. St. Paul; and Lord Eastnor and Edward Dixon, Esq., Mr. Barneby. The show of hands was in favour of Messrs. Barneby and St. Paul; and after the two days’ poll they were declared duly elected; the numbers being—St. Paul, 2,595; Barneby, 2,528; Holland, 2,175; Foley, 2,168. In the Stourbridge, Bromsgrove, and Evesham districts only, had the Liberal candidates a slight majority. Mr. Horace St. Paul’s expenses at this election are said to have been £16,000.

1841—June—(General Election. The Parliament having declared their want of confidence in the ministers, the Whigs appeal to the people on the Corn Law, Sugar, and Irish Registration questions. Sir Robert Peel’s “no confidence” motion had been carried by a majority of one against ministers.)—West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and F. Winn Knight, Esq., nephew of the late John Knight, Esq., of Downton Castle, were elected without opposition. Captain Winnington had retired from the field in consequence of the division amongst his supporters on the Corn Law question. He had constantly voted against any alteration of the Corn Laws, and therefore did not please the constituencies of the towns. With this state of things, added to the loss of the Foley interest in the county, he could have had no chance, and therefore refused to disturb the division by a contest.

East Worcestershire.—John Barneby, Esq., and James Arthur Taylor, Esq., returned. Mr. Horace St. Paul retired from the representation because of ill-health, and for the same reason Mr. Holland declined to offer on the Liberal interest. The Hon. Captain St. George Foley, brother of Lord Foley, offered himself to the electors as an advocate of Liberal measures, and of a moderate fixed duty upon corn. At the nomination at Droitwich, Mr. Barneby was proposed by J. S. Pakington, Esq., M.P., and W. Hemming, Esq.; Captain Foley, by James Foster, Esq., and Robert Scott, Esq. M.P., in long and able speeches; and Mr. Taylor, by C. Noel, Esq., and Whitmore Jones, Esq. The show of hands was in favour of Barneby and Taylor, and Captain Foley’s friends demanded a poll. At a meeting, however, which was held at Mr. Galton’s, shortly after nomination, it was decided, much to Captain Foley’s own mortification, not to proceed to a poll, and that determination was communicated the same evening to the opposite party. The Sheriff at first thought that he should be obliged to take a poll, under the circumstances, notwithstanding, and the Attorney General’s opinion was taken upon the point, but this being in favour of the propriety of dispensing with the poll, Messrs. Barneby and Taylor were declared duly elected without further trouble.

1847—January—East Worcestershire.—(Election to supply the vacancy caused by the decease of John Barneby, Esq.)—Captain Rushout was the first candidate announced, but J. H. H. Foley, Esq., having intimated his intention of contesting the division, a meeting of the Conservative party was called at Droitwich, at which an arrangement was entered into, by which Mr. Foley retired from the field at present, and was to be permitted to come in unopposed at the next election, when it was expected that a vacancy would be caused by the retirement of Mr. James Arthur Taylor. This created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Conservative electors, but the contracting parties were too influential to admit of their decision being contravened. Captain Rushout was, therefore, on this occasion elected without opposition.

1847—August—(General Election on the retirement of Sir Robert Peel from office, after carrying his free trade measures.)—East Worcestershire.—In consequence of the arrangement noticed above, Mr. J. H. H. Foley was allowed to come in in the place of Mr. J. A. Taylor, who retired from Parliament, and with Captain Rushout was returned unopposed.

West Worcestershire.—General Lygon and Mr. Knight were returned without opposition.

The constituency of the city is no larger now than it was in days of yore, when freemen were made in any quantity at the pleasure of the corporation; often while the election was proceeding. The number of voters now on the register is about 2,200; of these, 1,099 still qualify as freemen, and nearly 700 have no other qualification.

