Evesham

Economic and social profile:

A small borough and market town on the river Avon, Evesham, 15 miles south-east of Worcester, was situated in one of the ‘most cultivated and prolific districts in England’. The town’s economy was largely agricultural and, being situated on extremely rich soil and furnished with abundant and early crops, market gardening became its speciality.1Daily News, 16 Nov. 1849. A declining amount of stocking and riband weaving was also carried out, and two linseed oil mills were located in a town which had been much improved under a paving and lighting act of 1824. Although the inhabitants were primarily Anglican, the town also had places of worship for Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Unitarians.2H.J. Hanham (ed), Dod’s Electoral Facts, 1832-1853 (1971), 113; S. Lewis, A Topographical Dictionary of England (5th edn., 1844), 191; W. Willis-Bund & W. Page (eds.), The Victoria County History of the County of Worcester (1906), ii. 378-9. The town did not have a local newspaper, but was connected to the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway in 1852-3.

Electoral history:

Prior to 1832 the electorate had consisted solely of the common burgesses and the representation had been largely controlled by Lord Northwick in partnership with the self-elected corporation.3HP Commons, 1820-32, iii. 230. Northwick retained some influence after the disenfranchisement of the non-resident freemen, and continued to nominate one of the members, his brother-in-law, Sir Charles Cockerell, who had sat in the family interest since 1818 and had generally supported the governing party.4Daily News, 16, 17, 22 Nov. 1849. Edward Rudge of Abbey Manor also retained some interest in the borough, but ‘money was said to have been the strongest recommendation a candidate could possess’.5Hanham, Dod’s Electoral Facts, 113; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 432-3. There were three parties in the borough, the ‘Yellows’, or Liberal party, the ‘Scarlets’, or Conservative party, and a grouping of ‘seceders’ from the former parties known as the ‘Blues’, which had been formed in 1826 to support the independent candidacy of Sir Roger Gresley, whose strength had lain with outvoters based in London.6The Scarlets supported Cockerell and were looked upon ‘as the high aristocratic party’, the Yellows ‘as the respectable middle-class party, whilst the Blues were regarded as “a low set”’: Daily News, 22 Nov. 1849. Consisting of ‘a class of voters of no very good standing’ the party was regarded as entirely mercenary, its members being described as ‘the very “Swiss” of politics’. They would it seemed, ‘take advantage of any peculiarity in the position of either of the acknowledged parties’, and ‘range themselves under any leader who would buy their services’.7Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 29 July 1841; Daily News, 16, 22 Nov. 1849; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 231.

Long notorious as one of England’s most corrupt boroughs, Evesham ‘greatly rejoiced’ at its escape from disenfranchisement under the Reform Act, following which ‘700 persons dined in the streets, and twelve casks of ale were raised between the tables, bearing the names of the King, Grey, Brougham, &c.’8J. Noake, Guide to Worcestershire (1868), 155. In February 1831 Lord Chandos had introduced a bill to disenfranchise Evesham and transfer its seats to Birmingham, and the constituency subsequently appeared in Schedule B of the 1831 reform bill: Daily News, 17 Nov. 1849; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 232. Cockerell and Thomas Hudson, a Liberal who had been returned with the support of the Blues in 1831, had acquired popularity among the new electors for their support for reform, and were duly endorsed as candidates by the Evesham Reform Association on 8 August.9Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 16 Aug. 1832; Daily News, 16, 22 Nov. 1849; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 232-3. In October Sir John Beckett, the former Conservative member for Haslemere, addressed the electors as an ‘Independent Gentleman’. He was, however, soon persuaded that with the outvoters now disenfranchised, the constituency was ‘entirely in the hands of the Dissenters and Quakers and radicals’ and so withdrew.10Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 1 Nov. 1832; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 233. Amidst complaints that the sitting members had coalesced to exclude a third candidate, Edward Rudge proposed himself as ‘a sincere uncompromising’ friend of reform, but also quickly retired. His place was taken by Walker Skiddow, a chancery barrister, who issued ‘an admirable address’ on independent principles and claimed to have been requisitioned by 100 electors.11Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 6 Dec. 1832.

