1883 Reform Act

The two-member Parliamentary constituency of Chester, at first solidly Liberal and still much influenced by the Grosvenors, was riddled with bribery until events at the election of 1880 brought matters to a head - possibly being a contributing factor to electoral rules which are still with us today.

Votes in Chester were being freely "bought for beer" by both the Liberal and Conservative parties. Through the middle half of the 19th Century records kept by the candidates as elections approached show large sums being paid to local inn-keepers. There was a further source of corruption:: vast sums were also spent on "ribbons, cockades and favours" which signified voting intent, and which voters were often bribed to wear. Although freemen retained their parliamentary votes until 1918 and were already a significant proportion of the electorate before 1867, many (such as small shopkeepers) were too poor to qualify under the £10 householder franchise, and party agents on both sides paid admittance fees and a day's wages when they took up the freedom. There were almost 1,000 freemen voters in 1880 with many showing by cockades &c which side had bought their votes.

Reform
There had been calls for reform of the "Rotten Boroughs" for years. The introduction of the Secret Ballot in 1872 certainly reduced the level of corruption in parliamentary elections. However, some politicians still spent large sums of money persuading people to vote for them. Prime Minister William Gladstone believed this was unfair and in 1883 his government introduced proposals to stop candidates using their wealth to win elections. The Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 specified how much money candidates could spend during election time and banned such activities as the buying of food or drink for voters. The Corrupt Practices Act even stated the number of conveyances that could be used for bringing voters to the polls.

Events in Chester had a direct influence on the passage of the act - particularly as Gladstone's son was an MP for Chester. William Henry Gladstone (3 June 1840 – 4 July 1891) was born at the Gladstone home in Hawarden. He was the eldest son of Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone and his wife Catherine née Glynne, and, MP for Chester from 1865 to 1868. In that election the Conservative, Chester-born Henry Cecil Raikes (his grandfather and namesake was buried under a literally "over-the-top" monument in Overleigh Cemetery), came fourth after vigorous interventions for W. H. Gladstone, by his father, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against the normal understanding (at the time) that cabinet ministers did not campaign outside their own constituencies. The 1867 Reform Act more than doubled the electorate to some 6,000, adding more natural Conservatives than Liberals among the newly enfranchised working men, though also boosting support for Earl Grosvenor (especially given the beer he was buying for voters). Of the two candidates who stood in both 1865 and 1868 the Earl put on 900 votes, but Raikes added 1,600. Again in 1868 the second Liberal vote was divided between the Radical Liberal Enoch Salisbury and a Whig Liberal, and Conservative Raikes got in. Raikes died in 1891.



The Grosvenors withdrew from the Chester seat in 1874, when the Liberal candidates were the senior party politician J. G. Dodson and one of the local party leaders, Sir Thomas Frost (of the mill-owning family: see Industrial Revolution), but in 1880 the Grosvenors came back, partnering Dodson with the first duke of Westminster's nephew Beilby Lawley. In 1874 Raikes, who was building up a strong local following, cleverly chose to run alone and won narrowly. The local Liberal party determined to organize better for the 1880 election through a Liberal Association established in 1879; on the model of those elsewhere, it comprised a large representative (but nominal) ruling body, the '300', and a small executive committee. Sir Thomas Frost was its president, but the key figures were two of the vicepresidents, Enoch Salisbury and A. O. Walker, and William Brown (of the department store family), who was chairman and treasurer of the finance committee. Salisbury is a local character worth noting: he collected books relating to Wales and the border counties, and his library went to the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire by purchase, in 1886. He died at his house, Glen-aber, Saltney, near Chester, on 27 October 1890, and was buried at Eccleston.



