Coventry, an important manufacturing town where out-working prevailed, was situated locally in the county of the city of Coventry, a separate jurisdiction within Warwickshire. Its economy and politics were influenced by its three main industries or trades - silk (including the weaving of ribbon and election cockades), watchmaking and cordwaining - of which silk was overwhelmingly the most important, and by its proximity to the large unrepresented town of Birmingham, 18 miles to the north-east. Borough management was vested in a select and self-appointed corporation of a mayor, a further ten aldermen and a nominated common council of 20, who together formed the ‘grand council’. They elected the mayor and two sheriffs (the returning officers) annually, although successive terms were common, and appointed the recorder (a peer for whom the steward deputized) and all civic officers. The aldermen were the justices of the peace within the city and its county and presided over the ten wards, or electoral districts. These served as administrative units for poor relief by the directors of the poor of the incorporated parishes of St. Michael’s and Holy Trinity, and also for the distribution of subscription and hardship funds and charity doles, which included over £2,200 made available annually by the corporation.
a permanent and self-constituted body, powerful from their position and the possession of magisterial authority, influential from the considerable revenues over which they exercise an irresponsible control, and from the distribution of extensive charities, which they assume a right to dispense as a matter of personal or individual patronage. Presiding over a commercial city, subject to the influence of no individual patron, it became the leading object of the corporation to secure to themselves the nomination of the Members for the city.
They added, as ‘a remarkable fact’, that it was ‘composed pretty equally of Whigs and Tories’ and surmised from their collective support for candidates of either party that ‘the prevailing distinction has been ... between the corporation and anti-corporation party’.
The franchise was restricted to freemen having ‘served seven years’ apprenticeship to one and the same trade in the ... city or the suburbs’. No residence qualification applied and it was estimated that 600-1,000 out-voters, mainly from London, Birmingham and ‘the country’, were available for polling.
Party loyalties were fostered at the Fox Club, the Whig Craven Arms, the Tory King’s Head and in the local press: the ‘church and king’ Coventry Mercury and the Coventry Herald, published by the ribbon warehouseman Nathaniel Merridew, representing Whig and Dissenting interests. Criticizing both, the editor of the ephemeral Lewis’s Coventry Recorder, William Greatheed Lewis, who was indicted for sedition in 1820, complained before the general election that year that the ‘Mercury is afraid of offending the treasury’ and the ‘Herald is equally anxious to serve the corporation’.
The Dark Blues or ‘Liberals’ had first returned Peter Moore, a former nabob adroit at handling local legislation, in 1803. Edward ‘Bear’ Ellice, his colleague on the same interest since 1818, was a City merchant of Scottish ancestry, trading principally with Canada. Both had acted as spokesmen for the silk industry, urged inquiry into manufacturing distress, repeal of the combination laws, reform and Catholic relief, and denounced the repressive legislation enacted after Peterloo. Moore had recently received a gold cup in recognition of his services and as a hint that he should retire, while Ellice had antagonized the corporation by supporting free trade and the radical weavers by refusing to attend their protest meeting after Peterloo.
Cobbett’s afflicted with Paine in the Bones.
And a very bad cold: it has stopped his chattering!
With the poll at Ellice 727, Moore 692, Cobbett 352, Close 114, troops were summoned to quell rioting during the weekend break, and Cobbett, claiming that his life was in danger, demanded protection.
Before the Warwickshire by-election in October 1820 Lilly convened a meeting of the Coventry city and county freeholders, who, encouraged by the mayor William Perkins and town clerk and clerk of the peace for the county of Coventry, John Carter, resolved to test their votes. They declared for the radical Birmingham banker Richard Spooner* at the Craven Arms, 27 Oct.
A petition received by the Lords, 12 June 1820, from certain inhabitants selling ‘Breakfast Powder’ - a tax-free coffee substitute derived from roasted grain and manufactured by the radical Henry Hunt* - sought clarification of the product’s legal status and government action to alleviate their distress.
Moore’s proposals for repeal of the combination laws, 1822-24, were popular with the weavers, who petitioned for Hume’s bill enacting it, 1 Apr. 1824, but the masters and the corporation lobbied for their re-enactment in 1825.
Certain corporators found it convenient to attribute the Members’ failure to influence government policy to their opposition allegiance, and when a dissolution was contemplated in 1825 Pearman, who claimed the credit for returning Moore since 1803, advertised for suitable ‘church and state’ candidates in John Bull, 25 Sept. A requisition for the return of a member of Peel’s family was circulated and the London freemen rallied at the George and Dragon and the Sun in Slaughter Street. Applications for the freedom increased.
In the law for regulating the Coventry elections, it is provided that none but freemen who have not polled shall be within the booth, or within a certain distance of it, excepting the candidates and their legal advisers, and other persons in official capacities. It is therefore the practice to poll those men last who are the greatest blackguards, and the most powerful in muscular strength, and who are instructed to keep close to the booth to keep off and abuse their opponents, and to protect their friends. These men are well supplied with all the necessary stimulants, and regularly relieved at stated periods, as the duty is in some cases extremely severe. The Tory leaders of the rabble electors being unaccustomed to success, are quite wild with victory, and they may well exult in it, for it is sure to be their last. A great number of the freemen, when they have voted for the Tory candidates, shake hands with Ellice, and promise to support him if he comes at the next election. The angry feeling is very fast subsiding, but it is feared the men are too deeply committed to the Tories to desert them on the present occasion. Mr. Ellice expresses his determination to keep the poll open to the very last.