The disenfranchisement of the outvoters was expected to reduce the cost of elections in the borough and substantially increase the size of the electorate. However, at the registration sessions in November a question arose over the eligibility of ‘claimants, rated for land only, but having hovels upon their holdings’. The revising barristers decided that their ‘not being rated as buildings was fatal to the claim’, which deprived the local gentry of ‘the power of making a numerous constituency’.12Daily News, 22 Nov. 1849; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 22 Nov. 1832. Of the 359 electors registered, 164 were freemen and 195 householders. Shortly before the election Peter Borthwick, ‘the celebrated West Indian lecturer’ who had spoken against the immediate abolition of slavery, appeared at an election meeting and conferred with Skiddow. After an unsuccessful canvass the latter withdrew, and Borthwick, with the assistance of several members of the West India Association under the patronage of Sir Christopher Bethell Codrington, took his place.13Daily News, 22 Nov. 1849. Of planter stock, Codrington (1764-1843) had sat for Tewkesbury, 1797-1812, and was proprietor and governor of Barbuda, a dependency of Antigua, 1816-39. His son, Christopher, sat for East Gloucestershire, 1834-64. Although Borthwick’s backers ‘had come prepared to buy their man his seat’ the ‘reform tide’, it was later concluded, ‘had for the time swept away the foul mud of corruption even at Evesham’, and Cockerell and Hudson were easily returned by ‘the new ten-pounders’.14Daily News, 22 Nov. 1849; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832. Of the 847 houses in the borough, 330 were worth £10 per annum: PP 1831-32 (232) xxxvi. 321. Hudson polled highest amongst the newly enfranchised, while Cockerell’s position at the top of the poll was attributed to the ‘individual respect’ shown by local Tories to this former ‘advocate of Conservative principles’.15G. May, A descriptive history of the town of Evesham, from the foundation of its Saxon monastery, with notices respecting the ancient deanery of its vale (1845), 301-2; T.C. Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century. A complete digest of facts occurring in the county since the commencement of the year 1800 (1852), 42; The Times, 23 Jan. 1837. With 332 of the 359 registered electors voting, the plumpers were, for Cockerell 31, Hudson 24, and Borthwick 37. Split votes were, Cockerell and Hudson 151, Cockerell and Borthwick 52, and Hudson and Borthwick 37: W.R. Williams, The Parliamentary History of the County of Worcester (1897), 158.

After 1832 the Blues gained strength at Evesham and Borthwick carefully cultivated their support. At the 1835 general election Cockerell’s declared intention to give the ministry of Sir Robert Peel ‘a fair trial’ offered an opportunity to Borthwick, who calculated that Cockerell’s supporters would not split their votes with a Whig opponent. Furthermore, Hudson had attracted a degree of personal unpopularity in the borough, having ‘given offence by personal inattention to his friends, and by a want of that liberality which had distinguished the members for Evesham under the old system’. Entering the field relatively late, and finding his canvass to be slightly inferior to that of Borthwick, he unexpectedly retired on the eve of the nomination. Edward Rudge, who was then in London, was hastily nominated by the Whigs in his stead, but Rudge declined the contest, thus leaving the field to Cockerell and Borthwick and an unopposed return.16Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849; May, History of Evesham, 302.

Borthwick’s return, however, proved controversial. It had already been rumoured that he had once been an actor when, on the hustings, George May produced evidence that Borthwick had also been a bankrupt bookseller in Dalkeith, and had been excommunicated by the Scottish United Secession Church. Borthwick denied the charges, and claimed only to have paid off the debts of a relative in that town. These allegations subsequently formed the grounds of an action for libel after they were published in the Bath Guardian. The case against the newspaper was tried in April 1836 and Borthwick was proven not to have attempted to conceal his identity. However, the jury accepted that he had been declared bankrupt, had been jailed at the time he attended Cambridge University, and had appeared as ‘a professional, but unsuccessful, performer on the stage of the Surrey Theatre’, in June 1832.17Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century, 43; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849.

