Page:Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham.djvu/212

200 burly prizefighters to clear the hustings on nomination day, upsetting carriages containing voters going to poll, and such like practical jokes were all en reglerègle [sic], and as such "goings-on" were to be found as much on the one side as the other, neither party's pot had a right to call the opponent's kettle black. Prior to the enfranchisement of the borough, one of the most exciting elections in which the Brums had been engaged was that for the county of Warwick in 1774, when Sir Charles Holte, of Aston Hall, was returned. The nomination took place Oct. 13, the candidates being Mr. ShipworthSkipwith [sic] (a previous member, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Mordaunt, and Sir Charles, who for once pleased the Birmingham folks by calling himself an "Independent." The polling, which commenced on the 20th, was continued for ten days, closing on the 31st, and as Mr. Mordaunt had the lead for many days the excitement was intense, and the rejoicings proportionate at the end when the local candidate came in with flying colours. The voting ran:— ShipwithSkipwith [sic], 2,954; Holte, 1,845; Mordaunt, 1,787.—A Birmingham man was a candidate at the next great county contest, forty-six years after. This was Mr. Richard Spooner, then (1820) a young man and of rather Radical tendencies. His opponent, Mr. Francis Lawley, was of the old-fashioned Whig party, and the treatment his supporters received at the hands of the Birmingham and Coventry people was disgraceful. Hundreds of special constables had to be sworn in at Warwick during the fourteen days' polling, business being suspended for days together, but Radical Richard's roughs failed to influence the election, as Mr. Lawley obtained 2,153 votes against Mr. Spooner's 970. As Mr. Spooner grew older he became more prominent in commercial circles, and was peculiarly au fait in all currency matters, but he lost his hold on local electors by turning to the Conservative side of politics. Of this he was more than once reminded in after years, when speaking in the Town Hall, by individuals taking off their coats, turning them inside out, and having put them on again, standing prominently in front of "Yellow Dick" as they then called him.

That the inhabitants of Birmingham, so rapidly increasing in numbers and wealth, should be desirous of direct representation in the House of Commons, could be no wonder even to the most bigoted politicians of the last and early part of the present century. Possibly, had there been '91 Riots, nor quite so much "tall talk," the Legislature might have vouchsafed us a share in the manufacture of our country's laws a little earlier than they did, and the attempt to forces member through the doors of the House could not have added to any desire that may have existed in the minds of the gentlemen inside to admit the representative of Birmingham. The Newhall Hill meeting of July 12th, 1819, may be reckoned as the first pitched battle between the invaders and defenders of the then existing Parliamentary Constitution. The appointment of Sir Charles Wolesey as "Legislatorial Attorney and Representative," with instructions to take his seat as M.P. for the town (and many so styled him, even though made at a meeting of 20,000 would-be electors, does not appear to have been the wisest way to have gone to work, notwithstanding the fact that Sir Charles himself said he had no doubt of their right to send him up as their Member. Prosecution of the leaders followed, as a matter of course, and if the twenty-and-odd-thousmds of the local Conservative electors of to-day were thus to try to obtain their due share of representation in the House, most likely the leaders of such a movement would be as liberally dealt with. The "battle of freedom," as the great Reform movement came lo be called, has often been described, and honour been given to all who took part in it. The old soldiers of the campaign should be allowed, if