THIS, before the Reform Bill, was a close Tory borough, with some thirty
or forty self-elected burgesses, who returned their member with no
confusion or turmoil. Under the new state of things, Stourport joins
with it in the exercise of the franchise, and the united constituency now
includes 371 electors. Parties have been very evenly balanced here of
late years.
1802—JULY—(General Election.)—Miles P. Andrews, Esq., who had for some
time represented the town, again chosen.
1806—NOVEMBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1807—MAY—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1812—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Mr. Andrews reëlected.
1814—AUGUST—(Vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Andrews.)—Charles
Edward Wilson, Esq., of Bognor, Sussex, chosen.
1818—JUNE—(General Election.)—Wilson Aylesbury Roberts, Esq., returned;
Mr. Wilson having retired in his favour.
1820—MARCH—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1826—JUNE—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1830—JULY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1831—MAY—(General Election.)—W. A. Roberts, Esq., reëlected.
1832—DECEMBER—(General Election.)—After the passing of the Reform Bill,
Mr. Roberts did not choose again to offer himself, and Sir Thomas
Winnington, Bart., was elected without opposition. He was proposed by
Arthur Skey, Esq., and Jonathan Worthington, Esq.
1835—JANUARY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington reëlected without
opposition.
1837—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir Thomas Winnington resigned in favour of
his son, T. E. Winnington, Esq., who was elected without opposition.
1841—JULY—(General Election.)—For the first time this century this
borough was contested, Mr. Robert Monteith, son of a Lanarkshire
gentleman who had accumulated a fortune as a Glasgow merchant, coming
forward to oppose Sir Thomas Edward Winnington. At the nomination Sir
Thomas was proposed by A. Skey, Esq., and seconded by J. Williams, Esq.;
and Mr. Monteith by W. A. Roberts, Esq., and K. Watson, Esq. Sir Thomas
declared himself for an alteration of the Corn Laws, but for some measure
of protection. Mr. Monteith declared himself a thorough Conservative.
The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Monteith, and the struggle
throughout was a most severe one. In the Bewdley district Mr. Monteith
had a majority of eight, but this was more than counterbalanced by Sir
Thomas’s advantage at Stourport. The total numbers were—Winnington, 173;
Monteith, 168: majority, 5. A scrutiny was threatened but not proceeded
with. A dinner was afterwards given at the Swan Inn, Stourport, to
congratulate Sir Thomas Winnington on his return. The chair was filled
by George Harris, Esq., and the vice chairs by B. Devey and P. Baldwin,
Esqs.; and the company numbered 180. In September, the Conservative
party entertained Mr. Monteith at a dinner in a large marquee—400 persons
sitting down to the tables; Slade Baker, Esq., presided. In the ensuing
month Mr. Monteith sent £100 to be distributed amongst the various
charities of the two towns.
1847—JULY—(General Election.)—Sir T. Winnington was again opposed, and
this time successfully, by Thomas James Ireland, Esq., of Hooton Hall,
Suffolk, professing high Church and State principles, and liberal in the
expenditure of his money. At the hustings, Sir Thomas was proposed by
Mr. Skey and Mr. Baldwin; and Mr. Ireland by Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Heath.
The show of hands was in Mr. Ireland’s favour, and after a most exciting
struggle Mr. Ireland was declared to have 160 votes, and Sir Thomas only
158.
The return was petitioned against; and on the 4th March, 1848, the
inquiry commenced before the Parliamentary committee, consisting of three
Liberals and two Conservatives. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Sergeant
Kinglake were the principal counsel employed by Sir Thomas Winnington;
and Mr. Alexander, by Mr. Ireland. After five days’ examination of
witnesses, the committee decided that Mr. Ireland was not duly
elected—that it had been proved that a voter, named Price, had received
£15 for his vote—and that treating had been proved against Mr. Ireland’s
agents. The recriminatory case against Sir Thomas Winnington occupied
six days, and the committee decided that he had been guilty of treating,
by his agents, and that therefore the election was void. Mr. Elgie, his
principal agent, was himself examined, and proved that 26 or 27 inns were
opened on Sir Thomas’s side, some of which supplied as many as 1,000
gallons a day. The committee made a special report to the House that a
most pernicious system of intimidation, kidnapping and treating prevailed
in the borough, and the writ was suspended, on the motion of Mr. Hume,
until the evidence was printed and laid before the house. On the 12th of
April, Captain Rushout moved that a new writ should issue, but Sir John
Hanmer proposed its further suspension. After a debate, in which the
corruption disclosed in the evidence before the committee was pretty
freely commented upon, the House came to a division, and 80 members voted
for issuing the writ, and 38 against it; so the writ was ordered, and a
fresh election took place in—
1848—APRIL 17—The candidates on this occasion were Viscount Mandeville,
son of the Duke of Manchester (Conservative), and the Hon. Spencer
Lyttelton (Liberal). On the hustings, Mr. Lyttelton was proposed by Mr.
Skey and Mr. Pierce Baldwin; and Viscount Mandeville by Mr. Nicholas and
Mr. Heath. The show of hands was in favour of Mr. Lyttelton, but
Viscount Mandeville headed the poll throughout; the numbers at the close
being—Mandeville, 171; Lyttelton, 156. Of course this election was, to a
great extent, free from the corrupt practices of former ones, but the
circumstances under which it occurred furnished matter enough for
excitement.