Whitley, app. p. xii; Coventry Mercury, 12 June; The Times, 14 June 1826.
The poll stood overnight on the 14th at Fyler 1,162, Heathcote 1,161, Ellice 377, Moore 369, but two days of rioting had given the Dark Blues access to the booths. Their sudden abandonment of the poll at midday on the eighth day, the 19th, at Heathcote 1,535, Fyler 1,522, Ellice 1,242, Moore 1,182, with 2,763 (approximately 80 per cent of the electorate) polled, was attributed to reports of an intended ‘massacre’.
We do sincerely trust Mr. Ellice is armed with full evidence of the transactions which have been detailed; because, if so, a petition to Parliament becomes on his part a step of imperious duty, and of infallible success; it being impossible that an election can stand, when actual demonstration can be adduced that force, not free will, has determined it ... If the accounts be true - the returning officer is to blame.
The Times, 21 June; Coventry Herald, 23 June 1826.
Fyler, assisted by his brother James Chamness Fyler of Woodlands, Surrey and Major Saunderson of the Grenadier Guards, and Heathcote, whose progress was monitored by the Staffordshire Member Edward Littleton, addressed the populace from the King’s Head and Whitwell, the presiding alderman at their dinner, called for unity. At the Craven Arms, where Lilly, the hosier John Cope and the former Members hosted the dinner, the Dark Blues attributed their defeat to hired mobs, the sheriffs’ partiality and false reporting, and resolved to petition. Ellice proposed a toast to his legal team of Troughton, Lee and Marriott.
Anticipating a by-election, 227 applications for the freedom were registered in July 1826 and admissions remained high (July 103, August 36, September 25, October 20).
I would rather pursue that sort of moderate and respectful course, which might not provoke hostility, where it could possibly be avoided. The unanimity of a committee such as election committees unfortunately are can have no weight with you or me; but I fear it is an argument with the House, which must be encountered warily and discreetly. The corporation I think may express their surprise at the recommendation of a concurrent jurisdiction, which in their judgement could in no way tend to strengthen the civil power of the city, while on the contrary, by a possible collision of feeling and interest, it might considerably tend to weaken it. [It could be argued] that none can have a greater interest in preserving the peace of the city, particularly at the moment of an election, than the corporation authorities, as it is notorious that that portion of the freemen which from their habits and station in life would be most likely to occasion riots and tumults, has been almost uniformly opposed to their wishes.
Coventry Archives PA/14/10/64.
The committee chairman, the Staffordshire Member Sir John Wrottesley, introduced the Coventry magistracy bill, 22 May 1827. As directed by the corporation, who had already spent £4,000 on the election and in opposing the petition, Carter went to London to monitor the bill’s progress. The Members opposed the measure to the last ‘as nothing less than partial disfranchisement of an ancient and loyal city’; but it had the Canning ministry’s support and they failed to kill it, 8 June, or to prevent its passage, 18 June. Hostile petitions were received by both Houses from the mayor, bailiffs and commonalty, 30 May, the bankers and merchants, 31 May, the Foleshill guardians of the poor, and the weavers, 7 June; favourable ones from the directors of the poor of St. Michael’s and Holy Trinity (who had opposed the corporation’s election expenditure), 31 May, and the freemen, manufacturers and inhabitants, 1 June, 25 June.
Petitions for repeal of the Test Acts were adopted by the Dissenters and presented to the Commons, 15 June 1827, and to both Houses, 21 Feb. 1828;
Local attention had switched to the threat posed by the 1827 Holyhead road bill, which proposed a route across the lamas lands, so infringing the corporation and the freemen’s rights, and to the 1827 Election Expenses Act, which forbade the use of ribbons at elections. The lammas lands were safeguarded in 1828 by a rider (drafted by the town clerk) to the Holyhead bill; but despite strong lobbying by the ribbon masters and petitioning at civic meetings, 12 June 1827, 2 Mar. 1828, concessions on the ‘Ribbon Act’ were refused. Fyler, who handled the abortive repeal bill, was subsequently mocked as a supporter of Lord Lonsdale.
Heathcote had on 4 Apr. rejected a 1,600-signature requisition from Harvey Minster, secretary of the Coventry Blue Club, calling for his immediate resignation and criticizing ‘his poor attendance or rather non-attendance at a time of distress’.
Both voted to bring down the Wellington ministry on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. As patronage secretary and chief whip in Grey’s administration, Ellice was a staunch advocate of their reform bill. The secretary of the Political Union, the bookseller William Hickling, initiated a correspondence with him on the subject in December 1830 and discouraged petitions for the ballot and universal suffrage, which he knew Ellice would be unable to present. However, Hunt’s passing visit in January 1831, on his way south from his victory at Preston, ensured the adoption of a reform petition calling for the ballot, universal suffrage and short parliaments, which was forwarded to him, 15 Jan., discussed in the Commons, 15 Mar., but not presented. The remodelled ‘Liberal’ Coventry Herald condemned it.
