SOME NOTES on the LIVERPOOL ELECTION of 1806. the Liverpool Election of 1806 Was One of Much Interest, Not Only Because of the I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
74 SOME NOTES ON THE LIVERPOOL ELECTION OF 1806. By Godfrey W. Mathews, F.S.A. Read March 4, 1926. HE Liverpool election of 1806 was one of much T interest, not only because of the issues at stake, of which the chief was the abolition of the Slave Trade, but also because one of tin: candidates was the man who has been, " taking him all in all," one of the city's greatest sons, viz. William Roscoe. On January 23rd 1806 Pitt died and Fox passed away on September I3th of the same year. Thus the two outstanding figures of English political life were removed from the arena within a few months of one another. The ministry was continued by Lord Grenvillc, who con sidered that his position would be strengthened by an appeal to the country. Parliament was accordingly dis solved in October of that year and the elections took place in November. Liverpool at that date returned two members and on this occasion there were three candidates : Isaac Gas- coyno, Sir Bannister Tarleton and William Roscoe. Isaac Gascoyne, born in 1770, was the third son of Bamber Gascoyne and grandson of Sir Crisp Gascoyne, who was the first Lord Mayor of London to occupy the Mansion House in 1752 and who also came into prom inence in connection with the famous Canning case. Isaac entered the army and was present with his regiment, the Guards, during most of the engagements in Flanders in 1793-1794. He was first returned to Parliament for Liverpool in 1796, and had been its member, therefore, for ten years at the date we are considering. He had a long Some Notes on the Liverpool Election of 1806. 75 Parliamentary life, being returned at the elections of 1806, 1807, 1812, 1818, 1820, 1826 and 1830 ; he lost his seat at the election of May 4th 1831 and retired from Parliamentary life. He died in London August 2(>th 1841. For some time he lived at Raby Hall. His niece, the daughter of his brother Bamber Gascoyne Junior, married the 2nd Marquis of Salisbury, who on his marriage took the name Gascoyne before that of Cecil, and it was through this marriage that the Salisbury family became possessed of their large estates in and around Liverpool. Sir Bannister Tarleton belonged to an old Liverpool family. He was the third son of John Tarleton, merchant and Mayor of Liverpool in 1764, and was born at his father's house in Water Street on August 2ist 1754. Educated at Liverpool and Oxford, he obtained a com mission as cornet in the King's Dragoons in 1775. He saw active service in the American War, in which he dis tinguished himself. Taken prisoner by Washington's forces at Gloucester, October igth 1781, he was released on parole and returned to England in 1782. Tarleton published in 1787 his History of The Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America. The book had a considerable vogue and certainly it has good points. Though in no sense of the word a scientific historian and perhaps not always thoroughly reliable, he had a good power of description and in some respects a keen sense of the relations and importance of historic events. It is said, though I have not discovered on what evidence, that he was probably assisted in this work by Mary Robinson, the celebrated Perdita, a lady who, like another celebrated lady in English history, seemed to possess all the virtues but one. Artists have made Perdita's features almost as familiar to us as those of Lady Hamilton. It is one of the greatest stains on Tar- leton's fame, that he did not treat her well; she proved a devoted mistress to him and earned something more 76 Some Notes on the Liverpool Election of 1806. than the neglect which, it has been asserted, may have been responsible for her death. He was unsuccessful in his first attempt to enter Par liament for his native city in 1784, but was returned head of the poll in the General Election of 1790. In the House of Commons he frequently sided with the Opposition, and consequently his party tried to prevent his election in 1796, their candidate being his brother, John Tarleton. Bannister was returned however. He was again suc cessful in 1802 and sat for Liverpool until 1806, when, as we shall see, lie was defeated by Roscoe. He was elected again in 1807 and held his scat until 1812, when he gave place to Canning. Sir Bannister Tarleton was a somewhat romantic figure, and a man of many good qualities, and if sometimes an opportunist, was frequently a loyal supporter of good causes. His full length portrait was painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds in 1782. He is represented in the uniform of the British Legion, in a half-stooping position adjusting his sword, with his charger and the smoke of battle in the background, a typical grandiose portrait of the period. It was engraved by J. R. Smith, and also by S. W. Rey nolds. A print hangs in the Athenaeum. Tarleton's biography occupies 8| columns in the Dictionary of National Biography. There is no need for me to give any notice of the life of William Roscoe. The facts of his life and the great position which he occupies in the annals of our city are known to all members of the Society. It was his interest in the abolition of the Slave Trade that induced Roscoe to stand. 1 When one considers the vested interest which the town had in this trade, it needed some courage to come forward as an abolitionist ; especially in the face 1 Roscoe was only requested to stand in the Liberal interest two days before the election. FIG. 7. TARLETON. (After a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds; engraved by J. K. Smith.) (By permission of the Committee of the Liverpool Athetiaum.) I Some Notes on the Liverpool Election of 1806. 77 of two opponents like (iascoyne and Tarleton, and that he succeeded in unseating the latter is in my opinion one of the most amazing things in the history of elections. The main issue of the election in Liverpool was the Slave Trade, 1 but it is rather noticeable that all mention of it is absent from the election addresses of the can didates, with the exception perhaps of a paragraph in that of General Gascoyne which reads, " that should I again become the object of your choice the same solicitude for your interests, and a constant and unremitted atten tion to the trade of your port, shall be uniformly continued on my part," which perhaps refers to one of the chief trades of the port, viz. the Slave Trade. Opposition to the Slave Trade had been slowly growing for some years. As far back as 1783 the Quakers had petitioned against it, and in 1786 Clarkson began his crusade. Two Bills in favour of the abolition were carried by the Commons before the end of the eighteenth century, but were thrown out by the House of Lords. Wilberforce got a Bill through the Commons in 1804, but it also was rejected by the Lords. The next year a larger measure failed to pass through the Mouse of Commons. These movements show, however, that there was a con siderable body of opinion in favour of abolition, yet it must be confessed that at the time of this election, apparently the odds against it were very formidable, and in Liverpool, where so much vested interest was at stake, the opposition was particularly keen. The Act forbidding the importation of Slaves was passed by the Parliament returned at this election, on March 25th 1807, and it was while the Bill was before the House that Roscoe made his great speech. The Bill did not become operative until ist January 1808, and even 1 It is doubtful if this was realised by the bulk of the population. Had it been so it is probable that Roscoe would not have been returned. At the next election he polled only 12 per cent of the votes. 78 Some Notes on the Liverpool Election of 1806. then it was not felony to engage in the Trade until a further Act was carried by Lord Brougham in 1811. The election lasted eight clays, viz. from Saturday, November ist to Saturday, November 8th. Professor Ramsay Muir has written : 1 " The turbulence of Liverpool was perhaps most strikingly exhibited at the parliamentary elections, which were positive orgies of anarchy. And as a majority of the freemen in this period belonged to the poorer class, whose poverty made bribery hard to resist, Liverpool became notorious for its corruption. The estimated value of each vote early in the igth century was £20, and the most honest of the freemen regarded this payment as their right. Besides these payments in money, strong drink flowed like water during a contest and the candidates were expected to provide mammoth feasts for their supporters, at which misrule reigned .supreme." Now if the above is an attempt to make out that Liverpool was worse than other towns during elections, I am by no means sure that it is justified. Elections were always a time of anarchy in all towns at this period, and Liverpool bad enough I admit was probably no worse than the rest. A glance at the Freemen's Roll also shows that while there were very many of the poorer class among the Freemen, there were a great number who by no means came under that category, though the rich were not any less inclined to be paid for their vote.