1802—(General Election)—The electors having been convened together in the Guildhall for the nomination in the usual manner, the Mayor (Mr. Rowlands) proposed the reËlection of Edward Wigley and Abraham Robarts, Esqs., the previous members. This proposition was seconded, and the business of the day went on most smoothly until within seven minutes of the hour at which the writ was made returnable, when the hall became suddenly and most violently agitated by the arrival of Joseph Scott, Esq., of Great Barr, a relative of Lord Dudley and Ward, who came forward and declared himself a candidate, as he said, in compliance with the wishes of a number of the inhabitants. A poll was demanded on his behalf, which immediately commenced, and continued for four days; at the end of which, the numbers were—Robarts, 2,163; Scott, 1,197; Wigley, 1,180. On the fifth morning Mr. Wigley retired, and Robarts and Scott were declared duly elected. There was no disturbance. Politics seem to have entered very little into consideration, and the matter to have been decided by person and purse. Mr. Wigley, in his retiring address to the “Worthy Freemen of the City of Worcester,” intimated that he had come forward thirteen years before, at their own request, to rescue their city from becoming a Government nomination borough, and he did not see why he should now have been rejected. To those “who promised him their support, but voted for his opponent, he had nothing to say, because he could say nothing that would be pleasing to himself.” A meeting of his friends and supporters was afterwards held at the Crown Inn, Henry Wakeman, Esq., presiding, at which resolutions were passed thanking Mr. Wigley for his conduct in Parliament, and his great attention to the interests of this city, where he and others of his family had resided for more than thirty years, and “been an example, rarely exceeded, of piety, benevolence, and charity.”

1806—October—(General Election.)—Candidates, Abrm. Robarts, Esq., the former member; Colonel Bromley, of Abberley Lodge; and William Gordon, Esq., who rested his claims to support on the fact of his being a mercantile man, and, as such, better fitted to represent the city of Worcester than Colonel Bromley, a country gentleman. He was supported by gentlemen who were disgusted by the unblushing bribery of previous elections. After three days’ polling, Mr. Gordon retired, the numbers being—Robarts, 856; Bromley, 563; Gordon, 348: total number of freemen polled, 902. Mr. Gordon was afterwards fÊted at the Crown Hotel, on which occasion he attributed his defeat to his being so late in the field. Mr. Gordon, however, afterwards presented a petition against Colonel Bromley’s return, which that gentleman declined to defend, and accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, so that the seat again became vacant.

1807—February 13—At the election thus rendered necessary, Alderman Squires proposed William Gordon, Esq., and Alderman Carden, John Attersoll, Esq., both gentlemen being London merchants. Mr. Gordon declared himself to be a staunch Church and King man, and utterly opposed to the continuance of the Slave Trade. Mr. Attersoll talked a little more about civil and religious freedom. There seems to have been no show of hands taken, and both parties required a poll, which was commenced amidst a great deal of fighting and outrage. After three days’ polling Mr. Attersoll retired, the numbers being—Gordon, 766; Attersoll, 414: majority for Gordon, 352. A petition was next presented against Mr. Gordon’s return, on the score of bribery, by several inhabitants of the city. A meeting was held at the Crown, to take steps to counteract this petition, Mr. J. Palmer in the chair. Mr. Hebb moved the resolutions, in a speech which the reporter of the time says “displayed great constitutional knowledge and erudition.” The petition was dismissed in consequence of the necessary recognizances not being entered into.

1807—May 6—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon returned without opposition. Mr. Attersoll having canvassed the electors, and found that he had no chance, retired on the eve of the contest.

This election was chiefly remarkable for the quantity of pens and ink wasted upon it. Mr. Gordon, after being returned as an “independent” member, followed the example of most of his contemporary M.P.’s, in turning his position to account, and obtained from the Government a license to trade with Spain. He was warned of the consequences of becoming a tool of Government by Mr. Hebb, in a series of letters bearing the signature of Cato Uticensis. Then followed various blasts and counter-blasts, especially a sheet of rhyme called the Doctoriad, to which there was a smart replication under the title of the Gordonian; and these were for some time the poemes celÉbres of Worcester elections.