Bad Press
After the 1880 election, the Conservatives immediately petitioned against the result. A short hearing in Chester uncovered much evidence of corruption. The press reports at the time were very sparse and mostly in non-Chester newspapers, perhaps in view of the politicisation of the press:


 * "CHESTER ELECTION PETITION: Information reached Chester on Monday that the commission of inquiry into the oorrupt practices at the late election, when the Right Hon. J. S. Dodson, President of the Poor-law Board, and the Hon. Beilby Lawley were unseated, will oommence at the Town hall on the 6th of October. The Seoretary of the Commission, Mr Coleridge, son of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, arrived at Chester on Saturday. and is already actively engaged preparing evidence." (The Western Mail: 21st September 1880)


 * "CHESTER. CHESTER, Saturday — The examination of Mr Moss, the Liberal agent, was continued today. He admitted that a sum of £7,000 odd had been spent, which, by counsel's advice, was not included in the election account. He also admitted that a sum of £170 odd was expended by the Liberals in the payment of out-voters, that public-houses were kept open, that railway servants were treated at the refreshment rooms, and that captains of canvassers were paid. Beyond that, he was not aware of bribery of any sort on the Liberal side." (South Wales Daily News: 11th October 1880)


 * "THE CHESTER ELECTION COMMISSION. This, as may be supposed, monopolize all atten- tion here [at Chester] now. The court is crowded daily, and as one thing after another is brought to light which was previously hidden, the interest spread. Nothing escapes the penetration of the three commissioners. They must (say they) have the whole truth in connection with the corrupt practices which took place during the election. Some dark deeds have already been revealed, and we fear they are but a foreshadow of more to follow. Up to the present, the blues are very "black". The authority by which the commissioners are backed is very extensive, and they do not forget to remind every witness, so that the result is that the truth is brought to light wonderfully under the circumstances. Hitherto the Liberals are far in advance of the Tories in the matter of purity.— Correspondent in Y Golewad (Oct. 16)." (The North Wales Express: 22nd October 1880)


 * "It was elicited, at the resumed inquiry before the Chester Election Commissioners on Monday, that several of the persons who had been concerned in illegal proceedings in connection with the general election were, On the 1st November, elected members of the Town Council." (The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard: 3rd December 1880 )




 * "THE CHESTER ELECTION PETITION. The Chester Election Commission was resumed on Tuesday. Father Pacificus, head of the Catholic body ia Chester, said Mr Raikes called on him five months before the election, and urged that by supporting the Conservatives their schools would be free from secular teschings, but no pecuniary advantage to the schools was promised. He knew his men would vote for the Liberals, and hearing that his name was being used by the Couservatives, he issued a contradiction. Mr Salisbury, the Liberal agent, was examined at length as to the receipt of £1400 from Lord Richard Grosvenor as part of £2000 expended. On Thursday Mr Moss, the Liberal agent, was recalled at his own request. He gave an explanation as to a letter written by Mr Salisbury to Lord Richard Grosvenor, with reference to several sums of money. He said he was not present when tbe letter was written, and he knew nothing about the amounts until a month afterwards. He was unable to give any account of how a specific sum of £300 was expended in connectinn with the election, nor could be say why Mr Salisbury wanted a large sum of money in sovereigns. Tbe inquiry was again ajourned." (The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality: 26th February 1881)


 * "THE CHESTER ELECTION INQUIRY - REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS, The Chester Election Commissioners' report was published on Tuesday. The dissolution found the two political parties at Chester in bitter hostility - Conservative festive excursions and Liberal candidates' personal canvass while Mr. Raikes was detained in Parliament by official duties having intensified the irritation. Some interesting correspondence is included between the Liberal candidates and their agent in reference to the latter's claim for reaimbursement of election expenses. The Commissioners state the greatest eiectoral weapon at Chester is beer. They find that corruption extensively prevailed in 1874." (The Western Mail: 23rd March 1881)

Another edition of the "Western Mail" went so far as to describe Beilby Lawley as "a singularly feeble-minded young man" (he inherited his peerage later in the year after the election and was elevated to the House of Lords):




