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.