1844—August 8—Mr. Thomas Hawkes’s acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, in consequence of the embarrassed state of his affairs, having caused a vacancy, John Benbow, Esq., agent for Lord Ward, and, therefore, possessing much influence in the borough, was put in nomination on the Conservative interest, and opposed by Mr. William Rawson, an Anti-Corn-Law lecturer. Mr. Benbow was proposed, on the hustings, by Mr. Thomas Badger and Captain Bennitt; and Mr. Rawson by Mr. Charles Twamley and the Rev. J. Palmer. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Rawson. The polling was a very quiet affair, and at the close the numbers were—Benbow, 388; Rawson, 175: majority, 213.
1847—(General Election.)—A Mr. Joseph Linney, Chartist operative from Bilston, was put in nomination on the day of election, in opposition to Mr. Benbow—addressed the crowd, and got the show of hands; but having no money to pay his share of the expenses of a poll, was obliged to withdraw, and Mr. Benbow was declared duly elected.
ELECTIONS OF COUNTY CORONERS.
The number of coroners appointed for each English county was formerly regulated by usage, the statute of 3 Edw. I, cap. 10, merely enacting that “in all shires a sufficient number of men should be chosen as coroners;” but it was competent for the Lord Chancellor to issue a writ for the election of additional coroners, upon a petition from the freeholders of the county and the approbation of the justices in quarter sessions. The manner of the election was regulated by the statute of 58 Geo. III, cap. 35, and the poll might be kept open ten days. By cap. 6 of 28 Edw. III, it was enacted, “that all coroners of the counties should be chosen in the full counties, by the commons of the said counties, of the most meet and lawful people that should be found,” &c. Although by this statute the election is not expressly confined to freeholders, yet as none but freeholders are suitors at the county court (who were “the commons of the counties” referred to by this statute) the usage has been for freeholders only to vote. The amount of estate not being defined, any bonâ fide freehold interest in lands in the county, however small, will confer the right to vote. Previous to the division of the counties into districts—power to do which was given to the Privy Council, on petition of the County Justices, by 7 and 8 Vic., cap. 92—each coroner acted throughout the whole county, and every freeholder was entitled to vote at each election. Now, however, the coroners, though still considered coroners for the whole county, cannot hold inquests out of their respective districts, except in special cases; and only the freeholders residing within the district are entitled to vote at the election for that district. The justices, of course, virtually assign the districts; and a dispute which arose in this county, between the magistrates and one of the coroners, on his claiming compensation for loss of emolument by the division they had made, will be found noticed in a subsequent part of this work. The poll at elections for coroners is now limited to two days.
1801—August 13—Richard Barneby, Esq., elected coroner in the room of Humphrey Littleton, Esq., deceased. No opposition.
1809—April 26—Election of a coroner for the county, in the room of Mr. George Best, removed, took place this day at the Talbot Inn, Claines. Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, Mr. Cheek, of Evesham, and Mr. Griffiths, of Broadway, were the candidates; but to save the expenses of a poll, they agreed to leave the choice to three gentlemen—one nominated by each candidate. The gentlemen chosen were—J. Philips, Esq., H. Wakeman, Esq., and T. Bund, Esq.; and they determined (by drawing lots) on Mr. Godson, of Tenbury, who was thereupon declared duly elected.
1810—February 14—Election for a coronership in consequence of the resignation of Mr. Richard Barneby. The candidates on this occasion were Mr. J. H. Griffiths, of Broadway, and Mr. George Hill, of Worcester. Both candidates rested their claim for support on the locality of their residence—Mr. Griffiths saying that, as the other coroners lived one at Chaddesley and the other at Tenbury, the Evesham side ought to have one resident there—and Mr. Hill contending that there should be one, at least, living in the county town. The nomination took place at the Talbot, in the Tything, Worcester; and Mr. Griffiths was proposed by T. Bund, Esq., of Wick, and seconded by — Knowles, Esq., Broadway; Mr. Hill by R. Berkeley, Esq., Spetchley, and seconded by Philip Gresley, Esq., High Park. The numbers after the first day’s poll were—Hill, 395; Griffiths, 79: and then Mr. Griffiths retired from the contest.
1815—February 10—Mr. Thomas Hallen, of Kidderminster, elected a county coroner, in the room of Mr. Fidkin, deceased. Mr. H. Robeson, of Bromsgrove, had been a candidate, but retired before the election. Mr. Hallen was proposed by E. M. Wigley, Esq., of Shakenhurst, and seconded by the Rev. R. F. Onslow, vicar of Kidderminster.
1822—September 27—Election to supply the place of William Godson, Esq., of Tenbury, then lately deceased. The nomination took place in the College Yard, at the east end of the Cathedral. Earl Mountnorris proposed Mr. Charles Best, of Evesham, and this nomination was seconded by Thomas B. Cooper, Esq.; T. S. Vernon, Esq., proposed, and John Phillips, Esq., of Hanbury Hall, seconded, Mr. S. H. Godson, of Tenbury, son of the deceased coroner. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Best, and Mr. Godson demanded a poll. This went on vigorously till five o’clock in the evening, when the numbers were—Best, 635; Godson, 230. Mr. Godson then retired from the contest, and Mr. Best was duly sworn in.
1826—December 13—The most determined contest ever known in this county for a coronership commenced this day. Immediately on the death of Mr. George Hill, five candidates announced themselves for the office—viz., Mr. William Smith, Worcester; Mr. Frederick Stokes, Worcester; Mr. Stephen Godson, Worcester; Mr. Charles Beville Dryden, Worcester; Mr. Thomas Davis, Worcester; and Mr. Skey, Upton. Of these, however, all had withdrawn before the nomination day, excepting Mr. Smith and Mr. Stokes. The Sheriff had at first fixed that the nomination should take place in the Castle Yard, but this property had recently been sold by Government to Mr. Eaton, with a reservation of it for the nomination of members of Parliament; but nothing had been said (according to Mr. Eaton’s view of the matter) about coroners, therefore he refused to allow it to be used. The nomination, therefore, took place at the Hare and Hounds Inn, Sidbury; where Mr. Smith was proposed by Major Bund and John Williams, Esq.; and Mr. Stokes by Sir Thomas Winnington, Bart., and the Rev. George Turberville. The show of hands was declared to be in favour of Mr. Smith, and a poll was demanded for his opponent; and this was continued for ten days—the utmost period allowed by law. For the first three days Mr. Stokes headed his adversary considerably; Mr. Smith, on the fifth day, however, obtained the ascendancy, and kept it, though with varying numbers, to the last day, when he very materially increased his majority, which, in the end, amounted to 189 votes. The numbers polled were—Smith, 3,875; Stokes, 3,686: total number of freeholders polled, 7,561. The contest resolved itself quite into a political struggle—Mr. Smith representing the Tory and Mr. Stokes the Whig interest. The city, during the progress of the election, was in a state of the utmost excitement—the voters being brought in to the sole polling place, with flags and bands of music, in every possible description of vehicle. On the sixth day, a fierce fight took place between the partisans of the two candidates, on their accidental meeting in the Tything; and several men with broken heads were taken to the Infirmary. Mr. Stokes, at the conclusion of the poll, demanded a scrutiny; and the matter of right and power, on the part of the Sheriff, to grant one, was formally argued; but it was ultimately refused, and Mr. Smith was sworn into the office. The contest cost each of the candidates about £3,000 a day, while it lasted. [The copy of the reservation clause in Mr. Eaton’s conveyance was afterwards produced, on special application to Government, and it seemed that the Sheriff was empowered to hold any court in the Castle Yard which he pleased.]