1812—October 5—(General Election.)—Mr. Robarts and Mr. Gordon again candidates, though, as the latter was out of the country, he was represented by his father-in-law, Sir George Cornewall. A day or two before the election, a number of freemen presented a requisition to Lord Deerhurst, pressing him to offer himself, which he did. At the nomination, Mr. Robarts and Lord Deerhurst obtained the show of hands, and a poll was demanded on behalf of Mr. Gordon. After eight days’ contest—severer than any which had taken place in the city since the celebrated one in 1761, between Sir William Watkin Lewes and Mr. Rouse—the numbers were found to be—Robarts, 1,248; Gordon, 939; Deerhurst, 855. Lord Deerhurst then retired, having won golden opinions from all sorts of men, by the eloquence of his speeches, the courtesy of his manner, and the good humour he had maintained. He polled a majority of the resident freemen, but was beaten by the out-voters. The number of freemen polled at this election was 1,765. No particular political principle seems to have been at all involved in the contest. A gold cup was afterwards purchased by Lord Deerhurst’s supporters, and presented to him at a dinner at the Crown; Thomas Farley, Esq., in the chair.

1816—December—(Vacancy on the death of A. Robarts, Esq.)—Lord Deerhurst again offered himself as a candidate, and Colonel Davies made his first appearance in Worcester. He continued an active canvass for some time, but at last finding that Lord Deerhurst had indubitably secured a majority of votes, he withdrew. Lord Deerhurst was proposed at the hustings by the Mayor (R. Chamberlain, Esq.), and seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. The chairing took place immediately afterwards, and the chair itself was very prematurely demolished by the mob in High Street. On the following day a grand dinner was given to the new member at the Hoppole.

1818—June 15—(General Election.)—This was one of the severest contested elections which had been known in the city of Worcester, and it terminated in the return of Colonel Davies to Parliament for the first time. The city had been kept in great excitement for some months before the election, by the continued canvassing of all the candidates. All parties were enthusiastic in their support of Lord Deerhurst, whose return was safe from the first, and the contest lay between Sir William Duff Gordon and Colonel Davies. Sir William Gordon had forfeited some of his popularity by the course he had taken in voting with Government, for the orders in council altering the import duties, and which were supposed to have had a great effect upon the glove trade. Colonel Davies, shortly before the election, gave up his commission in the Guards, that he might make the better Member of Parliament, by having his time entirely unfettered. Though not much was said about political principles in the addresses of the different candidates, it was understood that Colonel Davies was more Whiggish in his views than either of the other men. Tumults took place both at Kidderminster and in London amongst the out-voters, who were canvassed there by the different parties, and at the polling places the riot and disturbance was worse than ever before recollected. At the nomination, Lord Deerhurst was proposed by the Mayor (S. Wall, Esq.), and seconded by Mr. John Dent. Sir William Gordon was proposed by Major Bund and Mr. Thomas Dent; and Colonel Davies by Alderman Nash and Mr. Richards. After seven days’ polling, Sir William Gordon withdrew from the contest; the numbers then being—Deerhurst, 1,422; Davies, 1,024; Gordon, 874. Colonel Davies had a majority both in the city and out-votes; but he was principally the gainer among the London freemen. The total number polled was 1,963. The two members were chaired as usual the day after the election had concluded, and the chairs demolished by the populace, according to their ancient prerogative and right.

Petitions were presented against both Colonel Davies’s and Lord Deerhurst’s return. The latter, however, was withdrawn. On the 16th March, 1819, the committee to investigate Colonel Davies’s return was ballotted for, and Mr. Alexander Baring, M.P. for Taunton, chosen chairman. The petition alleged bribery and treating, but the necessary witnesses were kept out of the way. Colonel Davies was declared duly elected by the casting vote of the chairman, and the news was received in Worcester with great rejoicings by his supporters.

1820—March—(General Election.)—Lord Deerhurst and Colonel Davies returned without opposition: the former being proposed by Thomas Carden, Esq., and seconded by Samuel Crane, Esq.; and the latter, by Richard Nash, Esq., seconded by E. M. Wigley, Esq. The chairing, on this occasion, was a very splendid affair.

