KIDDERMINSTER once returned two members to Parliament, but not liking to
have to pay them was, upon its own petition, relieved of the “honour.”
It was again enfranchised by the Reform Bill; but had only one member
allotted to it. The constituency here is remarkably small, in comparison
with the population, owing to so few of the operatives living in houses
which pay £10 a year rent. The number of electors now on the register,
including duplicates, is 490.
1832—(General Election.)—In anticipation of the passing of the Reform
Bill, Richard Godson, Esq., a barrister on the Oxford Circuit, who was
very popular with the weavers because of his successful defence of some
of their number when tried for riot, made an entry into the town on the
4th April, 1831, and gave a public statement of his political principles.
He was not, he said, the nominee of some lord, but one of the people,
come to represent the people. The Reform Bill was merely a restoration
of the good old constitution, which would give every man his proper
weight in the national assembly. All other reforms must follow it; the
defects of the church must be removed; and, especially, there must be a
free trade in corn. And though he was interested in a West Indian estate
he should advocate Emancipation, &c. &c. His reception was, altogether,
most enthusiastic. He was, however, opposed by G. R. Phillips, Esq., of
Weston House, Warwickshire, also professing reform principles. Mr.
Phillips was proposed, on the hustings, by J. Newcombe, Esq., and H.
Talbot, Esq.; and Mr. Godson by William Boycot, jun., Esq., and Mr. James
Cole. A very severe contest took place, and the numbers at the close
were—Godson, 172; Phillips, 159: majority for Godson, 13. The total
constituency was 388.
1835—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was again opposed by Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Godson still professed to be a Reformer, but was supported by the
Conservatives. The show of hands was almost even, but decided by the
High Bailiff in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded by Mr.
Phillips, who was, eventually, returned by a majority of 73; the numbers
being—Phillips, 197; Godson, 124. Mr. Phillips refused to be chaired,
saying that he should spend the money amongst the people in other ways.
On the 10th of June, a piece of plate (ornament for the dinner table, in
silver, worth £150) was presented to Mr. Godson, by 1,975 inhabitants of
the borough, “in grateful remembrance of his ever watchful, independent,
and patriotic conduct when in Parliament.” The presentation was made by
Mr. Alderman Joseph Boycot, on the balcony of the Lion Hotel, in the
presence of some 7,000 persons.
1837—(General Election.)—Mr. Phillips, some time before the writ was
issued for this election, declared his intention of withdrawing all
pretensions to the representation; being evidently afraid of a defeat, or
that a triumph could only be purchased on terms too dear. Mr. Godson,
however, found an opponent in the person of John Bagshaw, Esq., ex-M.P.
for Sudbury. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole; Mr.
Bagshaw by Mr. Turner and Mr. Joseph Newcombe. The show of hands was
considerably in Mr. Godson’s favour, and a poll was demanded for Mr.
Bagshaw. Mr. Godson headed the poll from the first, and in the course of
the afternoon Mr. Bagshaw retired; the numbers being—Godson, 198;
Bagshaw, 157.
1841—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was opposed by Mr. Sampson Ricardo,
brother of Osman Ricardo, Esq., who came forward at the last moment,
after the Liberals had been disappointed by the candidate they had fixed
upon—a Mr. Rennie. Mr. Godson was proposed by Mr. Morton and Mr. Cole;
Mr. Ricardo by Mr. Charles Talbot and Mr. H. Worth; and the Mayor fairly
enough declared the show of hands to be in his favour, though, for so
doing, he was assailed by the Conservatives in a most discourteous
manner. The contest was, what Kidderminster contests always have been, a
very sharp one; but Mr. Godson was returned by a majority of 12; the
numbers being—Godson, 212; Ricardo, 200.
1847—(General Election.)—Mr. Godson was reëlected without opposition.
1849—SEPTEMBER—(Vacancy occasioned by the sudden demise of Mr. Richard
Godson.)—The first candidate in the field was John Best, Esq., a
barrister of short standing, son of W. B. Best, Esq., of Blakebrook
House, who came forward as a Conservative and Protectionist. Thomas
Gisborne Esq., of Yoxall Park, near Burton-on-Trent, next made his
appearance on the Reform side, professing very liberal opinions. He had,
formerly, been member for Nottingham. A diversion was speedily effected
by the arrival of a third man, in the person of Crawshay Bailey, Esq., of
Tredegar, South Wales, who was also Conservative in his views, and
apparently entertaining similar opinions to those of Mr. Best upon all
subjects. He was supported by a very influential section of the
Kidderminster Conservatives, and a downright split amongst them seemed
inevitable. However at the end of a week Mr. Bailey finding he had
little chance, withdrew from the contest, and left the two first to fight
it out. Considerable soreness of feeling, however, was felt amongst the
Conservatives by this temporary division, and the opponents built
thereupon very sanguine expectations of success. At the nomination Mr.
Best was proposed by Mr. William Boycot, sen., and Mr. Henry
Chellingworth; and Mr. Gisborne by Mr. William Holmes and Mr. Henry
Brinton, in whose favour the show of hands was declared to be. Mr.
Gisborne headed the poll till twelve o’clock, when some thirty voters,
who had been supporters of Mr. Bailey up to the time of his retirement,
and who, it was hoped by one party, and feared by the other, would now
remain neutral, came to the booths and recorded their votes for Mr. Best.
This decided the struggle; and when the clock struck four, Mr. Best was
found to have 217 votes against 200 only recorded for Mr. Gisborne. The
election, on the whole, passed off quietly, and with decorum.
In the session of 1850 a petition was presented by some of the Liberal
electors against Mr. Best’s return, on the score of bribery and
corruption, and the matter came before a committee of the House of
Commons, on the 15th of April. The committee consisted of Mr. Bouverie
(chairman), Lord Enfield, Mr. Augustus Stafford, Mr. David Morris, and
Sir William Joliffe; the majority being Liberals. Mr. Sergeant Kinglake
led the case for the petitioners, and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., for Mr. Best.
The committee sat seven days, and a variety of witnesses were examined on
behalf of the petitioners; but bribery was only attempted to be proved in
two cases, the evidence, on all points, being decidedly weak. The
committee confirmed Mr. Best’s return.