In the meantime, on ‘the “old loyal” 4^th of June’ 1835, a dinner was given for Borthwick at Evesham Guildhall, at which he explained in detail the votes he had given in the previous parliament, particularly regarding the Irish Church, municipal reform and agricultural distress.18Morning Post, 6 June 1835. The meeting was remarkable for an attempt by representatives of the Bath Guardian to confront Borthwick with an acquaintance from Dalkeith who could attest to the charges made against him by May: Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. Notwithstanding the outcome of Borthwick’s libel trial, a second dinner given for him at the town hall in December 1836 was taken as striking evidence of ‘the rapid and steady increase of Conservatism in the country’ as Borthwick, in a widely reported speech, castigated the Whig government for its attempt to appropriate the revenues of the Irish Church for non-ecclesiastical purposes.19The Times, 17 Dec. 1836.

The report of the municipal reform commissioners found that although borough affairs in Evesham were not badly managed, the close character of the corporation had been ‘productive of great evil in the town’. As a result of the subsequent reform, the Radicals claimed six out of the twelve council places, yet the Conservatives secured a majority after the election of their nominee as mayor.20Willis-Bund & Page, VCH Worcs., ii. 378; Morning Post, 4 Jan. 1836; Standard, 4 Jan. 1836; Examiner, 10 Jan. 1836; Noakes, Guide to Worcestershire, 155. The final address of the old corporation to the King expressed approval of parliament’s recent rejection of the appropriation of ecclesiastical revenues which, it claimed, aimed to ‘subvert the Protestant Church … and again recall and establish the dark ages of Popish superstition’.21Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 21 Jan. 1836.

With the death of Cockerell in January 1837, it was anticipated that the Radicals might ‘throw their caps at Evesham’.22The Times, 14 Jan. 1837. George Rushout-Bowles, a nephew of Lord Northwick, offered for the Conservatives, and Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil Hill, who was commonly known as Lord Marcus Hill, a brother of the marquis of Downshire and a former Whig member for Newry, came forward ‘with the Treasury at his back’. It was reported that Hill’s agents sought to persuade the Blues that supporting Rushout-Bowles would ‘ultimately injure their own favourite’, but after Borthwick endorsed his fellow Conservative the Northwick candidate’s return seemed to have been secured ‘by the zealous union of the Blues and the old Scarlets’.23The Times, 24 Jan. 1837; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. Hill, whose canvass was interrupted by influenza, was proposed by Benjamin Workman, the secretary of the local reform association, who contended that Hill’s alliance ‘to the aristocracy of talent’ would lead him to reject ‘any theories which would destroy the order to which he belonged’.24May, History of Evesham, 303; Morning Post, 6 Feb. 1837. He was seconded by T.N. Foster, and Rushout-Bowles was nominated by Thomas Blayney and Rev. Joseph Harling. Presenting himself as ‘a Reformer upon conviction’, Hill expressed ‘unflinching support for civil and religious liberty’, defended the record of the Whig ministry on reform and retrenchment, and expressed his preference for ‘the system of open-voting’.25Standard, 6 Feb. 1837. The show of hands was ‘most decidedly’ in favour of Rushout-Bowles, whose condemnation of the Irish Church bill, along with his rank and family connection ensured his popularity. For the first time, a poll took place in booths erected in the town’s High Street and Rushout-Bowles was returned by a margin of 25 votes.26Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 9 Feb. 1837; Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century, 43. Although about 60 electors did not vote, the return was hailed as a ‘Conservative triumph’. It was claimed that a clearer majority would have been achieved had not Rushout-Bowles appeared in the field several days later than Hill, yet Borthwick’s efforts on behalf of the former were said to have contributed greatly to the return of a second Conservative.27The Times, 6 Feb. 1837.

At the 1837 general election Rushout (having dropped the name of Bowles) and Borthwick cemented the alliance between the Northwick party and the Blues in order to shut out Hill, who was this time said to have been brought forward ‘at the instigation of the extreme Radicals, and without the sanction of the respectable Whigs’.28Morning Post, 5 July 1837; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. He was described by The Times as ‘the O’Connell candidate’, and the paper predicted that ‘the church and monarchy’ candidates would therefore be ‘perfectly secure’.29The Times, 24 July 1837. In Ireland, however, a view persisted that Hill was a Tory ‘shamming Whiggery’: Freeman’s Journal, 9 Feb. 1837. Yet the three men engaged in ‘a very sharp contest’ in which ‘most of the property, influence, and zeal of the Liberals’ was brought to bear. The Radicals, however, were said to have been ‘reduced to such a state of desperation’ that they had ‘offered to the Reds sixty second votes for thirty’, the offer being spurned by the Conservative electors who, according to their sympathisers in the press, refused to ‘sanction a coalition in which principle’ played no part. In the event, Rushout and Borthwick were narrowly returned.30Morning Post, 8 July 1837; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 27 July 1837. Of Borthwick’s 166 votes, 3 were plumpers, and Rushout had only 2. Of Hill’s 156 votes, 119 were plumpers, and the split votes were, Rushout and Borthwick 146, Rushout and Hill 20, Borthwick and Hill 17. Three hundred and seven electors voted out of 354 registered: Williams, Parl. Hist. Worcs., 159.