1826—June—(General Election.)—So long before this election as March, 1824, George Richard Robinson, Esq., a London merchant, announced his intention of becoming a candidate on “independent” principles, and by a free expenditure of money made himself popular. All parties had been engaged in a very active canvass, but in May Lord Deerhurst suddenly announced his determination not again to offer himself as a candidate. This caused immense chagrin, not only to his pledged supporters, who said his victory was certain, but also to all those who had revelled in the prospect of the high price which votes would fetch in a prolonged and doubtful contest—such as the forthcoming one promised to be. Lord Deerhurst made his appointment as a Vice Lieutenant, and his other numerous public duties, the plea for retiring. Richard Griffiths, Esq., of Thorngrove, was induced to come forward in his stead at the eleventh hour. On the hustings, Colonel Davies was proposed by Mr. Alderman Carden and Mr. John Palmer; Mr. G. R. Robinson, by Mr. Alderman Ballard and Major Bund; and Mr. Griffiths, by Mr. John Dent and Mr. Henry Clifton. Colonel Davies avowed himself in favour of reform, economy, and free trade; Mr. Robinson intended generally to support ministers, but declared himself independent; and Mr. Griffiths was a thorough Church and King man. After six days’ poll the numbers were—Robinson, 1,542; Davies, 1,268; and Griffiths, 1,036. Mr. Griffiths then withdrew from the contest, having spent, during the week he was in the city, some £8,000, and thus answered the chief end of the parties who dragged him forward. There indeed was scarcely ever such a dear election, to all the candidates, in the city of Worcester—the most unprecedented exertions in fetching voters from a distance, &c., being made. The entire sum spent is said to have been £25,000. The total number of freemen polled was 1,963—viz., 1,184, city; 246, from London; and 433, country. This was the largest number on record as having polled at any election. Davies had 322 plumpers; Robinson, 132; and Griffiths, 50. The chairing took place as usual, and the elegant cars were broken to pieces at the bottom of Broad Street, at the imminent risk of the new members’ lives. A dinner was given in the succeeding week to Mr. Robinson, at the Hoppole, Mr. Alderman Ballard presiding. Colonel Davies’s friends met to form a committee to secure his return in future at less expense; and Mr. Griffiths announced his firm intention of offering himself again, whenever a vacancy should occur.

1830—July 30—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson returned without opposition; all the efforts of the third-man-no-matter-who party having failed to produce a candidate.

1831—May—(General Election.)—The Tory party three days before the election brought forward a candidate in the person of the Hon. Colonel Henry Fitzroy, brother to Lord Southampton, but the Reform enthusiasm was so strong that his voice was drowned in the disapprobation of the people the moment he opened his lips, and all the significant hints that he had plenty of money to spend were thrown away. The Colonel soon found that he was in a false position, and did not appear on the hustings at the day of nomination. Colonel Davies was proposed by George Farley, Esq., and seconded by Mr. John Palmer; while Archibald Cameron, Esq., proposed, and Thomas Scott, Esq., seconded, Mr. Robinson. They were declared duly elected, and the chairing took place forthwith, but the chair was demolished sooner than usual.

1832—December—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson again returned. A few weeks before the election a third candidate appeared on the scene, in the person of R. A. Dundas, Esq., cousin of Viscount Melville, intending to contest the city on Conservative principles, but after a canvass he gave the matter up as hopeless. Mr. Robinson having in an address to the electors, said that Mr. Dundas had been “deluded with hopes of success, which proved utterly fallacious”—his supporters sent for him back again, and declared that he should stand a poll unless Mr. Robinson withdrew these “offensive” expressions. A long conference took place, and some modification of the terms, or explanation of their intention, was conceded, and Mr. Dundas once more made his bow. Colonel Davies was proposed by Mr. Hebb and Mr. George Allen; and Mr. Robinson by Mr. Spooner and Mr. Munn. The members went through the city in an open carriage drawn by six grey horses, instead of in a chair, and the mob having shewn some disposition to destroy the carriage, they were disappointed by the postillions turning suddenly along the back streets into the Hoppole yard. Some of the crowd climbed the gates, and began to tear the decorations, but they were beaten off. A dinner was afterwards given to the two members unitedly, at the Bell Inn, Mr. Hebb in the chair.

