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

CITY OF WORCESTER.

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:

BY THE PETITIONERS.		BY MR. BAILEY.
Pauper votes	33	Pauper votes	8
Personation	2	Change of qualification	17
Employed and paid	11	Employed and paid.	9
Change of qualification	8	Not registered	3
Wager	1	Dead before election	1
		Wagers	2
	55		40
Objections not admitted.	16	Objections not admitted.	4

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.