The Liberal Electoral Agent in the Post-Reform-Act Era

Following the Great Reform Bill’s to abolishing rotten and pocket boroughs enactment in 1832, Radicals and Whigs and redistributing parliamentary seats, the had little time to rejoice. With the first Reform Act had created a new, standardised election of a ‘reformed’ parliament scheduled system to replace the disparate collection for December, there was a tremendous of freehold, household, and potwalloper1 need to register all existing and new qualifications for voting. Nancy LoPatin- enfranchised electors according to the new Lummis analyses the activities of the Liberal criteria set forth by the bill. In addition electoral agents in this new era.

20 Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 The Liberal Electoral Agent in the Post-Reform-Act Era

hile the historic Registration of existing and the approximately 360,000 electors forty-shilling newly enfranchised borough and that existed in England prior to 1832 freeholders in the county electors was therefore seri- with those who qualified to vote counties did not ous business if the election results under the newly expanded fran- lose their electoral were to be valid. Registration was chise, electoral agents also created Wrights, the old practice of being eli- to be central in securing the return the sometimes even dirtier business gible to vote as a county elector, of candidates from any particular of partisan politics and electioneer- even if the property lay within a party, and all party leaders and their ing in the post-Reform Act era. borough boundary, unless the elec- election managers knew that meet- This paper examines the work tor otherwise qualified for the bor- ing the new criteria and follow- of Joseph Parkes and James Cop- ough franchise, was to come under ing procedures would be the main pock, electoral agents for Whig and scrutiny with the new electoral means of contesting election results Radical candidates in the 1830s and system. on the grounds of legality and cred- 1840s.4 Appearing as solicitors both The new registration standards ibility. Indeed, scholars such as defending and objecting to electoral and their impact on the old ‘open Philip Salmon, Miles Taylor and registrations and votes in dozens of voting system’ – according to cus- John Phillips have shown just how contested elections between 1835 tom and dependent upon residence important electoral registration and 1841, both men helped deliver – were to become among the chief and voting procedure was in the the electors, parliamentary num- causes of litigation arising from the development of nineteenth-century bers and parliamentary votes that registration of newly enfranchised party politics.2 shaped the formation of the nine- electors following the 1832 Reform One of the most significant teenth-century Liberal Party. Their Act. The requirement for proof political roles that emerged from careers demonstrate the expanding of borough residence, in order to the reformation of registration pro- importance of the electoral agent determine whether or not individu- cedures was that of the electoral in parliamentary politics and the als were casting ballots incorrectly agent. The traditional role of the development of national political in boroughs (which had the much agent – of acting on behalf of and parties in the Victorian age. This higher £10 franchise rate), rather doing the local campaign work for a article examines these electoral than in counties, created the oppor- parliamentary candidate – changed agents’ post-1832 work in three tunity to contest elections and their significantly with the new rules of ways: first, the electoral agent’s results on the part of candidates 1832.3 The agent’s role broadened to increasingly critical function in and electors alike. Likewise, many include registration of electors and the registration process; second, freehold boroughs – those whose the funding of those efforts, con- their role as legal agent in contested freemen had ancient rights to vote testing the results of an election if elections – as election solicitor on that were not to be taken away – grounds could be found on which to behalf of both petitioners and seated required proof of pre-1832 electoral challenge an undesirable outcome, members of parliament; and third, status in order to be ‘grandfathered’ and securing the number of voters somewhat by extension, the role of into the new system. This, too, for any particular party based upon election agent as catalyst for politi- raised the possibility of contesting rate-paying and residency mainte- cal public relations and character the outcome of elections. Failure nance. Agents worked with lawyers attacks on political opponents. This to comply with the new require- and emerging national political placed the electoral agent in the role ments of the Reform Act could eas- Election hustings organisations to secure electoral of creating some very anti-dem- ily mean that long-standing electors at Brentford, victories in the sometimes dirty ocratic tones to the new electoral would lose their vote, but continue Middlesex, business of cleaning up the corrupt registration criteria and procedures to cast it at elections, unaware, or in 1840 (Illustrated politics of the pre-Reform Bill era. during a critical transition period in defiance, of the new requirements. London News). In trying to standardise the rights of British political democratisation.

Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 21 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era

To make sense of it all, it is first The means as well as private correspondence for the Reform Association was, necessary to understand exactly between Lord Melbourne8 and him- ‘to see that the Reformers not only what the Great Reform Act did by which self, demonstrated how determined register but defend their own reg- to change the electoral registra- he was to aid the government’s istration and watch the enemy.’10 tion criteria and process. The new electoral efforts to reform parliament by As most estimates of the numbers requirements for county and bor- easing tensions between Grey and voting in the elections after the bill ough registration were exacting: registration the BPU’s leadership, which was indicate that approximately 650,000 voters needed to make certain that talking about preparing an armed votes were cast, the race to regis- their names appeared on the list of would play a insurrection, while simultaneously tration was critical for party con- ratepayers (or, more often, individ- fomenting public support for a bill trol.11 Finding grounds to throw out uals or parties who had an interest critical role which did not go nearly as far as the newly registered electors would be in voter registration made certain) in control- many joining political unions had important in calculating electoral or, if possessors of freeman voting hoped. He appeased all and thus, advantages and parliamentary wins. status prior to reform, they had to ling parlia- made himself a dependable ally and Little would be overlooked as a legal make sure that their name appeared aid to the Whigs. They rewarded opportunity to throw out votes and on the borough’s list of freemen. ment was him for his work in securing the contest elections. By late summer of Proof of poor relief payments bill and reigning in the BPU by 1835, Coppock had moved on to an would also be required by the newly immediately putting him in the role of primary examination of arrears in rate-pay- established deadline of 20 July of Whig electoral agent for the general ing both to defend Whig registra- each year, so that electoral lists apparently election of December 1832, the first tions and contest those among Tory would be complete in early August.5 election under the new criteria of supporters. One of the requirements All new electors were to pay a shil- to those who the Reform Act. of the new registrations process was ling registration fee.6 Parkes well understood that that all rates be paid by 20 July. If The means by which electoral had already the new requirements for electoral there was a balance on these taxes registration would play a criti- registration adopted in 1832 would still due by then, the elector would cal role in controlling parliament established produce many opportunities to get not be included in the lists that were was immediately apparently to reformers elected – and potentially drawn up the first week of August those who had already established careers in as many opportunities for voters and which were at the polls by the careers in electoral management. to be disenfranchised, not by the next election as the official record Joseph Parkes (1796–1863) was a electoral law, but by the contesting of elec- of legal electors. He detailed pro- Birmingham solicitor and com- tion results based on accusations of gress to Parkes, who reported it to mitted Radical with an already manage- non-compliance with the new law. Lord Brougham, Radical leader established law practice in con- ment. Both Parkes and his Tory counter- and member of the Whig govern- tested political elections. Parkes parts were ready to use the new laws ment. ‘If we once allow arrears we contested his first elections in 1826, to their own partisan advantage. shall fall behind your expectations, filing suit in Camelford, Cornwall To this end, he convinced fellow in electoral registration advantage.12 and the Corporation of Warwick, liberal-minded Whigs, Lord Dur- Coppock was diligent in his duties, his birthplace. Demonstrating ham and Edward Ellice, Sr, to help as were his deputies. While there corruption and bribery, his vic- him establish and fund the Reform is mention of additional staff, par- tory in setting aside the election of Association in 1834. The associa- ticularly in reference to going out Warwick’s mayor on corruption tion’s leaders would hire agents to to electoral boroughs for registra- charges, earned him a reputation.7 register new electors according to tion and canvassing, in the corre- This success, as well as his political the law. It would also retain solici- spondence between the men, there links to London’s Benthamite Radi- tors to contest registrations from is no specific evidence indicating cals, brought him to the attention of Tory electors if, after research, there how many men were employed by Whig leaders. He was a pragmatic proved to any violation of new pro- the Reform Association, or even reformer in Birmingham at the cedures, including discrepancies of how many the membership dues time when Thomas Attwood was residency requirements, delinquent could likely have supported. Parkes organising the Birmingham Politi- rate-paying or missed registration himself overlooked the account- cal Union in 1830 and he launched deadlines. The association would ing and found that ‘all outstanding a new extra-parliamentary reform also, through its membership funds, arrears be paid and pro rata pay- campaign that gained popular sup- pay for legal representation for ments made.’13 Registration num- port and a following throughout Whig and Radical registrants who bers vary from study to study, but the Reform Bill debates. During the faced similar court objections by Salmon has calculated that electoral most heated days of the agitation Tory opponents. registrations between 1832 and 1835 for the bill’s passage, in May 1832, The Reform Association office increased by between 10–20 per Parkes played a critical role in liais- opened in Cleveland Row in 1834. cent.14 ing between the Whig government Hired to manage the association, In addition to criteria for elec- and the BPU to maintain peace and ‘fixed at the top of the House’ with toral registration, the Reform cooperation between parliament a £300 pound a year salary, was a Act also created a number of new, and the political unions so as to ease Radical solicitor, James Coppock standardised mechanisms for chal- fears of revolution and secure the (1798–1857). A partner in the firm lenging registrations. Election pro- continued support of the king in Blunt, Coppock, Barnes & Ellis, cedure could be deemed violated for pressuring the House of Lords to he soon joined Parkes and others failing to change the address of an support the bill. His articles in The in the fairly limited field of elec- elector from one rental to the next, Times and the Morning Chronicle, tion law.9 His chief responsibility or if there was a failure to pay the

