Parliamentary Elections.—Notwithstanding the safeguards provided by the Ballot Act, and all the deterrent measures enacted against bribery and intimidation, and those peculiar tactics known as "getting up steam," the period of an election for Parliamentary representatives is a time of great excitement even in these days. But it is comparatively naught to what it used to be, when the art of kidnapping Tory voters, or "bottling" Whigs, was considered as only a small part of the education required by aspiring political agents. Leading burly prizefighters to clear the hustings on nomination day, upsetting carriages containing voters going to poll, and such like practical jokes were all en regle, and as such "goings-on" were to be found as much on the one side as the other, neither party's pot had a right to call the opponent's kettle black. Prior to the enfranchisement of the borough, one of the most exciting elections in which the Brums had been engaged was that for the county of Warwick in 1774, when Sir Charles Holte, of Aston Hall, was returned. The nomination took place Oct. 13, the candidates being Mr. Shipworth (a previous member), Mr. (afterwards Lord) Mordaunt, and Sir Charles, who for once pleased the Birmingham folks by calling himself an "Independent." The polling, which commenced on the 20th, was continued for ten days, closing on the 31st, and as Mr. Mordaunt had the lead for many days the excitement was intense, and the rejoicings proportionate at the end when the local candidate came in with flying colours. The voting ran:—Shipwith, 2,954; Holte, 1,845; Mordaunt, 1,787.—A Birmingham man was a candidate at the next great county contest, forty-six years after. This was Mr. Richard Spooner, then (1820) a young man and of rather Radical tendencies. His opponent, Mr. Francis Lawley, was of the old-fashioned Whig party, and the treatment his supporters received at the hands of the Birmingham and Coventry people was disgraceful. Hundreds of special constables had to be sworn in at Warwick during the fourteen days' polling, business being suspended for days together, but Radical Richard's roughs failed to influence the election, as Mr. Lawley obtained 2,153 votes against Mr. Spooner's 970. As Mr. Spooner grew older he became more prominent in commercial circles, and was peculiarly au fait in all currency matters, but he lost his hold on local electors by turning to the Conservative side of politics. Of this he was more than once reminded in after years, when speaking in the Town Hall, by individuals taking off their coats, turning them inside out, and having put them on again, standing prominently in front of "Yellow Dick" as they then called him.
That the inhabitants of Birmingham, so rapidly increasing in numbers and wealth, should be desirous of direct representation in the House of Commons, could be no wonder even to the most bigoted politicians of the last and early part of the present century. Possibly, had there been '91 Riots, nor quite so much "tall talk," the Legislature might have vouchsafed us a share in the manufacture of our country's laws a little earlier than they did, and the attempt to force a member through the doors of the House could not have added to any desire that may have existed in the minds of the gentlemen inside to admit the representative of Birmingham. The Newhall Hill meeting of July 12th, 1819, may be reckoned as the first pitched battle between the invaders and defenders of the then existing Parliamentary Constitution. The appointment of Sir Charles Wolesey as "Legislatorial Attorney and Representative," with instructions to take his seat as M.P. for the town (and many so styled him), even though made at a meeting of 20,000 would-be electors, does not appear to have been the wisest way to have gone to work, notwithstanding the fact that Sir Charles himself said he had no doubt of their right to send him up as their Member. Prosecution of the leaders followed, as a matter of course, and if the twenty-and-odd-thousands of the local Conservative electors of to-day were thus to try to obtain their due share of representation in the House, most likely the leaders of such a movement would be as liberally dealt with. The "battle of freedom," as the great Reform movement came to be called, has often been described, and honour been given to all who took part in it. The old soldiers of the campaign should be allowed, if they choose, to "fight their battles o'er again," as long as they live, but it is about time that the hatchet of party spite, (hitherto so freely used in local political warfare) was buried out of sight, and all sides be as willing to give equal rights as their fathers were to fight for