That November a petition was presented against the return of both members on grounds of personal bribery and objections to Borthwick’s qualification and ‘as many as 100 of his votes’.31The petition was pursued, it was suggested, as an act of retaliation against the Spottiswoode fund, which was raised by the Conservatives to prosecute election petitions and displace (mainly Irish) Liberals: Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. Proceedings against Rushout were quickly withdrawn, and a committee of six Conservatives and five Liberals under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Peel scrutinised the register. As a result a number of votes were struck off and Hill was returned by a majority of one over Borthwick, who was also found guilty of bribery, 20 Mar. 1838.32PP 1837-38 (460) x. 243; CJ, xciii, 52-3; The Times, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 Mar., 14 Apr. 1838; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 15, 22 Mar., 5 Apr. 1838; Standard, 19 Mar. 1838; Morning Post, 19 Mar., 2 Apr. 1838; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849; May, History of Evesham, 303-4. The Spectator claimed that Peel had wanted to unseat Borthwick in order to create a vacancy for Sir George Clerk, but that scrutiny of the register made Hill’s return unavoidable: Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 5 Apr. 1838. Dissension in the Tory ranks worsened in May, when Borthwick and Rushout fought an inconclusive duel after Borthwick publicly accused his colleague of having forsaken him before the committee.33Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 5 Apr., 24 May 1838; Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century, 44-5. By November, however, the Conservatives of East Worcestershire had regrouped and concluded that Borthwick’s ‘imprudent act’ (he had presented an elector with an inscribed snuff box during the election) had left ‘no stigma on the moral honour’ of their former member.34Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 29 Nov. 1838.

Although the number of freemen voters in the borough was declining, efficient registration strengthened the Conservative cause in Evesham.35The Times, 28 May 1841; PP 1844 (11) xxxviii. 427. The registrations of 1838 and 1839 saw the Conservatives make a net gain of 26 electors over the Liberals: Fraser’s Magazine, xviii (1838), 635; xx (1839), 642. At the 1841 general election Rushout and Hill, who shortly before the dissolution had been appointed comptroller of the royal household, both appeared before electors in person. Borthwick was then in Paris, but the leaders of the Blues, who thought that he ‘had been ill used’ at the previous election, sought him out and nominated him in his absence, his campaign being conducted by a local professional named George Eades.36Morning Post, 24 July 1841; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. The election was, unusually, regarded as ‘almost a pure one’ and the nominations were an orderly affair. The question of sugar and corn imports proved the chief point of contention as Hill defended the ‘principles of economy’ adopted by the ministry and the necessity of increasing national expenditure, arguing that the corn laws ‘required the most dispassionate consideration’ so as to secure ‘the relief of the many in contradistinction to the advantage of the few’. Rushout defended his rejection of the ballot, attacked the administration of the poor laws by arguing for power to be transferred from the commissioners to local guardians, and denounced attempts to repeal the corn laws. He mocked the ‘squeezeability’ of Whigs which, he contended, had allowed the recent advances made ‘by Popery in the land’. Borthwick in turn was portrayed by Francis Holland, the chairman of the local Conservatives, as ‘an injured and unjustifiably persecuted man’, and as the champion of the Blues. Popular feeling was running against Rushout for his conduct before the 1838 election committee, and the show of hands clearly favoured Borthwick, being more equally divided between Hill and Rushout.37Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 1 July 1841. Hill was proposed by Edward Rudge, Rushout by Dr. Beale Cooper and Borthwick by Eades, as the representative of the Blues. A poll was demanded in which the Northwick candidate came third, with Hill heading the list by a clear margin. At this election ‘the absurd and insolent custom’ of chairing the successful candidate was dispensed with and Hill instead toured the town in his carriage. Borthwick, upon returning from Paris on 21 July, did likewise, declaring his unflinching devotion to the constitution and ‘firm determination to stand by the agriculturalists’ by securing for them ‘an adequate protection’. Greeted by 8,000 of the town’s ‘most respectable inhabitants’, he refuted the suggestion that he had coalesced with Hill to exclude Rushout,38He pointed out that Hill had polled 108 plumpers, Rushout 34, and himself 42: Morning Post, 24 July 1841; Williams, Parl. Hist. of Worcs., 160. promised to seek to adjust the poor laws in favour of the ‘aged and honest’, and restated his ‘freedom from party pledge or bias’.39May, History of Evesham, 304; Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century, 45; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 29 July 1841; Morning Post, 24 July 1841.