22 Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era entirety of rates owed, by the pre- had been brought into the case on by-election. Parkes not only secured scribed date. Furthermore, the new behalf of Parkes. Parkes had served a new election for his Warwickshire law required that all claims would the previous Stamford MP, Charles petitioner clients, however, but also be found in favour of the accuser, Tennyson D’Enycourt as an agent shaped the Warwick Borough Bill. and therefore disqualify electors, since 1830. Gregory had worked Modelled, in part, after the East whether or not the grounds were for Tennyson D’Enycourt and been Retford Bill, this measure expanded legitimate, if the registrant did not handpicked to succeed him at Stam- the borough’s boundaries. Warwick appear in person to defend his reg- ford when the latter moved on to a was to be extended to include the istration.15 The government estab- seat in Lambeth.17 While Gregory £10 householders of Leamington lished revision courts and each attempted to prove a number of Spa, a point specifically referred to defending registrant would now be registrations invalid, thereby nul- in the parliamentary debate against required to prove his qualifications lifying several votes, the court it.20 before a revising barrister in a court deemed there to be no viable proof. Coppock himself would describe session held in September–October. The court dismissed oral testimony that particular case, and many oth- The objector could either appear in on the basis that revenge and per- ers, in his sworn testimony before person or have an agent appear on sonal animus might have tainted the the Select Committee hearings in his behalf, and was not required to testimony. Gregory lost his court 1837. Warwick was an example of prove disqualification. This meant, complaint. how access to money corrupted in practice, that the law intended The most notorious contested both the election and the access to to disqualify voters rather than risk election of 1833, however, took justice. Contesting elections were greater inclusion among potential place in Warwick. Parkes success- expensive, he argued. It ‘gener- electors. There was also the finan- fully exposed the malfeasance of the ally employ[ed] two counsels, fre- cial burden of retaining agents and Earl of Warwick in the election of quently three [for the defence], … solicitors to go to court to defend his brother, Sir Charles Greville and and have retained four on the side one’s qualification to vote against another Tory candidate, Edward of the petitioners …’.21 Electoral an objection, whether merited or Bolton King in the December 1832 agents rarely had the luxury of such frivolous. general election. Parkes petitioned cash reserves to hire the legal team As a result, the contested elec- on behalf of William Collins, Whig necessary to contest an election, tion became a growing phenom- candidate, exposing bribery, treat- even with just cause. What he did enon over the ‘decade of reform’ ing, illegal payment of rates and not report, but was indeed happen- – and at the centre of the emerging lack of residency as reasons to throw ing, was that the Reform Club was legal battlefield of electoral registra- out the election results in favour of The con- also raising money from members tion and revising courts was James Collins.18 The evidence was com- to cover the legal costs of contested Coppock. As he testified before pelling. Several men testified to tested elec- elections as well as the costs of regis- the parliamentary Select Com- outright bribes, exchange of prop- tion became tering electors.22 mittee on Controverted Elections erty for votes and threats that were A scandal that required even the on 7 May 1838, his own career in made on behalf of Warwick by his a growing legal opinion of Chancellor Lord election work involved his role steward and others, threatening ten- Brougham to resolve, the War- as an electoral agent and a solici- ants and Corporation of Warwick phenom- wick case did two things. First, it tor contesting elections before the members if they did not vote as he persuaded the Whigs to secure the court on the grounds of opponents desired. The court case received enon over appointment of Joseph Parkes as violating the new (post-1832) reg- attention in the Morning Chronicle the secretary for the new Parlia- istration requirements. He worked and The Times, no doubt arranged the ‘decade mentary Commission on Munici- with Joseph Parkes on contesting by Parkes himself. The Times notice pal Reform. Secondly, it prompted election results immediately after would draw the attention of a large of reform’ them to organise their efforts to the December 1832 general elec- Tory readership to the corruption contest elections even more care- tion.16 Indeed, between 1832 and openly practised among Tory cor- – and at the fully. To that end, Coppock moved 1837, Coppock was an agent, either porations, undermining opposition into position of the lead solicitor for by himself or working alongside to the mounting body of evidence centre of the newly created Reform Club, Parkes, for more than twenty-one in support of a municipal reform which replaced the old Reform challenges to election results. In measure, being drafted by Parkes, the emerg- Association. Parkes relied on the some cases where he was the peti- to dismantle corruption and abuse political influence and economic tioner’s agent, he sought to present of electoral authority; while the ing legal contributions of the recently evidence not just that those regis- Morning Chronicle’s Whig and Radi- returned Edward Ellice and E. J. tered were not entitled to the vote, cal-leaning readers were given more battlefield Stanley, and the Reform Club, built but that votes had been bought ammunition in favour of municipal of electoral in Pall Mall, was formed.23 An early either through bribery or illegal reform. club registry reported one thousand treating. A parliamentary committee registration regular members and 250 MPs.24 The first of these cases took place agreed, ‘the earl of Warwick did The Whig aristocrat Lord Durham, in Stamford where the Whig candi- unconstitutionally apply … by and revis- a former member of the govern- date, Captain Gregory, was seeking, his agent and steward … £3000 ment’s Committee of Four who based upon incorrect registration and upwards towards the election ing courts drafted the 1832 Reform Bill, was procedure, to throw out votes so expenditure, and promotion of the the most vocal supporter of radical as to overturn his electoral loss to political interest of the candidate was James parliamentary reform, and claimed the Tory candidates Lt Col. Chap- …’.19 The election was nullified and much of the credit for the success of lin and George Finch. Coppock two Whigs were returned in an 1833 Coppock. the club. ‘… [Y]ou will remember

Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 23 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era this time last year,’ he wrote to votes cast, it did not seem to change into which no inquiry was Parkes, ‘how I pressed the vital the outcome, with Pohill and Craw- permitted.32 necessity of it, and of a Registration ley returned. It does, however, indi- Committee. How well the latter cate how much was at stake, with As a result, contesting elections worked is proved by the Municipal the total number of registered elec- became more partisan, heated, and Elections, and I am confident that tors in Bedford being 857 and the frequent. In 1837, Parkes partici- out of the club will arise, at least if votes counted listed at 834.29 Chal- pated in contesting the election in it is well managed, such organisa- lenging registrations and qualifica- Petersfield (disqualifying an elec- tion and concentration as will set tions through the legal system could tor who did not meet residency all Tory measures at defiance.’25 negate enough votes to change the requirements) which resulted in a The new club became the social outcome of a closely fought elec- victory for his client, the petitioner. and negotiating site for Whigs and tion. As a result, the solicitors with- Here, Cornthwaite, the petitioner, Radicals. The dues were used, in drew cases, failing to provide the contested the vote of Richard Legg part, to pay the salaries of Coppock numbers to change the outcome, who had been declared eligible to and others, as well as registration, though not before Parkes and Cop- vote by virtue of ‘a barn, stable, election and court costs for contest- pock raised significant doubts in outhouses and twenty acres of land’, ing elections. With Parkes working court before the reforming barris- although sworn testimony by a wit- on new reform legislation, Cop- ters and prompted further scrutiny ness, Thomas Tigg, argued that he pock took the lead role in contest- of the local registration agents and was not a resident of that or any ing numerous electoral cases – the the complicity of the candidates land. The testimony negated the second critical outcome of the War- involved.30 revising barrister’s determination wick case. In the 1837 and 1839 general elec- and the contested vote was enough After the general election of tions, Coppock spent more time to allow the Whig candidate, John 1835, Coppock assisted Parkes in defending sitting members against Hector, to be returned to parlia- petitioning on behalf of Freder- petitioners than in representing ment.33 He also defended Joseph ick Villiers against sitting member petitioners or defeated candidates. Brotherton, the sitting member Stephen Rumbold Lushington in This represented a change in how for Salford, against an elector who Canterbury. Deputies for Villiers the contested election was being mistakenly was recorded in the poll contended that sheriff deputies used. Having made significant books.34 A supporter of Tory can- had interfered with access to the headway in ending some of the didate William Garnett claimed polls for legally registered elec- abuses at the local level through the that unqualified electors had voted tors.26 While the case was originally payment of rates on behalf of poten- and that Brotherton had engaged delayed in order to accumulate evi- tial voters and qualifying non-res- in bribery and treating.35 Brother- dence, it was eventually resolved idents to vote (thanks to Parkes’s The new club ton counter-claimed that several that any electors turned away from work on the 1835 Municipal Cor- became the voters for Garnett were wrongly the polls had legally been rejected porations Act), agents like Coppock on the register. As the vote was 890 as having received parochial relief found that defending clients against social and to 888, any success in throwing out or recently changing their residen- accusations of bribery ‘having been votes would be critical. The court cies, and Lushington won with a conducted by local subscriptions, or negotiating determined that charges against nineteen to nine vote.27 Coppock’s by the large contributions of three Brotherton were unfounded and the own publication on electors’ rights or four active leading individuals site for Whigs election results confirmed. clearly stipulated that occupiers of of the local parties, was common.’31 It was not, however, always £10 residencies needed to reside in This was true whether the accusers and Radicals. good news for Parkes. He lost a their borough or within seven miles won or lost the election. petition brought in Woodstock on of it for ‘six months previous to 31st The dues behalf of Whig candidate, Lord July in each year’ and that all elec- If the defeated candidate present Charles S. Churchill, objecting to tors ‘rated to the poor for twelve a petition against the return of were used, in the residency of a number of elec- months previous to the 31 July in his successful opponent, and sim- tors and the insufficient value of a each year.’28 ply pray that the Election may be part, to pay number of properties belonging In the Bedford borough election, adjudged to be a void Election on to electors who had polled for the Coppock and Parkes represented a the ground of Bribery and Cor- the salaries Tory candidate, Henry Peyton. petition from the electors on behalf ruption, but do not ask for the The latter had been elected with of Whig candidates Samuel Craw- seat, he many unseat his oppo- of Coppock 126 votes to Churchill’s 117 – a total ley and W. H. Whitbread, who had nent, and render him incapable of 233 votes out of 330 registered come in second and third in the of being again returned; but as and others, electors.36 Peyton was confirmed, election, with the Tory candidate, he himself does not pray for the as well as however, only to vacate the seat in Captain Frederick Pohill, defeating seat, it has in some instances been January 1838 for the Tory Marquess them both, 490 votes to 408 and 383, determined that a case of retali- registration, of Blandord.37 respectively. The petition alleged ation cannot be entered into as Coppock served as agent for a that many of the voters were neither respects the Petitioner by the election and petitioner against sitting MP John freemen nor residents of Bedford. sitting Member. Thus the Peti- Minet Fector in Maidstone and The revising barristers, finding evi- tioner, though equally guilty, court costs assisted Parkes with a victory in dence to corroborate this, and in the may again propose himself and Walsall, reversing the election on absence of many of those accused of be returned in consequence of for contest- the basis of failed residency require- malfeasance, disqualified these vot- the very Bribery practiced at ments and a lack of witnesses to ers. While this negated many of the the preceding Election, and ing elections. defend votes for the Tory candidate.

