Berwick-upon-Tweed: A venal borough?

Michael Wickham examines Berwick’s reputation for electoral corruption during the nineteenth century and assesses the impact of bribery on voting behaviour.

24 Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 Berwick-upon-Tweed: A venal borough?

hen the English during the eighteenth and nine- ­people of Berwick, who believed electoral system teenth centuries. The electors’ that the case against them had was reformed ingratitude towards the Whig been somewhat overstated. Thus, in 1832, it was member John Delaval, who had in January 1833, the Advertiser, hoped that the spent thousands of pounds on referring to the conduct of the Wbribery and corruption that had them during the 1760s, prompted town’s electors on former occa- characterised the old system would Captain Nethercott to refer to sions, warily observed: become a thing of the past. How- them as ‘a herd of swine that the ever, such hopes were soon dashed Devil possesses’.2 Similar senti- We are far from believing that as many of the old practices con- ments were expressed by J. Lam- they were all guiltless, – yet the tinued unabated. Indeed, in some bert, Esq. when he informed Earl borough has been more sinned boroughs the situation was even Grey in 1832 that: against than sinning, and why worse than it had been before should six or seven hundred the 1832 Reform Act. In Ber- … the Berwick electors are such In Berwick- good men bear the odium wick-upon-Tweed, for instance, a a venal pack that I fear there can attached to the sins of fifty or series of election scandals resulted be little hope entertained of their upon-Tweed perhaps sixty who desecrate the in the appointment of a Royal supporting even so straightfor- privileges which they enjoy?7 Commission to investigate the ward and uncompromising a a series of alleged venality of the electors of reformer as Sir F [Francis Blake] The newspaper was highly con- England’s most northerly parlia- upon the principle of political election scious of the borough’s reputation mentary borough, which, until feeling only … corruption has scandals for venality and was determined the Liberal victory of 1852, saw become so much a habit at Ber- that such notoriety should be laid its representation shared by the wick that I think no candidate resulted to rest along with the old electoral two major political parties, except could rely on success, if opposed, system. With this object in mind, during the 1830s, when first the unless he was prepared to spend in the it constantly urged the electorate Whigs and then the Conservatives something.3 to pursue a more honest course. were briefly dominant. appoint- For instance, on 15 September In 1817 the Reverend Thomas Indeed, it was a well-known fact ment of a 1832 it beseeched the electors: Johnstone, minister of the Low that electioneering at Berwick Meeting House, Berwick, wrote: was a costly business. Even the Royal Com- Will you permit the name of Berwick Advertiser acknowledged your native place to be obnox- It is not uncommon for the Bur- this when, in 1831, it declared, mission to ious to the very nostrils of gesses of Berwick to promise ‘The expensiveness of the elec- honest men? – Will you have it their vote to a favourite Mem- tion for this borough are suf- investigate written in corruption, and hack- ber of Parliament, several years ficiently known, to terrify any the alleged neyed round the land as a stand- before an election takes place; prudent person from engaging in ing and evil jest with Gatton and and, much to their honour, a contest for it.’4 Similarly, another venality of Grampound?8 they have seldom been known local newspaper, the Kelso Mail, to break this promise. Hence observed on the eve of the 1832 the elec- Such exhortations fell upon deaf the Borough is often canvassed, general election, ‘Unless a pretty ears, however, and the electors of and secured, long before a dis- considerable REFORM has tors of Berwick continued with their solution of Parliament, and the actually taken place, the purses of England’s venal practices. Consequently it Representative who is fortunate the honourable candidates may was reported that, in 1832, both enough to obtain the promise of undergo a fearful change.’5 Ber- most Whig and Tory candidates gave a vote, has no doubt of its being wick’s notoriety spread far beyond money to the electors, especially literally fulfilled.1 the locality. In January 1833 the northerly towards the close of the poll Weekly Despatch referred to the on the second day, when ‘large Unfortunately, this glowing town as ‘This once most corrupt parliamen- sums were asked and given for assessment of the political integ- and close Tory borough’.6 tary bor- votes’.9 Likewise, in 1835, Sir rity of the Berwick electorate was Not surprisingly, such attacks Rufane Shaw Donkin (Liberal) not one that was widely shared were deeply resented by the ough. spent ‘immense sums’, James

Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 25 berwick-upon-tweed: a venal borough?