The 1841 election largely destroyed Lord Northwick’s influence in Evesham. Hill had become popular in the borough ‘by acts of personal courtesy and kindness’, and, upon his reappointment as comptroller of the household in July 1846, was returned unopposed in the borough’s first uncontested election in 25 years.40Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. In ‘one of the quietest affairs of the kind’, Hill criticised Sir Robert Peel’s Irish policy and concluded that the prime minister’s conflict with his own party over the corn laws ‘had sealed his doom’. Regarding the constituency, he looked forward to ‘the prospect of speedy railway communication’ for Evesham through the construction of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton line.41Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 16 July 1846. He was nominated by T.N. Foster and Alderman New.

Borthwick, by now deep in debt, retired from the representation at the 1847 general election. Rushout chose to contest East Worcestershire, thus allowing Sir Henry Willoughby, a moderate Conservative and free trader, to inherit the remains of the Northwick party by pledging himself to ‘a Conservative policy’ which might protect ‘the domestic industry of the British Empire, whether employed in Agriculture, Manufactures, or Commerce’.42Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 29 July 1847; Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849. Edward Rudge, who sensed some discontent with Willoughby amongst the Blues, entered, but soon retired, from the field, whereupon Sir Ralph Howard, the Liberal member for Wicklow since 1829, unexpectedly came forward shortly before the nominations professing ‘Radical views’.43Howard advanced more than £850 to an agent named Nixon after an attorney’s clerk named Luke Williams had presented himself as ‘the representative of the people of Evesham’ and offered to secure his return. Nixon subsequently ‘bolted from the town’ leaving all the election debts unpaid: Daily News, 5 Dec. 1849, quoting Worcester Herald of 6 Oct. 1848. At the hustings Hill defended the government’s efforts to alleviate the Irish famine and extend public education, while Howard defended his support for Maynooth and declared himself ‘a through Free Trader’. Both men wished to see the tax burden on the poor reduced and, in Howard’s case, the load placed ‘upon real property’. Willoughby, an opponent of the Maynooth grant, argued ‘that property in Ireland must support Irish destitution’. He endorsed tax reform and public education and, declaring himself ‘an advocate of the poor man’s comforts’, requested the support of the Blues.44Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 5 Aug. 1847. Hill and Howard had the show of hands and polling ‘was a very quiet affair’, with the result that Hill headed the count and Willoughby came second, some way ahead of Howard.45Turberville, Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century, 45. Hill received 38 plumps, Willoughby 104, and Howard 4. The split votes for Hill and Willoughby were 49, for Hill and Howard 108, and for Willoughby and Howard, 19: H. Stooks Smith, The Parliaments of England: From 1st George I to the Present Time, iii (1850), 266.

