The source document that informs this website is a volume of Parliamentary Papers entitled Report of the Commissioners appointed under Her Majesty’s Royal Sign Manual to inquire into the Existence of Corrupt Practices in the Borough of Sandwich
It concerns a by-election which took place in 1880, a feature of which was unparalleled bribery and corruption that affected the outcome and led to the election subsequently being declared void and the Borough of Sandwich being disenfranchised, ie denied the right to vote.
Background
Following the Reform Act of 1832, the two parishes of Deal and Walmer became part of the Parliamentary Borough of Sandwich with two seats to be contested.
In the five General Elections immediately prior to 1880, both seats were won by the Liberals. The 1880 election saw them returned unopposed, when the Conservatives decided it was pointless to contest due to their popularity. Shortly after however one of the MPs accepted a peerage forcing a By-Election.
Assured of success, the selected Conservative Candidate, Mr Crompton Roberts immediately made his way to Deal to begin canvassing with his ‘celebrated’ electioneering agent and a big bag of gold!
Slower to get going, the Liberal candidate, Mr Julian Goldsmid did not arrive in Deal until a week later. With only a week to go he was left playing catchup. Sir Julian had previously been the MP for Rochester but had lost his seat at the earlier General Election.
A feature of elections of the time were the various inducements bestowed on electors for their vote which ranged from ‘treating’ – offers of free food and drink – to downright bribery. However the extent and creativity to which the population of Deal and Walmer entered into it was second to none.
The Conservatives won but so extensive was the bribery that the behaviour set off an appeal and a parliamentary commission was set up to investigate.
Over the three weeks it took place, it was found that out of an electorate of 2115, 1850 voted, of whom half admitted they had been bribed and over 100 admitted to offering bribes. Nearly £9,000 was expended between the two candidates with the Conservatives spending well over two thirds of that amount. As a result of the Commission Report, Sandwich was abolished as a constituency with effect from 25 June 1885.
Bribery
The votes were influenced in myriad ways! On arrival in Deal, the Conservative candidate immediately hired 71 of the 100 plus pubs and beer houses as committee rooms at £5 apiece. Many of the rooms were never used.
The Publicans and Landlords were quick to capitalise. The Landlord of the Rose and Crown amongst others, was happy to take money from both sides and rented the rooms inside his pub to the Liberals and the outside, for posters, to the Conservatives.
Well paid bill posters were recruited who plastered the fronts of pubs and as many other blank walls as they get away with. Dozens of Canvassers were employed and given money to distribute as they saw fit. Many took bribes from both sides.
Flags, glorious flags
A noteworthy feature of the campaign was the sheer amount of flags and bunting displayed in the party colours – then blue for the Liberals and red (sometimes yellow) for the Conservatives. Deal and Sandwich were festooned to such an extent according to one witness, John Pettet Ramell, that people came from miles around to see the sight.
The flags and poles on which they were fixed were a fertile way of getting money into the pockets of electors. Flags had to be made and teams of men and boys paid to erect the poles, which then needed to be ‘watched’ lest the other side inflict damage, offering ample opportunity for further disbursements. The rivalry was such that the flags grew in number and size and the town’s drapers, milliners and ironmongers made significant sums in generous remuneration for fabric, rope and so on.
A gigantic pole in front of Prince of Wales’ Terrace cost £25 (around £2,500 today) and needed 30 men to erect it.
For many in the towns the two week campaign brought Christmas, New Year and Easter all at once. Shopkeepers, publicans, boatmen – anyone who had a vote or might influence someone who did – had a wonderful time. And there is no sign that any of their “betters” – the clergy, councillors and magistrates of the town – raised any objections.
Acts of Parliament
Election Corruption is nothing new!
In the 19th century, elections were often subject to a number of corrupt practices. Parliament attempted to address these practices by passing a series of Acts to improve, monitor and regulate voting conditions and practices across the country.
The Representation of the People Act 1832
Also known as the 1832 Reform Act, Great Reform Act or First Reform Act, the Representation of the People Act 1832, was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that introduced major changes to the electoral system of England and Wales. It abolished tiny districts, gave representation to cities, gave the vote to small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers, householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more, and some lodgers.
