Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century / A Complete Digest of Facts Occuring in the County since the Commencement of the year 1800

by T. C. Turberville

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.