1835—(General Election.)—On this occasion a candidate was brought forward by the Conservatives in the person of Joseph Bailey, Esq., a very opulent ironmaster from Glanusk, in Monmouthshire. Mr. Robinson appeared to be an universal favourite, as by the comparative moderation of his views he had conciliated many of the Tory party, but they concentrated all their animosity against Colonel Davies, who had not only been a very determined but very active promoter of Reform measures in the House of Commons. The Colonel had lost favour with some of the glovers by his support of free trade principles. The most strenuous exertions were made by the Colonel and Mr. Bailey, between whom it was at once seen that the struggle would lie, while Mr. Robinson rested upon his oars in security. At the nomination, Mr. Hebb and Mr. Allies proposed Colonel Davies; Dr. Hastings and Mr. Thomas Scott, proposed Mr. Robinson; and Mr. John Williams, of Pitmaston, and Mr. Dent, proposed Mr. Bailey. The show of hands was entirely in favour of the two old members, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Gutch in favour of Mr. Bailey. At the end of the first day’s poll the numbers were—Robinson, 1,309; Davies, 882; Bailey, 835; but the second day altered the state of things, and the final return, as made by the Sheriff, was—Robinson, 1,611; Bailey, 1,154; Davies, 1,137: majority for Bailey, 17. There was a sharp affray between the street partizans of the various candidates on Tuesday evening, and several heads were broken. Immediately after the election a dinner was given to Colonel Davies and Mr. Robinson, at the Bell Inn, W. Sanders, Esq., in the chair; at which it was announced to be the intention of Colonel Davies’s friends to bring the result of the election before a committee of the House of Commons. Captain Winnington, Mr. Cookes, and Mr. Holland, the three recently elected Whig members for the county, were present. A dinner was given to Joseph Bailey, Esq., M.P., at the Hoppole, in February. The party numbered nearly 200, and Mr. Richard Spooner was in the chair. The various speakers boasted of the “reaction” which had taken place in favour of Conservative principles. Mr. Bailey paid his first visit to Worcester after his election in October; dinners were provided for his supporters, and eighty public houses were “opened” in the evening. The principal party was given at the Unicorn Inn, Broad Street, where Mr. Richard Spooner presided. Mr. Henry Clifton and Mr. Pierpoint were vice-chairmen.

As soon as the session opened, a petition was presented against Mr. Bailey’s return, and a scrutiny of votes took place before a committee of the House of Commons, which was ballotted for March 31st, and consisted of seven Tories and four Whigs; Mr. J. E. Denison (Nottinghamshire) being chairman. After a sitting of eleven days, fifty-five votes were struck off by the petitioners, and forty by Mr. Bailey, still leaving that gentleman in a majority of one; and the petitioners then gave up the struggle, in consequence of several adverse decisions on the part of the committee. The following is a summary of the votes struck off on each side:

The petitioners alleged three cases of bribery on Mr. Bailey’s part, but failed in the proof; and the votes of a number of Mr. Bailey’s professional agents, objected to by the petitioners, were retained, in consequence of the memorable evidence of one of their number—that their services were all gratuitously rendered. The conduct of the petition was intrusted to Mr. John Hill, and by him managed most admirably. The expenses were all covered by the subscriptions, which had been previously raised, and that almost entirely among the citizens themselves. Mr. Bailey’s expenses are said to have been £16,000. The expenses of the election itself were but trifling. Of course the greatest excitement prevailed in the city during the progress of the petition, and Mr. Bailey’s party had great rejoicings on the issue.

In September, 1836, a dinner was given by the Worcester Conservative operatives to Mr. Bailey, at the Theatre. 427 persons sat down to table, and there were many spectators. The chief speakers were Mr. Bailey, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Pakington, and Mr. John Dent. There were great congratulations on the “reaction” which had taken place in the city, as elsewhere, in favour of Toryism.

Immediately afterwards (October 24) the operative Reformers got up a great dinner in the Town Hall, to refute the cry about “reaction.” Eight hundred persons sat down to dinner in the outer hall, 500 in the assembly room, and others at different inns. Mr. Arrowsmith was in the chair; supported on his right by the Mayor, and on the left by Colonel Davies. The whole party met in the outer hall after dinner (this being brilliantly lighted up for the occasion), and a number of appropriate toasts were given.