 * "The Chester Election Commissioners have issued their report, and a very instructive document it is. The report, like others of a similar character, is eminently suggestive. It illustrates one of the puzzling featureiot electoral corruption in a very striking manner, namely, the rather low political morals of cathedral towns. At the last election political feeling ran high, and the Radicals, long before the dissolution tool place, resolved to leave no stone unturned, or for that part of it, no barrel of beer full, to turn the election. The city was literally mapped out for systematic electoral corruption; and when the tug of war started, the work went merrily on. The Radical candidates, were victorious, but subsequently unseated on petition. The Commissioners, in their report, state that "the great electoral weapon at Chester is beer." The inquiry has revealed also the characteristic unscrupulousness of Radical agents, and the frugal liberality of Radical candidates. In this case the candidates were Mr. Dodson, President of the Local Government Board, the great apostle of small-pox propagation at a guinea a-head," and the Hon. Beilby Lawley, a singularly feeble-minded young man, whom Mr. Gladstone championed because he had long known and respected his father. Both these worthy gentlemen repudiated the expensive dodgery of their agents, after thy discovered that their return was to be petitioned against" (23rd March 1881)

One of the longest reports appeared in that well-read document the "The Merthyr Telegraph and General Advertiser for the Iron Districts of South Wales: (25th March 1881)":


 * "THE CHESTER BRIBERY COMMISSION. The report of the Commissioners who recently enquired into the existence of corrupt practices in the city of Chester has been issued as a Parliamentary paper. There is a population of 38,390 at Chester, of whom about 6,900 are voters, including 987 free-men. The result of the last election was the return of Mr. J. G. Dodson (Liberal) and Mr. B. Lawley (Liberal). Mr. H. C. Raikes (Conservative) was one of the defeated candidates. After setting forth at great length the several results of the enquiry, the Commissioners report that the constituency, as a whole, is not corrupt. About 2,000 voters were open to be influenced by corrupt practices. The Commissioners reported that corrupt practices did extensively prevail in Chester at the general election of April, 1880, and that corrupt practices did prevail in Chester at the general election of February, 1874. Amongst those whose names are scheduled aa bribers are the following magistrates: Mr. Charles Brown (mayor of the city), Mr. W. M. Williams, and Mr. E. R. G. Salisbury. Of the members of the City Council, the names of the mayor, four aldermen, and eight councillors appeal in the schedule lists. The expenditure by the Liberals amounted to £4,448 7s. 10d., and by the Conservatives to £3,900."



The result was suspension of elections:


 * "BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Under the new Act, "to suspend for a limited period, on account of corrupt practices, the holding of an election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for certain cities and boroughs," the following places are mentioned in the schedule: Boston, Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, Macclesfield, Oxford, and Sandwich. An election in any of the places is to be suspended until the expiration of seven days after the meeting of Parliament in the year 1882." (Monmouthshire Merlin: 9th September 1881)

Municipal Elections
The corrupt parliamentary election of 1880 also affected municipal politics. Its immediate impact was to boost the Liberals, who had a net gain of five seats in the four wards contested in November that year. One Liberal supporter boasted:


 * 'We've fought 'em with beer and licked 'em, and now we've fought 'em without beer and licked 'em.

The main issue now became the domination of the mayoralty by William and Charles Brown. Their uncles had been prominent councillors after 1835, and from the 1870s the huge success of their department store gave them the leisure and the money to secure great influence within the Liberal party and the council. Both brothers were scheduled for bribery at the 1880 election.

However, before the Royal Commission reported, Charles was nominated as mayor and beat off a challenge from a fellow Liberal but a non-briber, nominated by the Tories. He was mayor again for two terms in 1883-5 when no-one else was willing to serve at a time of much pressing business over the Chester Improvement Bill (to become an Act of 1884) and the abolition of the lucrative tolls on the Grosvenor Bridge. After only a year's interval William was elected mayor in 1886, then re-elected the following year in order to carry through the public library extension in St John Street: his gift to the town (he chaired the council's library committee from 1880 to 1900).



Only two years passed before Charles was again made mayor in 1890. Opposition to the brothers' 'perpetual mayordom' was not limited to those with scruples about handing over the office to men struck off the parliamentary register for bribery. Even the Liberal Chester Chronicle had misgivings. There was, moreover, unpleasant squabbling in 1891 between Charles Brown as mayor and the bishop and dean, and allegations in 1892 that he wished to serve yet again because he hoped to be knighted if still in office when the Royal Agricultural Show came to Chester during the ensuing year. Particular resentment was voiced at the way that both Charles and William had turned the mayoralty into almost a full-time job and spent their own money lavishly on public projects, making it difficult for men with business or professional responsibilities, or less money, to aspire to the position.

Return to Parliament
The Chester constituency was suspended after its M.P.s were unseated and the matter was referred to a Royal Commission which exonerated the candidates but imposed a seven-year disqualification from voting on 914 individuals who had given or received bribes or treats. Chester was left unrepresented in parliament until 1885. The redistribution of 1885 left Chester with one seat, for which the electorate grew steadily from 6,300 to 8,100 by 1910. The first new MP elected was Radical Liberal Walter Foster but he was unseated by the "faggot votes" of the duke of Westminster's tenants at the Liberal defeat in the 1886 election. A "faggot voter" was a person who qualified to vote in an election with a restricted suffrage only by the exploitation of loopholes in the regulations. Typically, faggot voters satisfied a property qualification by holding the title to a subdivision of a large property with a single beneficial owner. Faggot voting was a common electoral abuse in the United Kingdom until the electoral reforms of the late 19th century. Faggot voting was abolished by the Representation of the People Act 1884. The Duke of Westminster not only refused to endorse the new member, Walter Foster, but lent transport to the Conservatives during the election, and made two powerful Unionist speeches in Chester. Partly as a result, the Conservative, Robert Yerburgh, won by a narrow margin. Both Gladstone and the Liberal leadership in the county bitterly condemned the duke's 'interference', which they believed had cost them the seat.



Robert Armstrong Yerburgh, DL, JP (17 January 1853 – 18 December 1916), was a British Conservative Party politician and the next MP for Chester. The son of Reverend Richard Yerburgh and Susan Higgin, he was educated at Rossall School, Harrow School and then University College, Oxford. After he was elected to the House of Commons for Chester in 1886, he held the seat until 1906 and again from 1910 until his death in 1916. Yerburgh had links with the early co-operative movement (see: Chester Co-operative Society). As reported in the Chester Courant (26th January 1907), Yerbergh's views (having visited various boot and corset factories in Leicester) seem pro Co-Op:


 * "Workingmen who are interested in the friendly society movement and in thrift problems generally will read with deep interest Mr. Yerburgh's pregnant speech on the subjeot of "Friendly Societies and Co-operative Credit", to the members of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, on Wednesday evening. In his speech at the Music Hall also, Mr. Yerburgh touched on the question of co-operative produotion. His views with regard to tho workers themselves being the owners of industries in which they are engaged may be seen in practical application in various industries in Leicester, such as boot factories and corset factories, and, we believe, in some cotton mills of Lancashire."



Interestingly Raikes had improved the Conservative Party's organization in Chester, using the existing Constitutional Society to spawn a Constitutional Friendly Society in 1873 as a front for channelling private funds into an annual treat for Conservative supporters. In September 1879 the Friendly Society sent some 2,287 trippers to the seaside at Rhyl.

And Yerburgh is clearly no Socialist:


 * "Mr. Yerburgh uttered a warning against another grave national peril, the peril of the spread of Socialism, and shewed how the industrial classes of this country will be affected by that undesirable development. If it is true, as many thinking observers helieve, that the next great struggle in this country will be between the forces of Capital and Labour, let not the working men fancy that they have no stake in the contest. As Mr Yerburgh pointed out, the capital held by the working-classes in industrial and provident societies represents the enormous figure of more than four hundred millions of money. This sum represents the thrift of the wage-earning classes, and, be it noted, it is capital, against which the Socialists have declared war. When the property of the wealthy man is attacked by the cupidity of the Socialists, this tempting sum of four hundred millions, the property of the working-classes, will not escape. Workingmen, therefore, who have a stake in any of the friendly and provident societies had better bo forewarned against the pitfall into which their Socialist friends would lead them. When war against capital is declared, the artisan who has an interest in a provident society to which in his prudence and wisdom he has contributed, will find that little nest-egg as directly endangered as the millionaire's hoard."

Sources and Links

 * British History Online;
 * Welsh Newspapers Online - The National Library of Wales;
 * VICTORIAN DUKE The Life Of Hugh Lupus Grosvenor First Duke Of Westminster (Gervas Huxley);