Another contest was anticipated at the 1852 general election, The Times remarking that the borough electors regarded an uncontested election ‘for reasons well known to themselves’ as a ‘breach of their constitutional privileges’.46The Times, 10 Apr. 1852. The number of electors had fallen slightly since 1832 (from 359 to 349). It was estimated that extending the franchise to £5 rated occupiers would have more than doubled the number of household voters: Dod’s Electoral Facts, 113. A Liberal barrister, Serjeant Charles Wilkins, issued an address and claimed the support of the Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association. Wilkins, who had unsuccessfully contested York in May 1848, was dismissed by Conservatives as ‘a large dealer in political … fictions’, his wordy and florid address reading ‘like the gin-and-water oration of a preaching cobbler’.47Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 27 May, 29 Apr. 1852. When Hill unexpectedly announced his impending retirement from the representation in April on grounds of failing health, Charles Lennox Grenville Berkeley, the grandson of the 4^th earl of Berkeley and member for Cheltenham, 1848-52, immediately issued an address. At the hustings Edward Rudge presented Willoughby as ‘a man of experience and extreme judgment’ who had frequently intervened in the Commons on behalf of Liberal Conservative reform. Willoughby pledged to ‘support Lord Derby so long as he did what was right, and no longer’. Berkeley in turn declared himself a ‘liberal Liberal!’, being in favour of the ballot and free trade. There were personal exchanges between Willoughby and Wilkins, who despite presenting himself as ‘a radical of large and independent mind’ was accused by Willoughby of having once been a Conservative.48Wilkins retorted that, as a representative, Willoughby had ‘been tried, and convicted of being incapable’. At a previous contest in York Wilkins had been described as a ‘tory barrister’ masquerading as a reformer, having declared himself in favour of household suffrage, the ballot, and triennial parliaments: Manchester Times, 23 May 1848; Morning Post, 23 May 1848. The show of hands was in favour of Willoughby and Wilkins, but the subsequent poll saw Wilkins trail in a poor third.49Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 8 July 1852.

Evesham had been earmarked for disenfranchisement under Lord John Russell’s abortive 1854 reform bill.50Standard, 25 Apr. 1859. In July 1855 Berkeley accepted the Chiltern Hundreds in order to contest his family borough of Cheltenham following the sudden death of his cousin Craven FitzHardinge Berkeley. Edward Holland of Dumbleton Hall, a former Liberal member for East Worcestershire who had been defeated at East Gloucestershire in January 1854, came forward after, it was reported, a messenger was despatched to Evesham by the secretary of the treasury.51Derby Mercury, 11 July 1855. Notwithstanding the Conservatives’ ire at what they saw as ‘a barefaced attempt to smuggle in a member of the Whig party’, Holland’s reputation as a popular and innovative local landowner, ‘combined with his high-spirited expression of patriotic opinions with respect to the war’, favoured his unopposed return. Captain Blayney and Lord Grey de Wilton were mooted as candidates but, each being dissatisfied with their survey of the constituency, they promptly retired. Instead, three Conservatives offered - Samuel Baker, a Gloucestershire businessman and chairman of the Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway, who had stood for Stroud in 1852;52Examiner, 3 July 1852. William Malins, a native of the borough who, as chairman of the Metropolitan Railway, resided in London; and Richard William Johnson of Edgbaston, a landed proprietor and director of the Oxford and Worcester Railway, who advocated administrative reform. Malins was ‘decidedly favourable to a vigorous prosecution of the war against Russia’ and an opponent of the contemplated peace treaty. He pursued a vigorous canvass but, along with Baker, soon withdrew in favour of Johnson. The latter canvassed but then also retired, considering ‘it unadvisable in the near prospect of a general election to disturb the constituency’.53Standard, 10 July 1855; Derby Mercury, 11 July 1855; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 14 July 1855. The borough, according to some observers, now ‘presented none of the ancient characteristics of election times. … No banners, floating proudly in the breeze, bearing “suitable inscriptions,” and “appropriate devices”; no laurels, ribbons, and so forth.’ The ‘term “Committee Room” was carefully eschewed’, and it was said to be ‘truly laughable to notice how everything savouring of an approach to “corrupt practices”’ was avoided.54Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 14 July 1855. The ‘way in which electors paid for what refreshments they chanced to partake of at public houses’ was, it was said, ‘what a Yankee would call “a picture.”’ The Conservative challenge ensured that Holland was forced to reverse his original intention to forego a canvass. Denying that he had colluded with the outgoing member, he spoke out against the imperial designs of Russia, and offered qualified support for administrative reform and an enlarged franchise, while rejecting the ballot. He was returned without opposition after declaring that he belonged to no ‘particular class of politicians’, but stood ‘for every class, for every elector, and every non-elector’.55Standard, 12 July 1855; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 14 July 1855.