1837—(General Election.)—The candidates at this election were Mr. Bailey and Mr. Robinson (the former members), and Colonel Davies; but on the day of nomination Mr. Robinson retired in the most unexpected manner. This was owing to many of the Liberal electors having refused to give him their promises on his canvass, because they thought he had not behaved well to Colonel Davies at the previous election, and had, moreover, offended them by some votes in the House, which did not savour sufficiently of party. Mr. Bailey and Colonel Davies were declared duly elected, under protest from Mr. J. D. Stevenson, who had proposed (but a little too late) Mr. James Morison, of London.

Mr. John Hood and Mr. Joseph Lingham proposed Mr. Robinson on this occasion; Mr. John Williams and Mr. John Dent, Mr. Bailey; the Mayor and Mr. George Allies, Colonel Davies.

Barristers’ opinions were afterwards obtained, declaring that the return of the Sheriff was, under the circumstances, incorrect. In anticipation of another election, therefore, a Mr. Turton, son of Sir Thomas Turton, a Sussex baronet, was introduced to the electors as a candidate on the Liberal interest. He addressed a public meeting in the Guildhall in October, at which it was resolved—first, to petition; and, secondly, to support Mr. Turton if a vacancy then occurred. Colonel Davies’s friends refused to promise a coalition with Mr. Turton. At the eleventh hour the petition was abandoned, and Mr. Bailey brought an action against the petitioners to recover £174, the sum which he had expended in preparing to defend his seat; but on an appearance being put in, the claim was abandoned.

1841—July—(General Election.)—Colonel Davies retiring from the representation, because of ill-health, was succeeded by Sir Thomas Wilde, who, during his candidateship for the city, was made Attorney General, in the room of Sir John Campbell, elevated to the Irish Chancellorship. Mr. Bailey again offered himself on the Conservative interest, and Mr. Robert Hardy, of the firm of Hardy and Padmore, ironfounders, being determined that the Tories should not have the seat uncontested, presented himself as the candidate of the Radical party, of which he had long been a leading member. Mr. Hardy’s personal character and liberality had caused him to be greatly respected in the city; but his ultra opinions, and especially the fact of his being a Dissenter, left him little chance of success. The usual meetings took place before the election, and Sir Thomas Wilde availed himself of the opportunity to make some most able speeches in exposition and defence of the policy of the ministry. The nomination in the Guildhall presented more than the usual scene of confusion, and a fight with bludgeons took place in the midst of it, which had well-nigh proved fatal to one young man, who was accidentally struck on the head. Mr. Bailey was proposed by Mr. John Dent and Mr. Pierpoint; Sir Thomas Wilde, by Mr. George Farley and Alderman Corles; and Mr. Hardy, by Mr. Edward Lloyd and Mr. Ledbrook. Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. Hardy had a great majority on the show of hands, and a poll was demanded by Mr. Bailey. The numbers, as declared by the Sheriff, were—Wilde, 1,187; Bailey, 1,173; Hardy, 875. All parties were surprised to find that Mr. Hardy had obtained so many votes.

