Huddersfield In Print - Page 3 of 4
Blackwoods’s Edinburgh Magazine Vol. 86 (527) Sept
1859 Page 369
The Beverley case also was one in which the Conservative
petitioners were successful. In this election the Liberals conducted
their bribery more cautiously, and chiefly by paying the freemen
of the borough exorbitant wages for doing nominally the work of
messengers. Also the polling-clerks, who were voters, were paid
three guineas, while those who were not voters received only one
guinea. In this case Mr Walters, the Liberal was ejected, and Major
Edwards, the Conservative, maintained his seat.
Let us now glance at some of the cases in which bribery was proved
against the Liberals, yet the members were allowed to retain their
seats. And first on this list, as on the former one, comes a brother-in-law
of Mr Bright – Mr E.A. Leatham, brother of the ejected Member
for Wakefield, and sitting himself for Huddersfield.
Bribery here took a rather comical form – much of it being
done by giving overprices for pigs, and by making anti-temperance
presents of barrels of beer! The decision of the committee was as
follows: “That it was proved to your committee that George
Moxon and John Chapman were bribed to vote for Edward Adlham Leatham
by Jabez Wells, by the payment of £10 more than the market
value of some pigs.
That Joseph Crossley had been bribed to one Edward Frith to vote
at the last election, under a promise that part of his house would
be used as a committee-room.
That Godfrey Hudson, a publican, had been bribed by Jabez Wells
for a like purpose.
That Henry Partridge had been bribed by John Wilson for a like purpose.
That Aquila Priestly had been bribed with half a barrel of beer.
That there was no evidence that such acts of bribery had taken place
with the knowledge of E.A. Leatham,” and therefore that he
“was duly elected.”
After the elections, Mr Bright, in the fullness of his heart, boasted
that he would now walk into the House Of Commons with a brother-in-law
on each arm. He little thought of how soon one of these relations
was to be walked out of the House in a very summary and humiliating
way; and how the other, though escaping ejection must ever be ridiculous
to the risible, and offensive to the moral, faculties of the House,
on account of the barrels of beer and the corrupt traffic in the
“unclean animal” to which he owed his election.
The Maidstone case was another in which the Liberal Members escaped
in a manner not very creditable to the Committee, and very discreditable
to them. For the Committee testified that it was proved to them
that “Henry Smith, an elector, was bribed on his own confession
by a sum of £10; and that Richard Rose and J. Honey, two other
electors who voted for the sitting Members, were paid 25s. each
after voting, for traveling-expenses; but that none of the transactions
referred to were done with the knowledge or consent of the sitting
Members or their agents”
How disinterested in their corrupt expenditure some Liberals must
be, when they buy up votes without having the least connection with
the candidate or his agents! The scandal of these cases was great;
but – marvel of marvels! – who should come forward to
vindicate them but the immaculate John Bright himself. And this
is the way in which he seeks to whitewash the soiled reputation
of his two relatives and their fellow sinners: - “A man comes
into this House – a great many men can hardly tell how they
get here – and he finds that some friends of his, in the zeal
and in the heat of the contest, have done things which are imprudent.
I admit that many Members who are presumed to know very little do
know a great deal of these matters. At the same time, a Member may
be returned by means which a Parliamentary Committee would not sanction,
and yet be ignorant of those means having been exerted.”
Of course, as an hypothesis, this is not altogether impossible.
But certainly it is not often that a man’s friends will draw
cheques and spend money on his behalf without giving him even a
hint of their benevolence. Only fancy a pure and incorruptible Liberal
of the “advanced” type, who is resolved to fight the
battle on the highest principles, and yet – in his despite
and without his knowledge – his friends go about spending
their money on his behalf, thrusting pound-notes into teapots and
odd places, exhilarating the voters by presents of barrels of beer,
and making purchases of pigs at treble their value!
To complete the burlesque of all probability, it only needed that
John Bright should thus come forward to champion the cause of those
Members, whom he believes to have suffered so much from the obstinate
over-benevolence of their friends. The case of his two brothers-in-law
appears to have touched his heart.
Petitions against Conservative Members, we have said, were abandoned
wholesale; and in the cases which were proceeded with – namely,
those of North Leicestershire, Ashburton, Aylesbury, and Beverley,
the Conservatives came off in triumph. The only case in which the
Committee decided against a Conservative Member, was that of Hull.
Mr Hoare, who was returned for that borough at the General Election,
is described by the matter-of-fact Dod as “a very moderate
Conservative;” but apparently the Committees were glad to
get hold of any sort of a Conservative, in order that it might not
be said that while so many Liberals fell, not a single Conservative
shared their fate.
Mr Hoare, it seems to us, had a very scrimp measure of justice
dealt out to him. And in saying this, we do so deliberately, and
with express reference to parallel cases in which Liberal Members
were allowed to retain their seats. In Mr Hoare’s case no
direct acts of bribery were even alleged; but it was charged against
him that too many “messengers, canvassers, booth-clerks, and
check-clerks, were employed by this party.”
The canvass and election contest was a pretty long one, lasting
nearly three weeks, and during that time these messengers, &c.,
were employed, some for two, three, or four days, others for the
whole time, at the not very exorbitant wage of from 2s. 6d. to 3s.
6d. a-day. Their number also was less than that employed during
the same period by the Liberal side – that is to say, by Mr
Clay, Mr Hoare’s return. Nevertheless Mr Hoare lost his seat,
- and this although the Committee declared that the employment of
this undue number of messengers, &c., was not done “with
or by the consent of the said Joseph Hoare, Esq., who showed great
anxiety to check any illegal proceedings in respect to the said
election.”
Now compare this decision with those of the Committees on the Maidstone
and the Huddersfield election cases.
The Maidstone committee decided that “Henry Smith, who voted
for the sitting Members, was proved, on his own admission, to have
been bribed by the sum of £10.” And the Huddersfield
Committee decided that “it was proved that George Moxon and
John Chapman were bribed to vote for E.A. Leatham, by Jabez Wells,
by the payment of £10 more than the market value of some pigs;
that Joseph Crossley had been bribed by one Edward Frith to vote
at the last election under the promise that part of his room should
be used as a Committee-room;
that Godfrey Hudson, a publican, had been bribed by Jabez Wells
for a like purpose;
that Henry Partridge had been bribed by John Wilson for a like purpose;
that Joseph Hobbison had been bribed with a half barrel of beer.”
But they held that Mr Leatham was “duly elected” on
the ground “that there was no evidence that such acts of bribery
had taken place with his knowledge.”
Thus then, at Maidstone and Huddersfield, three Liberal Members
were held to be duly elected, although most flagrant cases of bribery
were committed on their behalf; whereas at Hull Mr Hoare was unseated
simply for having too many hired messengers, &c., although this
was not done “by or with his consent,” and although
the committee were forced to add (what was not said for the Liberal
Members for Maidstone and Huddersfield), that Mr Hoare “showed
great anxiety to check any illegal proceedings in respect to the
said election.”
This Hull case was one of the very last decided; and it seems impossible
to doubt that the Committee entered upon its labours with a predetermination,
if possible to offer up one Conservative – even though only
“a very moderate” one – to the manes of the eight
advanced Liberals who had been unseated. The result of the new election
at Hull, however, has proved how entirely independent either of
bribery or of Government influence was Mr Hoare’s success;
for not only has a Conservative been again elected, but the Conservative
marjority, which was 310 in April has now swelled to 489!
SOURCES
- ILEJ, Notes and Queries, a 19th century journal.
- ILEJ, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine , a
19th century journal.
CREDIT
- Marion B Harper, Geneologist
|