theirs. Birmingham, however, was not without some friends in Parliament, and on the occasion of the disfranchisement of the borough of East Retford in 1827, it was proposed by Mr. Charles Tennyson that the two seats thus voided should be given to Birmingham. Mr. George Attwood was High Bailiff at the time, and he at once called a public meeting to support Mr. Tennyson's proposition by petition. The Public Office was not large enough for those who attended the meeting (June 22, 1827) and they adjourned to Beardsworth's Repository, where speeches were delivered by the leading men of all parties. Petitions to both Houses were drawn up and signed, the county members, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale and Francis Lawley, Esqrs., being asked to introduce the one to the House of Commons, and Lord Dudley and Ward (Baron of Birmingham) and Lord Calthorpe to support the petitioners' prayer in the Upper House. Mr. Tennyson (who afterwards took the name of D'Eyncourt) brought in his Bill, but notwithstanding all that could be said or done by the friends of the town they were outvoted (March 21, 1828), and the Bill was thrown out. The next four years were full of trouble, and the news of the passing of the Reform Bill (June 7, 1832), which at last gave Birmingham its long-sought political rights was most welcome indeed. The first election day was fixed for December 12, and for some time it was rumoured that Mr. Richard Spooner would stand in opposition to Messrs. Thomas Attwood and Joshua Scholefield, the chosen representatives of the Liberals; but the Conservative party, deeming it but right that those who had borne the brunt of the constitutional fight should be allowed the first honours of the local victory, declined to oppose those gentlemen, and they were accordingly returned without opposition. The hustings had been erected on a plot of land opposite the Public Offices and here the nominations took place at the early hour of 8 a.m. The proceedings were over by nine o'clock, but the "victory," as the popular party chose to consider it, did not satisfy them, and as there was an election on at Walsall the same day it was determined that the Birmingham Liberals should go there to help Mr. Bosco Attwood in his contest with Mr. Foster. A procession of some thousands, with bands and banners, according marched the whole of the distance so Walsall, and if their behaviour there represented what they were prepared to do at home had they not been allowed to have their own way, it was well for Birmingham they were not opposed. Long before evening this town was in the most fearful excitement, the passengers and guards of the various coaches which had passed through Walsall bringing the direst news of fire and riot, mixed with reports of the military being called out and firing on the people, numbers being killed, &c. Fortunately there was much exaggeration in these tales, and by degrees most of the Birmingham men found their way home, though many were in sad plight through the outrageous behaviour of themselves and the "victorious" crew who went off so gaily with them in the morning. The elections in after years may be briefly chronicled.
1835.—At the general election, which occurred this year, the Town Hall was first used as the place of nomination (Jan. 7th). During the proceedings the front of the great gallery gave way and precipitated those sitting there on to the heads of the people below, but providentially, the injuries received were not of a serious character. Mr. R. Spooner was most impatiently heard, and the show of hands was decidedly against him. The state of the poll showed:—
| Thomas Attwood | 1,718 | votes | }Returned |
| Joshua Scholefidd | 1,660 | " | |
| Richard Spooner | 915 | " |
1837, August.—At this election the late sitting members were opposed by Mr. A. G. Stapleton, but unsuccessfully, the voting being
| Thomas Attwood | 2,145 | }Returned |
| Joshua Scholefield | 2,114 | |
| A.G. Stapleton | 1,046 |
1840, January.—Mr. Attwood having resigned, Sir Charles Wetherell appeared in the Conservative interest against Mr. G.F. Muntz. Mr. Joseph Sturge, who also issued an address to the electors, retiring on the solicitation of his friends, on the understanding that the whole Liberal party would support him at the next vacancy. The result was in favour of Mr. Muntz, thus—
| Geo. Fred. Muntz | 1,454 | Returned. |
| Sir C. Wetherell | 915 |
1841, July.—Mr. Richard Spooner, who opposed Messrs. Muntz and Scholefield, was again defeated, through receiving the suffrages of double the number of electors who voted for him in 1835. The returns were—
| Geo. Fred. Muntz | 2,176 | }Returned |
| Joshua Scholefield | 1,963 | |
| Richard Spooner | 1,825 |