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.