24 Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era

He also assisted Parkes with a con- Large and witnesses, collecting evidence and not pay a thing. With such financial test, albeit a losing one, in Devizes, filing legal papers. What is clear, constraints, Coppock negotiated alleging that bribes were paid – in small bor- though, is that the costs of carry- a deal with local political leaders the form of payment of rates – on ing out such tasks were paid for and electors that if they defended behalf of the sitting member, Cap- oughs alike, from the Reform Club treasury Vivian against any charges, or con- tain James Whitley Deans Dun- – the coffers filled by club sub- vinced the petitioner to drop them, das.38 In Evesham, where a petition whether scriptions, patron donations or he would have Plumridge resign against George Pushout Bowles and supporters’ ‘fundraising’ efforts. from the seat in Penryn in favour of P. Borthwick alleged bribery and with high Coppock wrote to Lord Broughton a safer seat in another borough that treating – specifically that Borth- in September 1837, concerning the would be easier to defend against wick gave a voter named Ebenezer electoral sums necessary for registration any future contests. The Reform Pearce, a silver snuffbox worth £7. turnout or expenses in Ipswich and urging an Club would handle costs to pursue 5s. 6d., and paid the rent arrears for infusion of money before accounts the new seat, to be determined dur- one Joseph Clement, amounting low, saw ran dry.41 He reminded him that all ing the next general election and to £36. 6s. – bribery charges were Whig and Radical leaders needed when an accounting of safe open dismissed against Borthwick, but challenges to to donate funds to handle the costs seats took place. When Coppock maintained against Bowles. Hill, not just of registrations but also of informed Plumridge of the arrange- the Tory candidate, was returned the returned legal proceedings when elections ment approved by national leaders with Borthwick.39 were contested. The Reform Club in the Reform Club, the candidate Coppock also did some work candidates, was the social and political tool for was both surprised and unhappy. for Sir John Hobhouse concern- raising support, both financial and He felt that his political opportuni- ing the election of Liberal parlia- spurred by electoral, for the Whigs and Liber- ties were lost and he would be ‘left mentary candidates in the next als. While its role would gradually out in the lurch.’44 election. Clearly, this was through principle, shift to that of a social and dining Coppock argued that his inves- the Reform Club and concerned club exclusively, it did so only as tigation revealed another story. Coppock’s knowledge of the ques- law, or politi- the mechanics of national party He testified before the Commit- tionable political influences of organisation took shape.42 During tee that Plumridge only stood for the bishopric on county residents cal necessity. the 1830s, the political necessities of Penryn at the request of voters and throughout Lincoln.40 In most of registering electors, paying for can- that, upon his agreement to stand, these cases, minimal court evidence It was the didates to stand and then the costs of the candidate had told all present in was presented and there is little to litigation, made the financial dona- the committee room that he ‘would indicate how the decisions by the role of the tions of liberal-minded politicians not pay a single sixpence’ to do registration courts were reached, electoral a critical tool in achieving elec- so.45 Coppock determined that he though they were apparently toral majorities at the national and had been challenged because the accepted by all parties involved. agent, how- municipal levels. petitioners believed that he would While individually, these con- Money was certainly a consid- not defend his seat because of the tests might appear insignificant, in ever good or eration in one of the most com- costs involved. Coppock estimated that the litigation was not always plex and interesting cases in which that £4000 had already been spent effective in changing the outcomes bad the case, Coppock acted. This took place by Liberals on the election, a good of the elections or forcing local elec- during the 1839 general election and many financial promises made toral registrants and revising barris- to pursue resulted in his testimony before the for votes, but none by Plumridge ters to take greater care in following Parliamentary Select Committee himself.46 the letter of the law and so secur- challenges on Bribery and Corruption on 6 Coppock and Compton Reade ing clean elections, they did take July 1842. During the general elec- (who, though not a parliamentary their toll. As both sides experienced in order tion of 1839, Captain James Hanway agent, represented John White the expense of defending corrupt Plumridge was returned as MP for Dixon, the petitioner, in the legal practices and pursuing allegations to secure Penryn and Falmouth. A petition negotiations) ultimately achieved a that were sometimes accurate and was brought against his election. resolution. The petition would be sometimes fraudulent, the numbers greater In this case, a single elector charged withdrawn against Plumridge if he of contested elections increased by Plumridge and Captain Vivian, the agreed to retire on 1 July 1842 and 