Only qualifying men were able to vote; the Act introduced the first explicit statutory bar to women voting by defining a voter as a male person.
The Reform Act of 1832 added the two parishes of Deal and Walmer to the Parliamentary borough of Sandwich.
The Election Petitions Act, 1848.
Officially titled “An Act to amend the Law for the Trial of Election Petitions”, the Election Petitions Act of 1848 created a Committee of Elections within the House of Commons to consider controverted elections. Controverted elections were elections which had their legitimacy challenged – this could be for a number of reasons, including bribery, corruption and treating. The Committee of Elections were responsible for determining the outcome of an election petition.
Corrupt Practices Act, 1852
Officially titled “An Act to provide for more effectual Inquiry into the Existence of corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament”, the Corrupt Practices Act of 1852 defined corrupt practices at elections and placed penalties on those accepting or offering bribes. The Act also established election auditors who recorded the sums spent by candidates prior to an election.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868
Officially titled “An Act for amending the Laws relating to Election Petitions, and providing more effectually for the Prevention of corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections”, the Parliamentary Elections Act (1868) changed the way in which election petitions were tried.
Responsibility for trying election petitions transferred from the House of Commons to the High Court of Justice. Courts were seen as being less biased in the decisions they made. Assessors of a petition visited a constituency, took evidence and determined the outcome, reporting back to the House of Commons. Evidence was transferred to the House of Commons with Judge’s reports, which was discussed by the House of Commons.
Ballot Act, 1872
Officially titled “An Act to amend the Law relating to Procedure at Parliamentary and Municipal Elections”, the Ballot Act (1872) attempted to deal with bad electoral practices by introducing the secret ballot. This meant voters could vote in private without being intimidated into voting for a particular party. It also meant that it was harder for bribers to ensure that voters did as requested.
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883
Officially titled “An Act for the better prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Parliamentary Elections”, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act (1883) criminalised attempts to bribe voters, with more severe fines and in some cases imprisonment set as punishment. The act also standardised the amount of money that could be spent on election expenses and what expenses could be spent on.
Any candidate found guilty of corruption could not stand for election for a further 7 years and could never stand in the same constituency again. As a result of this Act the average election expenditure of candidates fell significantly and allegations of illegal acts during elections also declined.
The Reform Act of 1832 added the two parishes of Deal and Walmer to the Parliamentary borough of Sandwich.
Prior to the election, the register of voters for the Borough showed Sandwich as having 465 electors, Deal 1,253, and Walmer 311. About a hundred of these were struck off for duplicate entries, deaths, and removals, leaving a pollable constituency on May 18th, 1880, of about 2,000.
Before the reform, most members nominally represented boroughs. The number of electors in a borough varied widely, from a dozen or so up to 12,000.
In 1871, the population of Sandwich was 14,885.
The Act was designed to correct abuses – to “take effectual Measures for correcting divers Abuses that have long prevailed in the Choice of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament”.
Frequently the selection of Members of Parliament (MPs) was effectively controlled by one powerful patron: for example Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk, controlled eleven boroughs.
Criteria for qualification for the franchise varied greatly among boroughs, from the requirement to own land, to merely living in a house with a hearth sufficient to boil a pot.
Not just Sandwich: Other corrupt elections
Sandwich, Walmer and Deal were by no means the only boroughs to have engaged in these practices.
In the same year, the election in Oxford was fought by two Liberal candidates – Sir W. V. Harcourt and Mr. J. W. Chitty, Q.C., and one Conservative – Mr. A.W. Hall.
The Liberals were returned. Harcourt was subsequently made Home Secretary and a further election took place between him and Mr Hall. Hall was elected by a majority of 54.
In near identical circumstances redolent of events in Sandwich, The Liberals complained and presented a petition against the return of Mr. Hall on the ground of bribery, treating, and undue influence, and the hearing took place before Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Manisty, on August 2, 3, and 4, immediately prior to the hearing for the Sandwich election petition which began on 5th August.
Mr. Hall was declared unduly elected, and the Judges reported to the House of Commons that ” they had reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election,” and a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate their existence.
The Oxford election commission lasted 47 days and is full of reports of excessive use of flags and unused committee rooms. You can read the entire report at the link below: