You are in: Places > Piercy (1828) > STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 2)

STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION (part 2)

At the general election, in 1796, William Petrie, Esq. Sir Wharton Amcotts, and John Blackburn, Esq. were candidates, when the two former, for obvious reasons, were declared duly elected, the state of the poll being

This issue being in opposition to the views of the Corporate Body, it was determined to make a number of redemption freemen, to counterbalance the influence, obtained by the "lovers of independance," and thirty-eight of the most respectable inhabitants of the town were sworn in as honorary freemen.

This measure led to a long and expensive law suit, at the head of which was a person of the name of Bowles, who brought the question respecting the power of the bailiffs and aldermen to make these honorary burgesses, by quo warranto, into the Court of King’s Bench, when, in consequence of the junior Bailiff not having assented to the measure at the time when they were admitted as freemen, they were all determined to be illegal, and judgment of ouster was issued against five aldermen, and the whole number of honorary freemen.

At the next general election in 1802, Mr. Bowles came forward, and, from the victory which he had achieved in favour of "birthright and servitude," was quite confident of success. But alas! how short sighted is man, and how unstable are all terrestrial concerns. Mr. Bowles, and his friend Mr. Bonham, soon found out to their cost, that no less than forty-five individuals who had promised them their support and interest, actually voted for the other candidates, who were both of them proposed by the individual who had been the chief promoter of initiating the honorary burgesses. Here we have a fine specimen of the gratitude evinced by the supporters of "birthright and servitude," to one who had put himself at their head, fought their battles, and eventually succeeded in overturning all the machinations of those to whom they were politically opposed. Mr. Oldfield laments that he could not furnish his readers with a list of their names, as a beacon to warn future candidates from becoming a prey to such fraud and treachery; under this disadvantage I do not labour, but as the finger of public scorn has already been pointed at them, I refrain from printing the list of such worthless characters. The state of the poll was as under,—

 The unlooked-for issue of this contest laid the foundation of a petition to the House of Commons, rounded upon a charge against John Thornton and George Barker, gent. for having as the petitioners stated, usurped the office of bailiffs, and illegally admitted several to their freedom who had no right, and rejected several who had a right, and who claimed to be admitted. The chairman of the committee reported in favour of the sitting members.

At the next general election in 1806, three candidates offered themselves, these were General Robes Crawford, Thomas Hughan, Esq. and Sir John Ingilby Bart. when the two former were declared duly elect. This Parliament was but of short duration, and on change of ministry taking place early in the ensuing year, its usual concomitant—a general election, was again the order of the day. Three candidates presented themselves to the burgesses, namely, General Charles Crawford, W. Ingilby, Esq. and Tho Hughan, Esq. when the two former were returned the state of the poll being,

The jockeyship displayed on this occasion was very little inferior to that at Bowles’s election; the "independents!" however returned one of their own choice, but how, or by what means, is quite another mater. Gratitude and integrity were sadly out of fashion!

From the vicinity of Redford to the domains of several illustrious noblemen, it might be expected some of them would put in a kind of claim for the suffrages of the burgesses. Accordingly some of the Dukes of Newcastle have possessed considerable influence here, which has given great umbrage, and been strongly animadverted upon by those politically opposed to that party. But I would ask, Has the Borough been better represented since that time when, as Oldfield. states, "the independent party had the triumph of returning both members against the Duke of Newcastle’s interest?" Have the burgesses been less subject to corruption and bribery under their new patron? And, do they not generally regret being led away by the specious arguments of such men as Mr. Oldfield? He, who in speaking of the acts and sentiments of the "Newcastle party" merely because they were tories, and opposed to the political dogmas of the party whose, advocate he was, could at once sanction a candidate recommended by Earl Fitzwilliam,—nay further, could not see the least harm in a whig nobleman nominating both the members for a Borough, with whom he had not the remotest connection, and in which he never expended a single shilling. Against the venerable Earl Fitzwilliam, the writer begs leave to disclaim all animosity, believing his Lordship to be a most upright and amiable nobleman; nevertheless he is bound by a sense of justice to refute the imputations put forth by Mr. Oldfleld; because, if one nobleman’s interference was blameable, so was the other; if censure was due to one, it was equally so to the other, bearing in mind the old adage that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

[<<Previous] [Next>>]