At the 1857 general election Colonel W.P. Addison, a London-based insurance broker, unexpectedly came forward as ‘a supporter of Lord Palmerston, an advocate of consistent retrenchment, and for reduced taxation’. Although short of funds, he canvassed ‘almost all night’ before the election.56Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 28 Mar. 1857, 10 July 1858. Addison was managing director of the Phoenix Life Assurance Company, his commission having been taken in ‘the South American service’. At the hustings Willoughby defended ‘the paths of independency’ he had taken since entering parliament. He denounced the income tax, advocated an extended system of education and declared himself in favour of a broader franchise and the ballot ‘if his constituency desired it’. Although he was then a supporter of Palmerston’s government, he denounced the ministry’s handling of the Canton incident. Holland, on the other hand, defended the prime minister for dutifully ‘upholding officials in foreign parts’, and continued to claim that he ‘was no party man, and voted as his conscience guided him’. Furthermore, he defended his opposition to church rates and, though he had voted for the ballot, admitted that he did not think there ‘would at present be any gainers from it’. Addison also disclaimed any ties to party, and promised to go further than his opponents in reducing taxation by repealing ‘the whole of the income tax’ and, although ‘a thorough churchman’, abolishing church rates. Addison won the show of hands and a poll was demanded for Holland. In spite of his radicalism having been well received at the hustings, Addison came in a distant third behind Willoughby and Holland.57Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 28 Mar. 1857. Addison returned to Evesham in May 1858 to establish a reform society and issued an address in anticipation of a dissolution. He was, however, then sued by his election agent over the payment of outstanding election expenses: Nottinghamshire Guardian, 20 May 1858; Daily News, 3 July 1858; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 10 July 1858.

At the 1859 general election Willoughby declined an offer to stand for Birmingham and he and Holland offered themselves for re-election. Addison visited the town meaning ‘to try his luck again’ on ‘Radical principles’, but his address, ‘consisting of the vaguest generalities … was listened to with the greatest indifference’, and he soon turned his attention to Stafford.58Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 9, 16, 23 Apr. 1859. One reporter found it difficult ‘to gather from his speech what political views the gallant Colonel holds, or whether he has any political opinions whatever’, his ‘parting benediction’ being ‘the only sentiment which his hearers applauded’. Willoughby’s parliamentary scrutiny of the public finances and support for ‘all measures of safe Reform’ guaranteed him the support of the Conservative electors, as well as that of some Liberals. Holland’s return, however, seemed in doubt, he having indicated ‘an indifference’ to the seat by speaking of his ‘determination to retire’ when the reform question was settled. His address was ‘remarkable for its curt ambiguity’ and was received coolly by local Liberals, particularly ‘many of the ardent and active radicals’. Their efforts to have James Taylor of Birmingham brought forward in the Radical interest came to nought, and Holland’s commitment to parliamentary reform, coupled with his personal standing in the borough, enabled him to transcend the divisions within the Liberal party and secure its nomination.59Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 9, 16, 23 Apr. 1859. Nevertheless, Edwin Chadwick, the former secretary of the poor law commission, was solicited at the last moment to come forward as a Liberal, this being one of several ‘embarrassingly abortive attempts’ to find him a parliamentary seat.60P. Mandler, ‘Chadwick, Sir Edwin’, Oxford DNB, x. 836-40. An advocate of a ‘peace policy’, penal reform and the introduction of sanitary regulations for the army, he declared himself a supporter of the principles of Lords Brougham, Russell, Carlisle, and Shaftesbury, ‘and also of the late J[oseph] Hume’. Basing his claim on ‘his past labours for the physical, educational, and moral improvement of the labouring population’, as well as his championing of the opening of the civil service to public competition, he was generally favourable to parliamentary reform, albeit based on ‘more complete knowledge’, particularly the working of the ballot in the colonies. However, having studiously eschewed ‘any reference to parties’, Chadwick was by ‘the Radicals dubbed a Tory, and by the Conservatives a Radical’.61The Times, 5 Apr. 1859; 18 Daily News, 20 Apr. 1859; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 23 Apr. 1859. Morning Post, 23 Apr. 1859. To make matters worse, his merits as a candidate were said to have been ‘neutralised by the dislike entertained by all parties’ to his chosen agent, Luke Williams, who had been engaged by Howard in 1841, and by Addison in 1857.62Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 23 Apr. 1859. Addison too issued an address but, with his prospects apparently unimproved since the last election, he soon retired. Morning Post, 6 Apr. 1859; Morning Chronicle, 8 Apr. 1859; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 9 Apr. 1859.