20–30 per cent (depending upon numbers in other Whig candidate, with bribery not stand again or oppose anyone location) in the 1830s, with a spike and a lack of qualification. Coppock brought in to stand for the seat – at the time of and immediately the House of had not been involved in the elec- presumably Reade’s real client, Mr following the passage of the 1835 Commons. tion and was only retained after Gwyn. (Gwyn had sought the seat Municipal Corporations Act. Large the petition was presented. Rather from the beginning; he had hired and small boroughs alike, whether than face the expense of defending Reade and paid the costs involved with high electoral turnout or low, his seat before the court, Plumridge for John White Dixon to file his saw challenges to the returned can- offered to relinquish the seat to petition against Plumridge in the didates, spurred by principle, law, another Whig/Radical candidate. first place.) Then, Plumridge would or political necessity. It was the In the testimony Plumridge gave be proposed for appointment as role of the electoral agent, however to the Select Committee, Coppock Crown Steward and Bailiff of the good or bad the case, to pursue chal- rejected the offer, saying ‘that is out Chiltern Hundreds, a government lenges in order to secure greater of the question [as] yours in a good post that would save face for the numbers in the House of Commons. seat …’. 43 But Coppock also could Whigs and be, comparatively speak- There is little evidence as to how not defend the seat without money ing, a less expensive resolution to Coppock went about interviewing and Plumridge declared he would the problem. This was agreed upon

Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 25 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era and Plumridge was duly elected for The electoral from the poor man the possibility of Dr Nancy LoPatin-Lummis is Profes- Penryn without the expense of the petitioning.’49 Long after, however, sor of Modern British History and chair court proceedings. agent was Coppock still dabbled in the busi- of the History Department at University However, when the resigna- ness of electoral agency, and John of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. She is the tion was due to happen, Plumridge turning into Bright discussed with Parkes, as author of Political Unions, Popular evidently decided he must not go late as 1857, Coppock’s defence of a Politics and the Great Reform Act through with it, though there is no more than Rochdale MP’s contested election.50 of 1832 and articles on parliamentary explanation as to why not. Plum- Parkes and Coppock’s career and popular political history in Jour- ridge told Coppock in no uncertain a campaign in the increasingly partisan world nal of British Studies, Parliamen- terms that whatever deal had been of contested electoral practices tary History, Journal of Victorian struck was, it was non-binding, manager and party politics following the Culture and other journals. She is co- because of its corrupt nature and and public Reform Act of 1832 is a telling general editor of the Lives of Victorian ‘slapdash way of getting rid of a piece of evidence as the age of Political Figures series from Pickering Member of Parliament’.47 Reade relations local politics gave way to national & Chatto and the editor of Public Life testified to the committee that, organisation. New electoral regis- and Public Lives: Essays in Modern while he had negotiated a deal, he agent. They tration requirements made things British Political and Religious His- believed that he had proved his uniform, but also provided the tory in Honor of Richard W. Davis. case of bribery, though he refused were turning means of a different kind of par- to state before the committee with tisan ‘influence’. Placing the bur- 1 Potwalloper was the term used to what evidence he had done so. into litiga- den of defence on the candidate describe those with the vote as the While treating undoubtedly took or elector accused, perhaps quite head of a household with a large place, no personal actions by Plum- tors, sensing falsely, of non-compliance with pot or cauldron. The 1832 Reform ridge or his agents constituted a the new rules, certainly did not Act redefined this archaic notion of bribe offered. Plumridge kept his where courts further the advancement of politi- household elector. seat and Coppock’s reputation was cal democracy in British parlia- 2 Philip Salmon, Electoral Reform at called into question, as was the could be mentary politics, New criteria for Work: Local Politics and National Par- work of the Reform Club. The new electoral qualification and regis- ties, 1832–1841 (Boydell, 2002); Philip age of the election solicitor was utilised to tration opened the door for votes Salmon, ‘Local Politics and Par- investigated more thoroughly than and election outcomes being con- tisanship: The electoral impact of ever before. overturn an tested on the basis of both corrup- Municipal Reform, 1835’ Parliamen- The upshot of this incident and unsuccess- tion and an ignorance of the rules. tary History, xix, 2000; John Phillips, the Select Parliamentary Commis- Non-compliance, whether mali- The Great Reform Bill in the Boroughs: sion’s inquiry was a change in activ- ful electoral cious or not, could, however, be English Electoral Behaviour, 1818–1841 ity for both Coppock and Parkes. significant