­Bradshaw (Tory) ‘pulled out’ a none of these produced an inves- (Before 1832 the electorate con- small amount, while Sir Francis tigation as thorough as that of the sisted exclusively of the freemen Blake (Liberal), who later had the Commissioners. of the borough – thereafter, it audacity to blame his defeat on The first successful petition included only those freemen bribery, was ‘cleaned out’.10 As a was in 1852 and it resulted in who lived within a seven-mile result of this high expenditure, no a void election after the Select radius of the borough, as well as candidate could be found to rep- Committee had determined that the ten-pound householders of resent the Conservative interest at John Stapleton (Liberal) was, by the town.) Another witness, Mr the by-election four months later, his agents, guilty of treating (i.e. Jeffrey, a solicitor from Jedburgh, although it was reported that entertaining the electors with who was sent to Berwick in 1859 William Holmes was prepared food and drink at the candidate’s to collect evidence in support of to stand provided he could be expense) and that Matthew For- the prosecutions initiated by the assured of ‘one hundred volunteer ster (Liberal) was, by his agents, Northern Reform Union against votes’ before the commencement guilty of bribery.14 The second some of the electors for bribery, of his canvass.k His failure to con- was in 1860 and it led to a recom- told the Commissioners that he test the seat suggests that such an mendation for a Royal Commis- had heard in the town itself that assurance was not forthcoming. sion to investigate the borough ‘an election never took place Rather than erase its tarnished after the Committee discovered without extensive bribery on image under the new electoral that bribery extensively prevailed both sides’. And Matthew Forster, system, Berwick’s notoriety seems at the by-election in August the Liberal member from 1841 to to have increased in the years 1859.15 The third was in 1863 Thomas 1852, stated that, although it was after 1832. Following the election and it culminated in the conclu- difficult to ascertain what number petition of 1852, which resulted sions that no case of bribery was Phinn, the of electors were bribable, his own in the election of that year being proved, and that it was not proved Liberal impression was that, while he sat declared void, Thomas Phinn, the that corrupt practices extensively for the borough, ‘two-thirds of Liberal member for Bath, said prevailed at the election.16 The member the freemen and some portion of in the Commons that it was the fourth successful petition was in the householders were corrupt’.20 opinion of people acquainted 1880 and it produced the ruling for Bath, This would mean that in 1852, for with elections in Berwick that ‘It that corrupt practices had not example, about 235 freemen were is of no use going down to Ber- prevailed on either side.17 said in the bribable. wick unless you are prepared to The 1861 Commission sat Commons Collating this evidence of gen- pay the freemen all round.’12 He daily in Berwick (except for an eral reputation with the fact that also said he believed that the cor- adjournment for one week) from that it was large amounts were spent by the ruption of Berwick was quite as 30 July to 1 September, and after- various candidates at the elections notorious as that of Sudbury and wards six times in London. Since the opinion of 1837, 1841 and 1852, and with St. Albans, two towns which had the Commissioners found no the fact that the two successful been disfranchised after a Royal suspicion of corruption attached of people candidates were unseated in 1852, Commission had found evidence to the 1853 election, they did not acquainted the Commissioners concluded of gross bribery and corruption.13 enter into the details of that or of that ‘we could feel no doubt that Indeed, seven years after Phinn’s any previous election. However, with elec- the parliamentary elections at damning pronouncement Ber- they did receive ‘general informa- Berwick down to the year 1853 wick itself became the subject of tion as to the previous political tions in were attended with very consid- a similar investigation. reputation of the borough’.18 Of erable corruption’.21 The aim of this article is to particular significance is the fact Berwick In contrast, the 1853 by-elec- consider two important questions. that the freemen were generally that ‘It is tion was characterised by its First, did Berwick deserve its rep- presented as ‘the most accessible integrity, although, as the Com- utation for venality? And, second, to the influence of bribery’.19 of no use missioners observed, ‘As that what effect, if any, did corruption Thomas Bogue, the mayor, for election followed immediately on have on voting behaviour in the instance, told the Commission- going down the avoidance for bribery of the borough? ers that before 1853 ‘bribery was return of the members elected Any attempt to answer the first reported to have extensively to Berwick in 1852, its purity has been rea- of these questions will inevita- prevailed, principally among the unless sonably attributed to the fear of bly rely heavily upon the report freemen’; while John Graham, a ulterior consequences induced by of the 1861 Royal Commission resident of Berwick for fourteen you are the recent exposure’.22 In other appointed to inquire into the years, said that ‘since he came to words, the election was pure only existence of bribery at the Ber- Berwick the opinion has always prepared because the electors were afraid wick elections of 1859. Although prevailed that the freemen will that another inquiry might lead there were four successful elec- not vote unless they are paid for to pay the to their disfranchisement. tion petitions between the Elec- their votes’, but he added to this freemen all However, the main task of the toral Reform Act of 1832 and his opinion ‘that the household- 1861 Royal Commission was to the Redistribution Act of 1885, ers are as bad as the freemen’. round’. investigate the elections of 1857