At the hustings Willoughby defended his support for Lord Derby’s reform bill, arguing that he had since 1832 believed that it was ‘unconstitutional and even dangerous for the great cities and towns of the kingdom to be without direct representation’, but at the same time he ‘condemned the policy of representation by population’ and defended Evesham’s ‘corporate right’ to continue to return two members to parliament. Holland courted unpopularity by defending the plan ‘for knocking out “one of the eyes” of the borough’, but ridiculed Derby’s bill ‘in its most essential particulars’, and expressed his preference for the one propounded by Lord John Russell. Chadwick persistently avoided reference to ‘actual political principles’, arguing simply that ‘the Tories were biased against change, and the Liberals biased for change’. He promised instead to take an independent line on the great questions of the day ‘for the benefit of all classes’, but only after careful ‘inquiry on doubtful points’.63Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 30 Apr. 1859. Although the show of hands was ‘immensely in his favour’, Chadwick came in a very poor third and threatened to make public the names of those who, having induced him to come forward, subsequently deserted him.64Daily News, 2 May 1859.

In January 1865 Colonel James Bourne, a Liverpool industrialist and director of the London and Northwest Railway, and Daniel Adolphus Lange, a representative of the Suez Canal Company, each issued addresses in anticipation of a dissolution. After the sudden death of Willoughby in March 1865, however, it was Bourne who secured the backing of George Rushout, by now 3^rd baron Northwick, and thus the full support of the Conservative party.65Standard, 27 Mar. 1865. Although two Liberals, a Mr. Johnnes and the indefatigable Colonel Addison entered the field, only Bourne appeared at the hustings. As a ‘devoted churchman’ he professed his firm attachment to ‘the glorious institutions of Church and State’ and his support for Lord Derby’s 1859 reform bill, arguing for ‘making intelligence and education the qualification for the franchise’. He also expressed his approval of free trade and a reduction or repeal of the malt duty to benefit the agricultural class, and his return went off ‘with remarkable quietness’.66Liverpool Mercury, 5 Apr. 1865; The Times, 5 Apr. 1865. Only 50 people attended the proceedings, it being said that a local stag hunt had proved a more powerful attraction ‘than electioneering speeches’.

At the 1865 general election Holland faced a challenge from Josiah Harris, an independent Conservative. He had again come forward only reluctantly and, not having canvassed at the previous election, was expected to campaign ‘simply to save the vote for his political party’ as it seemed certain that no other Liberal had ‘the least chance of saving the seat’.67Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 3 June 1865. In a constituency where only 23 (or 7% of) electors were identified as working class, but more than three times that number occupied property at an estimated gross rental of between £7 and £10, franchise reform was an important issue.68PP 1866 (170). lvii. 47 The number of freemen voters had declined to 54 by 1862: PP 1866 (259) lvii. 569. At the hustings Holland spoke in favour of extending the franchise to the educated working man, but remained opposed to the ballot. Bourne looked to the constitution as the only brake on ‘a downward step towards democracy’ and condemned Edward Baines’s recent attempted reform measure. Harris simply endorsed the views put forward by Bourne, and called for the repeal of the malt tax. The two Conservatives won the show of hands, but a poll saw the sitting members returned with Harris a distant third.69Birmingham Daily Post, 12 July 1865; The Times, 12 July 1865; Williams, Parl. Hist. Worcs., 161.

By 1868 the registered electorate had grown to 750 as a result of the second Reform Act, which ‘amputated one of its members’. However, ‘the patient derived no advantage’ and, according to one authority, remained ‘extensively corrupt’.70Noake, Guide to Worcestershire, 155; H.J. Hanham, Elections and Party Management. Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone (1959), 263. Holland retired from the representation and Bourne retained the remaining seat against successive Liberal challenges until his death in 1880. The ensuing by-election was won by the Liberals but was declared void, whereupon the borough returned to the Conservatives.71Williams, Parl. Hist. Worcs., 162. In 1885 the constituency was abolished as a borough, but the name was transferred to a larger county constituency (alternatively known as South Worcestershire) which returned a single member.