in the successful return (Clarendon Press, 1992); John Phil- Alhough neither gave up the work outcome. or a candidate. The successful lips, ‘The Many Faces of Reform: entirely, the frequency of their return of Whig and Liberal elec- The Reform Bill and the Electorate’, court appearances declined. Cop- tors meant having watchful eyes Parliamentary History, i, 1982; John pock continued on as secretary for and full coffers to take matters to Phillips and Charles Wetherell, ‘The the Reform Club and still handled court, whether as the plaintiff or Great Reform Act of 1832 and the legal work, but increasingly in civil the defendant. The electoral agent Political Modernization of England’, law, rather than electoral law. In was turning into more than a cam- American Historical Review, c, 1995; 1840, he gave testimony to guide paign manager and public relations Miles Taylor, ‘Interest, Parties and parliament in drafting the bill for agent. They were turning into liti- the State: The Urban Electorate in the Trial of Controvert Elections. gators, sensing where courts could England, c. 1820–72’, in Lawrence His concerns about ‘frivolous affi- be utilised to overturn an unsuc- and Taylor (ed.), Party, State and Soci- davits and recognizances,’ along cessful electoral outcome, publi- ety: Electoral Behaviour in Britain since with counter-affidavits without cally embarrass a candidate, reveal 1820 (Scolar Press, 1997). review, were clearly presented. corruption and bribery amongst 3 For the role of the electoral agent, see He testified that, for corrupt prac- a witting electorate, and move, E. A. Smith, ‘The Election Agent in tices to be halted, ‘MPs would find when necessary, weaker candi- English Politics, 1734–1832’, English accusations against sitting Mem- dates into safer seats or appoint- Historical Review, lxxxiv, 1969; D. L. bers more credible … if petitions ments, looking to secure future Rydz, The Parliamentary Agents: A withstood examination and were elections with other Whigs and History (Royal Historical Society, not thrown out as frivolous and Liberals. While the Reform Act 1979); Nancy LoPatin-Lummis, vexatious.’48 However, he strongly of 1832 sought to clean up politics ‘“With All My Oldest and Native objected to petitioners bearing from abuse and corruption, the Friends”. Joseph Parkes, Warwick- the financial burden of contesting early electoral outcomes presented shire Solicitor and Electoral Agent in elections, however egregious the new and different challenges to the Age of Reform’, in Nancy LoPatin- violation of the law. The bill’s pro- reform of parliamentary politics. Lummis (ed.), Public Life and Public posal that petitioners be required But if anyone tried to reconcile the Lives: Politics and Religion in Modern to deposit £1,000 in the Bank of political, ideological and partisan British History (Wiley-Blackwell, England to secure the costs of hir- with truth in electioneering at the 2008); Nancy LoPatin-Lummis, ing solicitors and paying the court birth of the Liberal Party, it was ‘Joseph Parkes, Electioneering and costs for contesting an election those new election agents/solici- Corruption in Post-Reform Bill was wholly rejected by him on the tors, epitomised by Joseph Parkes Elections’, Proceedings: The Consor- grounds that ‘you would take away and James Coppock. tium on Revolutionary Europe 1750–1850,

26 Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 the liberal electoral agent in the post-reform-act era

Selected Papers, 2006, ed. Frederick 12 Brougham MSS, 20,959, Parkes March 1836. 37 Falconer and Fitzherbert, Cases of C. Schneid and Denise Davidson to Brougham, 28 September 25 Ibid., Durham to Parkes, 20 Controverted Elections. (High Point University Press, 1833. March 1836. 38 Ibid. 2007). 13 Parkes MSS, Parkes to W. Hutt, 26 Jerome William Knapp and 39 Ibid. 4 Coppock has received almost no M.P. (copy enclosed to Lord Edward Ombler, Cases of Con- 40 Hobhouse MSS British Library historical attention. There is the Stanley), 19 August 1838. verted Elections in the Twelfth Par- Add MSS, 36,471, f. 379, Cop- Dictionary of National Biography 14 Salmon, Electoral Reform Act liament of the United Kingdom; pock to Hobhouse, 14 March written by Albert Nicholson, Work, p. 22. This revises esti- Being the Second since the Passing of 1838. revised by H. C. G. Matthew in mates previously offered by Acts for the Amendment of the Rep- 41 Broughton MSS, British Library 2004 (http://www.oxforddnb. Michael Brock, The Great Reform resentation of the People (London: Add MSS 36,472, f. 81, Coppock com/view/article/6279), but lit- Act (HarperCollins Publish- 1837). to Broughton, 21 September tle more than a mention in other ers Ltd, 1973), p. 312 and Frank 27 Henry Stooks Smith, Register of 1837. historical works. The one work O’Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parliamentary Contested Elections 42 For more on this, see my arti- published by the man himself Parties, The Unreformed of Hano- (2nd edn., Simpkin, Marshall & cle, ‘The Reform Club and the was a manual of electors’ rights, verian England, 1734–1832 (Claren- Co., 1842), p. 29. creation of the Liberal Party’ in The Electors Manual of Plain Direc- don Press, 1989), p. 179. 28 Coppock, The Electors Manual, p. a forthcoming special edition of tion by Which Every Man May 15 2 Will. IV c. 45, 729–738. 