He wraps himself in mysterious silence, an object of doubt and speculation. ... The freemen of Coventry should, if possible, learn the intentions of their Member. They should allow no double-dealing, or nothing equivocal. Their Member (for representative we cannot call Mr. Fyler) ought to speak out and declare himself boldly ... a declared enemy is more respected than a moderate ... A suspected opponent or a questionable friend.
Coventry Archives PA14/10/5; Coventry Herald, 18, 25 Mar., 1, 8 Apr. 1831.
Contrary to local predictions, Fyler voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment by which the bill was lost, 19 Apr., and he declared and issued notices as a ‘moderate’ and ‘very honest reformer’ directly Parliament was dissolved, 22 Apr. He contacted Carter, the mayor Richard Marriott and his former supporters Bunney, Woodcock, Rotherham and Weare, and sent his brother James down to canvass.
I enclose you ... Fyler’s address, which has just made its appearance, but I think from what I hear it does not go far enough to satisfy Ellice’s friends ... Bunney has been with me to know whether we are retained by ... Fyler. I said certainly not. He thinks from what is stated in ... Fyler’s letter this morning that the latter gentleman considers we are. I wish you had written him on Sunday night an explicit letter, for if he labours under that impression and should come down on Friday morning and finds no preparation for him we may be charged with great neglect although unjustly so. Does Corrie know that we are not retained? ... Bunney and ... Weare both wish us to be in a state of preparation, and the latter intimated that we had to be alone ... If we do not take an active part I cannot consent that our clerk should; on the other hand the mayor [Marriott], who has seen the enclosed bill, says ... Fyler has not gone far enough in it, in not pledging himself to support the reform bill as brought into Parliament, and intimates he will be strongly opposed. The mayor and Alderman Vale have seen ... Bulwer’s letter and they both think that even if we do not support ... Fyler we ought not to countenance an opposition to him and in this opinion I most decidedly coincide. Fyler did all that man could do to support the corporation in 1826 and I think the least the corporation can do is to remain neuter. I understand from ... Bunney that Fyler will come down prepared to fight and it has occurred to me that the election books of last year would afford him great assistance, and I really think under the circumstances we should make an offer of them and we can soon add the freemen admitted since July last. As an old friend, I cannot bring my mind to think he deserves to be abandoned and deserted in the way it is likely he will be. Do consider this subject and reflect upon it. Your presence would be no doubt a great gratification to him. He does not come to Coventry till Friday morning. Let me hear from you by parcel made up tonight. I shall write again this afternoon if anything fresh transpires.
Coventry Archives PA14/10/23.
A meeting at the Craven Arms, 26 Apr., chaired by Lilly, declared unanimously for Ellice. The Birmingham political unionist Joshua Scholefield†, who was requisitioned, agreed to stand should Fyler or Bulwer’s reform declarations be ‘inadequate’, but the Coventry Political Union examined and endorsed Bulwer, 28 Apr., and he paraded the town with Ellice on the 29th.
A meeting on 1 July 1831, chaired by the cabinet maker John Ashton, petitioned for an extension of the £10 householder vote to tenants paying rent oftener than six-monthly, and petitions for a scot and lot franchise, for preserving the servitude qualification, and against delaying the bill were also now forthcoming.
The directors of the poor petitioned against the settlement bill, 11 Aug. 1831.
I scarcely know what to say about the representation of Coventry. I will not sue for it again, nor will I permit the enemy to lay hold of it, but if a good reformer will offer himself with money to defeat the conspiracy which has lately been hatching I will make my bow in his favour, and give him all the assistance in my power to step into my shoes. But my fear is that without great caution ... Bankes or some other person of his politics under the cry of free trade, and on the pretence of having greater commiseration for the sufferings and hardships of the weavers, and with the assistance of money from the corporation, may defeat a ... Spooner or some other reformer, who supposes that an election at Coventry has been or will be an affair of principle. True, that a reformer with money may beat a candidate with or without that essential ‘interest’. But, you may know what chance a reformer without money will have against an anti-reformer with a long purse. Nor would the fault lay with the reformers of Coventry.
Coventry Archives PA323/21.
The silk committee’s failure to propose remedies was fudged by clever editing by Bulwer and Troughton of the evidence appended to their report, which was printed (as amended) in the local newspapers, in a bid to prevent the Liberals being trounced on the issue by Fyler at the 1832 general election.
The boundary commissioners considered but decided against taking the detached (agricultural) part of the parish of St. Michael’s out of the constituency, and the 1832 Act left the boundaries unchanged. Previous enactments conferring the right of election had omitted to specify the qualifying suburbs and these were defined as ‘all those parts of the parishes of St. Michael’s and Holy Trinity which do not extend beyond the limits of the county of the city of Coventry, with the exception of the hamlet of Kerseley’.
in the freemen
Number of voters: 2763 in 1826
Estimated voters: 3,000-3,500
Population: 21242 (1821); 27278 (1831)