26 Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 berwick-upon-tweed: a venal borough?

Table 1: Result of the general election at Berwick, 28 Edinburgh on the morning of a year at Berwick. However, this March 1857 the nomination. However, John was not the limit of his largesse. Renton Dunlop, the chairman He also retained William McGall John STAPLETON (Lib) 339 of his committee, and the Rever- as his agent, by a fee of £50, for Dudley Coutts MARJORIBANKS (Lib) 271 end George Hans Hamilton were the purpose of cultivating the Captain Charles William Gordon (Con) 269 more sanguine, and Gordon was Conservative interest in the bor- Matthew Forster (Lib) 250 persuaded to return to the bor- ough, and gave him money to dis- ough, where he was defeated by tribute among the poor. Gordon’s and 1859. In the event, it was an only two votes. The Liberals were motives were perfectly clear: investigation fraught with dif- certainly surprised by the unex- ficulty. As the Commissioners pected support he had received. I gave McGall the money with a observed in the introduction of Marjoribanks, for example, said sort of mixed object; one was, no their report: he thought that Gordon’s posi- doubt, to keep up my influence tion was due to the promises he in the place; it had also reference had made about what he would to the peculiar poverty of the In the investigation which we do for the town after the elec- place, which had struck me very were charged to conduct, the tion (Gordon had said that if he much. I instructed McGall not difficulty experienced by us in was elected he might give money to exclude voters; he was to give obtaining any reliable informa- for some public building for the money in all cases where there tion upon which to shape our benefit of the whole town).25 On was poverty; but then he was not inquiries soon gave ground for the other hand, Hamilton argued to exclude voters, because a great believing that nothing would be that the presence of three Liberal many of the voters were more disclosed which could be with- candidates, each trying to get as needy than many of the paupers. held. During the inquiry itself many single votes as possible, had I gave him a general discretionary the majority of the witnesses given Gordon a chance of success. power. He saw that it had refer- displayed a mental reservation After considering the testimony ence to the election, that I was through which it was difficult of all concerned, the Commis- charitably disposed, and that I to break; while not a few pre- sioners decided that ‘nothing was wished to help the people. There varicated and perjured them- adduced in evidence to warrant us were no details gone into.29 selves with the utmost hardened in concluding that Captain Gor- effrontery.23 don’s election was not, so far as he In all, McGall spent £540 in the The Commissioners attributed was personally concerned, legiti- advancement of Gordon’s object. 26 this pervasive dishonesty partly mately conducted’. However, it It was distributed by him ‘to some to an apprehension that a truthful was established that others, such hundreds of individuals, of whom disclosure would result in either as the erstwhile Conservative a large proportion were free- 30 personal or general disfranchise- member for Berwick, Richard men’. A further £100 was spent ment, and partly to ‘a perverted Hodgson, were especially active by McGall within a few days of notion of duty’ which made some in furthering the cause of the the poll. Indeed, according to of the witnesses reluctant to betray Conservative candidate ‘by treat- Johnson How Pattison, who was 27 those who had bribed them.24 ing electors in public houses’. It himself bribed, McGall paid sixty Yet, despite this general reti- is little wonder that Dunlop and or seventy voters from £1 to £3 cence on the part of the witnesses, Hamilton were more optimistic in his house, popularly known as the Commissioners were able to than Gordon about his election the ‘gull-hole’, the night before 31 paint a fairly comprehensive pic- prospects (see Table 1). the election. ture of the 1857 and 1859 elec- If Gordon had been a politi- So confident of a Conservative tions. In 1857, for instance, there cal novice in 1857, he certainly victory was Gordon that he invited had been some suspicion that the learned how to curry favour with R. A. Earle, Disraeli’s private secre- Conservative Charles Gordon’s the Berwick electors in time tary, to stand with him at Berwick position on the poll had been for his next foray into electoral in 1859. Gordon assured Earle that achieved by illegitimate means. As politics. Not only did he donate his election would be inexpen- a stranger who came to Berwick over £2,000 for the building of a sive, since he was certain to ben- only ten days before the election, church, but he made regular trips efit from Gordon’s popularity in he was not expected to do very to Berwick in 1858–59, visiting the borough. And indeed he did, 28 well. His canvass was not a favour- the sick and giving them money. coming second in the poll behind able one, and he confessed to one He also employed Hamilton Gordon. The Commissioners were of his opponents, the Liberal to dispense his charities. These in no doubt that Earle’s election D. C. Marjoribanks, that he had included the distribution of coals, owed much to ‘the potent mon- no more than a hundred pledges. the payment of occasional sums etary influences which had been Indeed, his chances of success to the poor and subscriptions to discreetly employed by McGall looked so slim that he retired to charitable societies. In all, Gordon for the promotion of the Con- had resolved to spend about £200 servative interest in the town’.32

Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 27 berwick-upon-tweed: a venal borough?

Table 2: Result of the general election at Berwick, 30 April this did not prevent the Berwick ern Reform Union, Mathison 1859 Conservatives from mounting a describes the bribery and treating challenge at the August election. that occurred at Berwick between Captain Charles William GORDON (Con) 366 As in April, corruption played 1832 and 1859, drawing particular Ralph Anstruther EARLE (Con) 348 a prominent part in the contest. attention to the ‘Capital election’ Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks (Lib) 330 The Commissioners reported of 1852 and the ‘bribery election’ John Stapleton (Lib) 257 that bribery was committed on of 1859.38 According to Mathison, both sides by individual support- after the 1859 election he heard ers of the two candidates, but that ‘a Gentleman who did “business” Table 3: Result of the by-election at Berwick, 20 August they were unable to determine for the Whigs at many elections’ 1859 the exact extent to which it was say that there ‘are two hundred Dudley Coutts MARJORIBANKS (Lib) 305 carried on. They entirely absolved voters who will not poll without Marjoribanks from the suspicion money’. Mathison told Reed that Richard Hodgson (Con) 304 that he either directly or indirectly he believed this to be true.39 supplied money for the purpose If this evaluation of the cor- ­Gordon himself concurred with of corruptly influencing the con- ruptibility of the Berwick elec- this view, although he was inclined stituency. Although they failed torate is accurate, it would mean to believe that other factors played to discover the existence of any that of the 703 electors who were a part: organisation for the purpose of entitled to vote in 1859, just over bribery on the Liberal side, they 28 per cent of them were bribed It is only natural to suppose that did find that on polling day three to do so. On the other hand, if the money distributed through individuals were ‘actively engaged Forster’s estimate of the number McGall had a considerable influ- in endeavouring to promote Mr. of corrupt electors is taken into ence in securing the election, Marjoribanks’ election by cor- consideration, the figure rises to although I believe that people rupt payments and offers’.34 Yet above 35 per cent. Either way, voted according to their predi- this was nothing compared to the this is bribery on a large scale. It lections, and on other grounds bribery practised by the Conserv- would place Berwick on a par as well.33 atives, which the Commissioners with boroughs like Yarmouth, described as ‘more systematic, where 33 per cent of the elec- This may well have been the case. and almost wholly performed by tors were proved to have given However, the return of two Con- the agency of William McGall’.35 or received bribes,40 and Beverley, servatives in 1859 was very much McGall had been very active on where 37 per cent of the elector- against expectations. Since their polling day, visiting the ‘George’ ate were open to bribery;41 but landslide victories in 1852 and 1853 and the ‘Woolpack’ public houses, behind the most venal boroughs the Liberals had dominated Ber- where he had bribed a number of the period, such as Reigate, wick politics; and although there of electors to vote for Hodgson where the proportion of the elec- was always enough Conservative with money which was believed torate affected by bribery was support in the borough to allow to have been provided by Hodg- nearly 50 per cent,42 St. Albans, for the possibility of returning one son for that express purpose (see where almost 64 per cent of the Conservative candidate, the likeli- Table 3).36 electors habitually took money,43 hood of achieving a double vic- In their report the Commis- Lancaster and Totnes, where cor- tory by legitimate means was fairly sioners named four individuals, ruption involved about 66 per remote. It certainly did not happen including Gordon and McGall, cent of the electorate,44 and the again, although Richard Hodgson who were guilty of bribery in incorrigible Bridgwater, where only narrowly failed to become April 1859 by corruptly giving or 75 per cent of the constituency Berwick’s second Conservative promising money for votes; and were ‘hopelessly addicted’ to giv- member at the 1859 by-election. fifteen who were guilty of brib- ing or receiving bribes.45 Since all However, this election too was far ery by receiving money for their of these boroughs were disfran- from pure (see Table 2). votes. In addition, they named chised for corruption, Berwick The 1859 by-election was twelve individuals, including can count itself lucky to have brought about by the resigna- Hodgson and McGall, who were escaped a similar fate. tion of the Conservative member guilty of bribery in August 1859 With such a high propor- R. A. Earle. A compromise had by giving or promising money for tion of the electorate susceptible been reached between Marjorib- votes; and twelve who were guilty to bribery, it would be easy to anks, Gordon and Earle, whereby of bribery by receiving money.37 assume that the outcome of an the latter would retire following The damning conclusions of election would be determined the withdrawal of Marjoribanks’ the 1861 Royal Commission are by the amount of money that petition against the two Con- supported by Robert Mathison’s found its way into the pockets servative members; in return, account of corruption in the of the voters. However, there is ­Marjoribanks would be allowed borough. In a letter to Richard compelling evidence to suggest to stand unopposed. However, Reed, the secretary of the North- that this was not the case. In his

