“I think that the magistrates, being the representatives of the king, ought to be appointed by the executive government; I mean those officers connected with the government of the town. The parties here are evenly balanced, and it therefore becomes a close contest. Nothing gives us rest but the predominance of one party. We are at rest now solely owing to the predominance of the Tory party.”
A good deal of evidence was given of the great extent to which the system of cooping was carried on at elections. Voters had been frequently taken away by force a dozen miles, locked up in public houses and half-starved in them, and otherwise ill-treated. This system was carried on by both parties. The worst proceedings of this sort seem to have occurred at the elections of Alderman Angell and Alderman Springfield, when there was a vast amount of bribery, treating, and cooping.
Mr. William Wilde, afterwards coroner, gave evidence as to the election of Alderman Springfield, in November, 1821. He was one of the committee for conducting that election. Mr. Ives, a retired clergyman of the Church of England, was the other candidate. The Northern ward was then two to one in favour of Springfield. About 440 to 240 would have been a fair poll if no money had been given. When the vacancy occurred, Mr. Springfield was not in Norwich. Mr. Wilde continued, “I sent for him express, and when he returned we heard from good authority that great sums had been offered by Ives’s party first. We generally sent out freemen to see how markets were going. Springfield was returned, though it was generally reported that Ives’s party meant to buy the ward. But Springfield said he would not be bought out. We went then into a regular system of buying, they buying all the men of ours they could, and we buying all of theirs we could. About £10 was a regular price. We spent £600 or £700 in buying votes. On the morning of the election, Mr. Ives’s party commenced by giving two sovereigns each at the polling place. Mr. Springfield paid his men the same. In consequence more than 300 out of 430 who voted for Springfield took two sovereigns at the booths. Persons draw a distinction between money paid at the booths, and a bribe at any other place. Many who take money at the booths will not accept bribes in any other shape. Springfield’s election cost £1530. The money at the booths is openly given, and it is not considered a crime to take it. I think about 60 or 70 persons sold their votes at £10 apiece. Small shopkeepers are not a bit better than freemen. I have stood openly in the market to buy votes with money in my hand. This system is generally acted upon at all contested elections where the money can be found. Nothing but poverty of purse makes purity of election in Norwich. At Alderman Angell’s election the same system was followed. It is the same at ward elections. I have given £30 for a vote at an election for common council only for a year, but there are few instances of such a high price. I once gave the father of a nominee £20 for his vote. That sum is frequently given. I have known promissory notes given for votes. I do not recollect an instance of notes given by aldermen, but 1 have no doubt of the fact. The usual plan is for a person to say ‘My family wall not vote unless you give a turn at the hospital,’ and application is then made to an alderman. I think the effects of what I have been stating are most debasing and demoralising. I have known poor men who have for years withstood the temptations offered them at elections; and when once they have fallen into the snare, I have observed their conduct to alter, and they have been much changed. I am perfectly satisfied of the evil tendency of the course pursued hitherto, and in very few instances has the money given been any benefit to the freemen, but quite the contrary. The effect has been the same with both the giver and receiver of bribes. I should be sorry to bring up any of my children in the course which I have pursued.”
Commissioner Buckle then thanked Mr. Wilde for the very open and candid manner in which he had given his evidence.
Mr. John Rising Staff said that on Alderman Angell’s election, for two days and two nights previous the town was in a state of great disorder, occasioned by large parties of men employed by each party going about the streets molesting any persons whom they met of the opposite party, attacking freemen personally, and by improper intrusions into their dwelling houses or other places where they were supposed to be concealed. In some instances where they were in search for a voter, and could not find him at his own residence, they went into the residence of other persons, not in the ward where the election was to take place, to search for individuals. Witness gave several instances of cooping.
Alderman Bolingbroke also stated instances of cooping that came under his notice as a magistrate.
Mr. John Francis said, “I have been a manufacturer in Norwich many years, and I consider the acts of the corporation to have engendered every species of bribery and strife. Its patronage is invariably exercised in favour of political adherents. During the last ten years our commercial interests have materially suffered from it. It creates disunion between those gentlemen where friendship would otherwise exist. The local elections are pregnant with evil; they take men from their work, those who are not free as well as those who are free; and in case of a contest it is impossible to get any work done for six weeks after; and this in the spring time of the year when work is brisk and calls for close attendance. The consequence is that the masters suffer materially. I never engaged in bribery at elections, except at the late election for sheriff, when I bought a bunch of four in the market for £8; I also offered another man £5, but he wanted £10, which I thought too much. The numbers, however, were running close, and I went to buy him at that price, but I found that he had been settled for and voted. Therefore I saved £10.”
Mr. A. Barnard said, “At the election of Mr. Foster as sheriff, I bought about forty votes at from 30s. to £4 apiece. I know personally of no instances of bribery by an alderman. I have known instances of an alderman saying, ‘You may make use of my turn in the hospital to get a vote.’ I have known this five or six times. These promises were given by three aldermen. I decline to give their names. I have no objection to say they were Whigs. I have acted frequently as paymaster at elections. Aldermen have often subscribed for ward elections. Both parties are pretty much alike.”
George Palmer was examined very closely, and he stated that he had always voted in the Whig interest, and that he had received a note from Alderman Springfield for four shillings weekly till his brother’s child could be got into the hospital. The note was written and signed by a Mr. Batson in Mr. Springfield’s presence, and by his order. It was given to witness for his vote in favour of Mr. Foster at the election of sheriff in 1832. Witness had never been offered the hospital by any alderman on the other side.
A great deal more evidence was adduced as to notes of admission to the hospital given by both parties. The last part of the inquiry was the most important, relating as it did to the effect of local elections on the trade of the city.