The supporters of Mr. Hardy afterwards presented him with a large silver salver “for his generous and patriotic conduct in coming forward to vindicate, by his example, purity of election, and to afford his fellow citizens an opportunity of redeeming their opinions from misrepresentation by a Tory.”1846—July—(Election caused by Sir Thomas Wilde taking office under the new Whig ministry.)—Sir Thomas Wilde having been appointed Attorney General, he came to Worcester to be reËlected by his constituency, and on the Monday (July 6) he addressed his supporters in the large room of the Bell Hotel. They unanimously agreed to renew their adhesion, and no other candidate was thought of. The election was fixed for Wednesday, but on Tuesday evening Sir Thomas was apprised by Lord John Russell of the sudden decease of Sir Nicholas Tindal, and of the intention to elevate Sir Thomas to the chief justiceship of the Common Pleas. Of course, under these circumstances, Sir Thomas could no longer be member for Worcester, but Government had taken care to provide a candidate in the bearer of the message, Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart., now chief clerk of the House of Commons. The Liberal party were hastily summoned together on Wednesday morning, and on the recommendation of their late representative, they transferred their support from Sir Thomas to Sir Denis. Walking from the place of meeting to the hustings, Sir Denis was proposed by the Mayor, and seconded by Francis Edward Williams, Esq., as the member for the city of Worcester. Sir Thomas Wilde spoke on his behalf, and no other candidate having been proposed, Sir Denis was declared duly elected. He afterwards spoke at some length, declaring himself a thorough free trader, and generally a supporter of the Liberal government. Edward Evans, Esq., and George Allies, Esq., then moved a vote of thanks to their late representative, Sir Thomas Wilde, and it was carried with loud acclamations. Sir Thomas replied with great empressement and feeling, and after a vote of thanks to the Sheriff, Mr. Elgie, the singular election of 1846 ended. The gentleman thus suddenly made the representative of Worcester proved, during the short time he held that office, one of the most practically useful members which the city ever had. Four days elapsed between the election and the usual procession, and in that interval Sir Denis returned to town to negociate, as is generally believed, the support of the Times to the Whig ministry. The subsequent tone of the “leading journal” may be supposed to give some corroboration to this rumour.

1847—July—(General Election.)—Sir Denis Le Marchant and Mr. Bailey, having each withdrawn their pretensions to represent the city (the latter, in order that he might be elected for his native county of Breconshire), both political parties had to look out for fresh candidates. The Liberals fixed upon Osman Ricardo, Esq., of Bromsberrow Place, a country gentleman who had taken little part in public matters, but was known as a man of principle, and who laid himself out for the substantial good of the neighbourhood in which he lived. The Conservatives were not quite so easily suited, or so unanimous in their choice. Mr. Sergeant Glover was first named by one section of the party, but he at length gave way to Mr. F. Rufford, who, as chairman of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Company, possessed some amount of popularity in the city. Mr. Rufford, in his addresses to the electors, indignantly denied that he was a monopolist, and certainly led people to believe that he was what was called in common parlance, “a free trader,” and on the hustings said, “I am here to advocate free trade to its fullest extent,” but in practice he turned out to be a Protectionist. Mr. Robert Hardy again came forward on the Radical interest, avowed his desire to see a separation of Church and State, and disapproved of Government education.

Mr. Alderman Lilly and Mr. Alderman John Hall proposed Mr. Hardy; Mr. William Stallard, jun., and Mr. H. D. Carden, Mr. Rufford; and Dr. Hastings and Mr. Alderman Edward Evans, Mr. Ricardo. The show of hands being in favour of Messrs. Ricardo and Hardy, a poll was demanded for Mr. Rufford, and at its close the numbers were—Ricardo, 1,163; Rufford, 1,142; Hardy, 930. The “open house” iniquity rioted in a rankness which had never been equalled at previous elections. Probably, too, half the electors were paid for their votes under what is called “the messenger dodge.” Mr. Rufford, in 1851, became a bankrupt, and his examinations showed that he certainly was not solvent when he offered himself as a candidate at this election, yet he admitted that he expended considerably more than £4,000.

EVESHAM.

Evesham has enjoyed the privilege of sending two representatives to Parliament from a very early date. In 1295 two burgesses were chosen to represent the town in a parliament of Edward I, but there is no record of any return from that date till the incorporation of the borough by James I. Some of the elections which have taken place here during the present century have been remarkable for profuseness of expenditure and tricks of party warfare. The number of voters now on the register is 345.

1802—July—(General Election.)—Charles Thelluson, Esq., the former member, Patrick Crawford Bruce, Esq., a London merchant, and Humphrey Howorth, Esq., for many years a physician in India, were the candidates. After five days’ poll the latter retired from the contest, the number of votes then being—Thelluson, 261; Bruce, 249; Howorth, 183. A petition was afterwards presented against the return, on the score of alleged bribery, but the committee report that the sitting members were duly returned, though the petition was not frivolous.

1806—November—(General Election.)—Mr. Howorth and W. Manning, Esq., a West India merchant, returned without opposition, neither of the former members standing again.

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 manoeuvres, 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—

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.