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.
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.
1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Charles Cockerell again came forward
as a candidate; but Mr. Hudson retired at the last moment, being opposed
by Mr. Peter Borthwick, the unsuccessful candidate at the previous
election. However, Mr. Rudge was put in nomination in his absence by the
Liberals, and a poll demanded on his behalf; the show of hands being in
favour of Sir Charles and Mr. Borthwick. On the hustings Mr. George May
charged Mr. Borthwick with having failed as a bookseller in Dalkeith, and
having been excommunicated by the Scotch United Secession Church. Mr.
Borthwick denied it, and said it was a relative whose debts he had paid
for him. Mr. Rudge eventually declined to stand the poll, and Sir
Charles Cockerell and Mr. Borthwick were declared duly elected. In June
a dinner was given to Mr. Borthwick in the Guildhall, the chair being
taken by Lieutenant Amherst; and a party of 160 sat down. The charge
made against Mr. Borthwick having been repeated in the _Bath Guardian_,
near which town he then lived, he commenced an action against the
proprietors for libel, which was tried in April, 1836, and ended in a
verdict for Mr. Borthwick on some counts of the indictment, with £100
damages; but the jury held it proved that Mr. Borthwick had been a
bookseller in Dalkeith—had failed—had been in gaol—and had been a
professional, but unsuccessful, performer on the stage of the Surrey
Theatre.
1837—FEBRUARY—(Election in consequence of the death of Sir Charles
Cockerell.)—The candidates were Lord Marcus Cecil Hill, brother of the
Marquis of Downshire, on the Liberal interest, and George Rushout Bowles,
Esq., nephew of Lord Northwick and the Dowager Lady Cockerell, on the
Conservative side. On the hustings, Lord Hill was proposed by Mr.
Benjamin Workman and Mr. T. N. Foster; and Mr. Bowles by Mr. Thomas
Blayney and the Rev. Joseph Harling. The Mayor declared the show of
hands to be in favour of Mr. Bowles, though his decision was questioned.
The contest was a close one, ending in Mr. Bowles’s election; the numbers
being—Bowles, 165; Hill, 140. About 60 electors did not vote.
1837—JULY—(General Election.)—The Hon. George Rushout and Mr. Peter
Borthwick, the former members, coalesced to prevent the return of Lord
Marcus Hill—who, for the second time, came forward on the Liberal
interest—and they were successful; the numbers being—for Rushout, 168;
Borthwick, 166; Hill, 156. Of 490 votes recorded, 124 were plumpers; and
119 of these were for Lord Hill. The Liberal party were loud in their
indignation against the bribery which they asserted to have been
practised. The return was petitioned against; and the committee
ballotted for, consisted of six Conservatives and five Liberals: Sir
Robert Peel, Bart., being chairman. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Rushton were
the counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Thessiger, Mr. Austin, &c., for
the sitting members. Shortly after the opening of the case, the
petition, as far as regarded Mr. Rushout, was abandoned, and Mr.
Borthwick alone proceeded against. Mr. Borthwick was charged with
bribery, both by himself and his agents; he was also declared to want
qualification; and as many as 100 of his votes were objected to. The
cases of bribery alone were gone into; and the one proved was that of
Ebenezer Pierce, to whom Mr. Borthwick had presented a silver snuff box.
He canvassed this voter personally, about a week before the election, and
promised him a silver snuff box, which Mr. Charles Best afterwards
brought him, with Mr. Borthwick’s compliments, and told him to put it by
till after the election. It was proved that the box had been purchased
at Stow and Mortimer’s by Mr. Borthwick, in the interim, and he had
ordered them to engrave on it—“_Ex dono amici sui conducit_.” The
committee, upon this, decided that Mr. Borthwick had been guilty of
bribery. Mr. Austin abandoned the scrutiny, and permitted Lord Marcus
Hill to be put in a majority of one, by permitting the votes of several
persons, who admitted that they had been Mr. Borthwick’s paid agents, to
be struck off; but he declared that the decision of the committee in the
snuff box case had struck him with the utmost surprise, and begged to be
allowed to call evidence to clear Mr. Borthwick’s character. Mr.
Cockburn did not object, but the committee refused to hear any more
evidence. The committee reported on March 20, 1838, and the return being
amended, Lord Marcus Hill took his seat immediately afterwards. Soon
after the decision of the committee was known, a dinner was given to Mr.
Borthwick, and he was presented with an oblong silver salver, which had
been subscribed for by the wives and daughters of the Conservative
electors. The Rev. Mr. Harling presented the plate, and J. Amherst,
Esq., presided at the dinner. Mr. Borthwick made a very long speech,
reviewing his connection with the borough, and animadverting upon his
late colleague, Mr. Rushout, in unmeasured terms, for having forsaken him
before the committee. The language he made use of caused a challenge,
and the two gentlemen met at Wormwood Scrubs. After a second discharge,
without effect, Mr. Borthwick withdrew the offensive expressions. Lord
Marcus Hill was also entertained at a dinner at the Town Hall, over which
T. N. Foster, Esq., (the Mayor) presided; and a party of 200 gentlemen
sat down to the tables.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—The candidates were again Lord Marcus Hill,
Mr. Rushout, and Mr. Peter Borthwick; the latter, indeed, did not make
his appearance throughout the election, but he was strongly supported by
a section of the Conservatives, who thought he had been ill used by Mr.
Rushout in the matter of the previous election—and, generally, he seemed
to be a favourite with the populace. At the hustings, Lord Marcus Hill
was proposed by Edward Rudge, Esq., and the Rev. B. Bonaker; Mr. Rushout
by Dr. Beale Cooper and the Rev. M. Shaw; and Mr. Borthwick by R.
Blayney, Esq., and G. Eades, Esq. Mr. Francis Holland spoke for Mr.
Borthwick; and on the show of hands, three-fourths of the meeting held up
theirs for that gentleman, about one half for Lord Marcus, and but few
for Mr. Rushout. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Hill, 188;
Borthwick, 161; Rushout, 137. Lord Hill had 108 plumpers; Borthwick, 42;
and Rushout, 34. After the canvass, but prior to the election, Lord
Marcus was made a privy councillor, and appointed to the office of
Comptroller of the Royal Household.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Mr. Borthwick retired from the
representation, and his place was taken by Sir Henry Willoughby, a
moderate Conservative and free trader. A third candidate came into
field, late in the day, in the person of Sir Ralph Howard, formerly
member for Wicklow, who professed Radical views. At the nomination, Lord
Marcus Hill and Sir Ralph Howard had the show of hands. The polling was
a very quiet affair, and at the close of the struggle Lord Marcus Hill
was found to have 195 votes; Sir Henry Willoughby, 172; and Sir Ralph
Howard, 131.