28 Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 berwick-upon-tweed: a venal borough? study of electoral politics in mid- not only in the north east, but in – sold again to the Tories and thus nineteenth century Lancashire, other large towns as well’.50 Not- did him in two ways at once’.53 M. A. Manai has shown that poll- withstanding all the evidence of Similarly, in 1865 it was said that book evidence casts doubt on the extensive bribery and treating many of those electors who were alleged importance of corruption unearthed by Election Com- charged in Alexander Mitch- on the outcome of elections. By mittees and Royal Commissions, ell’s (Liberal) petition with hav- tracing a number of voters over Nossiter warns that, ‘it would ing received bribes in 1863 had a period of time, he discovered be perhaps unwise to assume broken their pledges to William that they did not change their that a voter necessarily accepted Cargill (Conservative) and voted political allegiances and were not money from a party he would for Mitchell.54 If such claims are swayed by money. Other factors, not have supported anyway’.51 true, the number of voters who such as occupation, age, location Such a cautious approach to sold out to the highest bidder and religion, were much more the relationship between money must have been small. This is significant determinants of vot- and voting behaviour would confirmed by the author’s own ing behaviour than money. ‘Brib- appear to be justified by evidence investigation of voting consist- ery’, argues Manai, ‘may have from this investigation. Using ency at Berwick elections during confirmed rather than changed the reports of the 1852 Election the period 1832–72.55 It is further political views.’46 Committee and the 1861 Royal supported by Manai’s analysis of Other historians have also Commission in conjunction with individual voting behaviour at questioned the importance of existing poll books (which record Lancaster, which suggests that bribery in determining election the way electors voted), it was ‘the majority of voters remained results. For instance, in his analysis possible to trace the voting behav- loyal to specific parties rather of 3,716 electors during four Col- iour over a series of elections of than changing their political alle- chester elections, Andrew Phillips the twenty-eight voters who took giances in line with whichever found that their voting behaviour bribes at the general elections of party offered them monetary appeared consistent and parti- 1852 and 1859 and at the by-elec- incentives’.56 san.47 He concludes, ‘If Colchester tion of 1859. As all of these voters Taking into consideration the voters were venal, they were con- are known to have been corrupt- poll-book evidence of Berwick sistently so: only 1% of four-time ible, they are amongst those most and of other constituencies, it is voters switched party twice.’48 likely to have allowed their vot- difficult not to concur with John Likewise, J. R. Vincent has shown ing behaviour to be influenced by Phillips’ conclusion that: that in constituencies throughout money. Yet an analysis of their vot- the country there was a strong ing record, which in some cases Nossiter The survival of bribery and other correlation between occupation spans as many as eight elections, undue influences notwithstand- and political affiliation, suggest- produces an overall impression, warns that, ing, most electors after 1832 ing that corruption had a limited not of a group of electors who chose to give their support to impact upon voting behaviour. As were constantly changing their ‘it would one of the parliamentary parties he observes: political allegiance, but rather of be perhaps … Moreover, once an elector had a group which was consistently chosen a party and cast his votes … though the relative will and loyal to one particular party. Such unwise to for it, he was likely to continue to power of each party to buy a picture of partisan voting would support that party for the rest of votes varied enormously from appear to confirm Manai’s asser- assume his parliamentary voting career. election to election and from tion that money confirmed rather If bribery was an active force at candidate, the patterns of occu- than determined the voting pref- that a these elections, it seems to have pational preference remain rela- erences of those who took bribes voter nec- been notably ineffectual.57 tively stable from year to year at elections. and from one place to another. Of course, there were always essarily Croesus fought many elections, electors to whom this rule did not Michael Wickham is a Lecturer in but he never made shoemakers apply. At Beverley, for instance, it accepted History at North Tyneside College. into good Tories, or butchers was reported that out of the 1,000 into good Liberals.49 voters who were open to brib- money 1 Rev. T. Johnstone, The History of Ber- ery in 1868, a good third (over 12 wick-upon-Tweed (Berwick, 1817), pp. from a 149–50. This view is endorsed by per cent of the electorate) were 2 Quoted in F. Askham, The Gay Delav- T. J. Nossiter, who, in his study of known as ‘rolling stock’. In other party he als (London, 1955), p. 124. voting behaviour in the north- words, an adequate bribe would 3 J. Lambert to 3rd Earl Grey, 13 May east of England, points out that, make them roll to the other would not 1832, 3rd Earl Grey MSS., Box 113, even if the case is not conclu- side.52 No doubt most constitu- file2 . have sup- 4 Berwick Advertiser, 7 May 1831, p. 4. sive, ‘there are good grounds for encies had their share of these 5 Quoted in the Berwick Advertiser, 15 believing opinion to have had voters. It was alleged that Donkin ported any- September 1832, p. 4. a continuous relationship to lost at Berwick in 1837, ‘because 6 Weekly Despatch, 5 January 1833, ­occupation from 1832 onwards, the men who took his money way’. quoted in the Berwick Advertiser, 12

Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005 29 berwick-upon-tweed: a venal borough?

January 1833, p. 4. 52 O’Leary, The Elimination of Corrupt and Electoral Behaviour in the Mid 7 Berwick Advertiser, 12 January 1833, p. Practices, p. 52. Nineteenth Century’, p. 161. 4. 53 Mathison to Reed, 29 September 57 John A. Phillips, ‘Unintended Conse- 8 Berwick Advertiser, 15 September 1832, 1859, MSS. Account Berwick Elec- quences: Parliamentary Blueprints in p. 4. See also, for example, the Berwick tions, 1832–59. the Hands of Provincial Builders’, p. Advertiser, 28 July 1832, p. 4. 54 Berwick Warder, 14 July 1865, p. 4. 97. 9 Mathison to Reed, 29 September 55 M. J. Wickham, ‘Electoral Politics in 1859, MSS. Account Berwick Elec- Berwick-Upon-Tweed, 1832–1885’, tions, 1832–59, Cowen Papers, C763 pp. 116–120. and C764. 56 M. A. Manai, ‘Influence, Corruption 10 Ibid. 11 Berwick Advertiser, 25 April 1835, p. 2. 12 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series, Vol. CXXVI, 1853, 1129. 13 Ibid., 1126. Bibliography 14 Power, Rodwell and Dew, Reports of the Decisions of Committees of the House of Commons, Vol. 2, p. 217. Primary Sources 15 Wolferstan and Bristowe, Reports of Cowen Papers the Decisions of Election Committees, p. 185. 3rd Earl Grey MSS 16 Ibid., p. 233. Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series 17 Bean, Parliamentary Representation, p. 63. Parliamentary Papers 1861 (2766), xvii, Berwick Bribery, Royal Commission 18 P. P. 1861 (2766), xvii, Berwick Bribery, Royal Commission, p. v. Berwick Advertiser 19 Ibid., p. vi. Berwick Warder 20 Ibid., p. vi. 21 Ibid., p. vii. Weekly Despatch 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., p. v. 24 Ibid. Secondary Sources (published) 25 Ibid., p. vii. Askham, F. The Gay Delavals (London: J. Cape, 1955) 26 Ibid., p. vii. 27 Ibid., pp. viii–ix. Bean, W. W. The Parliamentary Representation of the Six Northern Counties of England … from 1603 28 Ibid. to … 1866 (Hull: The Author, 1890) 29 Ibid., p. ix. 30 Ibid., p. x. Gwyn, W. B. Democracy and the Cost of Politics in Britain (London: University of London: The Athlone 31 Ibid., p. xi. Press, 1962) 32 Ibid., p. xii. Johnstone, Rev. T. The History of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and Its Vicinity (Berwick: H. Richardson, 1817) 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., p. xiv. Nossiter, T. J. ‘Aspects of Electoral Behavior in English Constituencies, 1832–1868’, in E. Allardt and 35 Ibid., p. xv. S. Rokkan (eds.), Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology (London: Collier-Macmillan; New York: 36 Ibid., pp. xv–xvii and xvii. Free Press, 1970), pp. 160–189 37 Ibid., p. xxii. 38 Mathison to Reed, 29 September Nossiter, T. J. Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England: Case Studies from the 1859, MSS. Account Berwick Elec- North East, 1832–74 (Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1975) tions, 1832–59. O’Leary, C. The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections 1868–1911 (Oxford: Clarendon 39 Ibid. Press, 1962) 40 C. O’Leary, The Elimination of Corrupt Practices, p. 29. Phillips, A. ‘Four Colchester Elections: Voting Behaviour in a Victorian Market Town’, in K. Neale (ed.), 41 Ibid., p. 52. An Essex Tribute (London: Leopard’s Head, 1987), pp. 199–227 42 Ibid., p. 29. Phillips, John A. ‘Unintended Consequences: Parliamentary Blueprints in the Hands of Provincial 43 W. B. Gwyn, Democracy and the Cost of Builders’, in Parliamentary History, 17 (1998) Part I. Politics in Britain, p. 65. 44 O’Leary, The Elimination of Corrupt Power, Rodwell and Dew, Reports of the Decisions of Committees of the House of Commons in the Practices, pp. 29–30. Trial of Controverted Elections During the Sixteenth Parliament of the United Kingdom, Vol. 2 45 Ibid., p. 53. 46 M. A. Manai, ‘Electoral Politics in Seymour, C. Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Mid-Nineteenth Century Lanca- Parliamentary Franchise 1832–1885 (reprinted Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1970) shire’, p. 190. Vincent, J. R. Pollbooks: How Victorians Voted (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 47 A. Phillips, ‘Four Colchester Elec- tions: Voting Behaviour in a Victorian Wolferstan and Bristowe, Reports of the Decisions of Election Committees During the Eighteenth Market Town’, p. 205. Parliament of the United Kingdom (London, 1865). 48 Ibid., p. 206. 49 J. R. Vincent, Pollbooks: How Victorians Voted, p. 11. Secondary Sources (unpublished) 50 T. J. Nossiter, Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England, p. Manai, M. A. ‘Electoral Politics in Mid-Nineteenth Century Lancashire’, (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 170. Lancaster, 1991) 51 T. J. Nossiter, ‘Aspects of Electoral Wickham, M. J. ‘Electoral Politics in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, 1832–1885’ (Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis, Behavior in English Constituencies, Durham, 2002) 1832–1868’, p. 161.

30 Journal of Liberal History 48 Autumn 2005