12. the journal Parliamentary History. Know His Own Rights and Reser- 16 Minutes of Evidence taken 29 Stooks Smith, Register of Parlia- 43 Reports from Select Committees on vations (Finsbury Reform Club, before the Select Committee mentary Contested Elections, p. 7 Controverted Elections, p. 727. 1835). on Election Petitions Recogni- 30 Reports from Select Committees on 44 Ibid., p. 728. 5 2 Will. IV c. 45, 738, clause 56; see zances, Reports from Select Com- Controverted Elections, p. 468. 45 Ibid., p. 723. Salmon, Electoral Reform at Work, mittees on Controverted Elections, p. 31 Coppock, The Electors Manual, 46 There is nothing to suggest how pp. 20–25. 541. pp. 12–13. Coppock arrived at this figure 6 2 Will. IV c. 45, 729–738. 17 Henry James Perry and Jerome 32 Ibid. in his testimony before the select 7 See Joseph Parkes, The Governing William Knapp, Cases of Con- 33 Reports from Select Committees on committee, but his fundraising Charter of the Borough of Warwick, verted Elections in the Eleventh Controverted Elections, p. 725. efforts within the Reform Club, 5 William and Mary, 18 March 1694, Parliament of the United Kingdom; 34 Thomas Falconer and Edward as well as Parkes’s nervousness with a Letter to the Burgesses on the Being the First since the Passing of Fitzherbert, Cases of Controverted about the state of funding and Past and Present State of the Corpo- Acts for the Amendment of the Rep- Elections, Determined in Commit- correspondence with Ellice and ration (Birmingham, 1827). resentation of the People (J. & W. T. tees of the House of Commons in others, render the hefty amount 8 The Parkes and Melbourne Clarke, 1833). the Second Parliament of the Reign plausible. manuscripts reveal a few signifi- 18 For a detailed assessment of of Queen Victoria (Saunders and 47 Reports from Select Committees on cant letters in May 1832 between this particular case in Warwick Benning, 1839). Controverted Elections, p. 728. the men, discussing ways in and its impact on both electoral 35 Willliam Wardell Bean, Par- 48 Minutes of Evidence take before which the BPU’s actions could practice and the beginnings of liamentary Representation of Six the Select Committee on Elec- be softened. See Parkes MSS, Municipal Corporation Reform, Northern Counties of England from tion Petitions Recognizances, University College London and in which Parkes played a part as 1603 to 1886 (C. H. Bamwell, Reports from Select Committees on Melbourne MSS, British Library. Secretary to the Select Parlia- 1890), p. 435. Controverted Elections, p. 541. 9 Minutes of Evidence, 9 March mentary Municipal Corporation 36 William Retlaw Williams, Par- 49 Ibid. 1840, in Reports from Select Com- Reform Commission, see my liamentary History of the County of 50 Parkes MSS, Folder 8, Bright to mittees on Controverted Elections article ‘“With All My Oldest and Oxford including the City and Uni- Parkes, 26 June 1857. and on Election Proceedings and Native Friends”. Joseph Parkes, versity (Brecknock, 1899), p. 225. Expenses: With Minutes of Evidence Warwickshire Solicitor and Elec- and Appendices, 1834–44 (Irish toral Agent in Age of Reform,’ in University Press Series of British Nancy LoPatin-Lummis (ed.), Parliamentary Papers, Govern- Public Life and Public Lives: Politics Liberal National Leader: Charles Kerr, Lord Teviot ment, Elections, 2; Irish Aca- and Religion in Modern British His- Continued from page 19 demic Press, 1970), p. 558. tory, p. 96–108. 10 Parkes MSS, Parkes to Durham, 19 Annual Register, (1833), ch. VIII, 19 Conservative Party Archive, 25 National Library of Wales, 21 July 1835. For more details on pp. 211–12. CCO 3/1/63, Col. P. J. Blair to Davies MSS, J/3/58, Teviot to the creation of the Reform Club, 20 Parliamentary Papers (1833), IV, Sir Arthur Young 15 Jun. 1949. Davies, 4 Oct. 1951. see the Parkes MSS throughout pp. 633–4; XI, p. 197; The Times, For more details of the evolution 26 Woolton MSS 21, fo. 116, Teviot second half of 1835; Tennyson 6 August, 1834, p. 3. of the Woolton–Teviot agree- to Woolton, 19 Sep. 1950. MSS, TED H/31/14, Parkes 21 Reports from Select Committees on ment, see D. Dutton, Liberals in 27 Teviot and J. Maclay to The to Tennyson, 20 June 1835; Controverted Elections, p. 469. Schism: A History of the National Times, 7 Jun. 1955. Parkes MSS, University Col- 22 This was certainly the case in Liberal Party (I.B.Tauris, 2008), 28 House of Lords Debates, vol. 238, lege Library, Parkes to Stanley, Warwick. Parkes directly asked pp. 157–66. col. 63. 14 October 1835; Durham MSS, Edward Ellice, who in turn 20 Bodleian Library, Oxford, 29 Ibid., vol. 225, cols. 473–4. Lambton Castle, Memorandum raised the funds with Lord Dur- Simon MSS 98, fos. 6–7, Teviot 30 Ibid., col. 475. by Molesworth on the Forma- ham, for a £1,000 to cover court to Simon, 27 Jul. 1949. 31 Ibid., vol. 227, col. 530. tion of the Reform Club, 7 Feb- costs. Lambton MSS, Parkes to 21 Ibid. 32 Ibid., col. 529. ruary 1836. Ellice, 15 April 1834. 22 Ibid., fos. 3–5, Simon to Teviot, 33 Ibid., col. 528. 11 Philips and Wetherall, ‘The 23 Ibid., Parkes to Durham, 9 26 Jul. 1949. 34 The Times, 26 Oct. 1944. Great Reform Act and the March 1836. 23 The party formally changed its 35 House of Lords Debates, vol. 216, Modernization of England’, pp. 24 Ibid., Parkes to Durham, 2 Feb- name to National Liberal in 1948. cols. 601–2. 413–14. ruary 1836; Parkes to Durham, 1 24 The Times, 19 Nov. 1949.

Journal of Liberal History 73 Winter 2011–12 27