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 manœuvres, 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.