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.

In its 396 pages and 22,000 lines of testimony given by more than 1150 witnesses, It details the unparalleled level of bribery and corruption that took place in May 1880 during a by-election, called after one of the two sitting Liberal MPs was made a peer.

With the Liberals having held both seats for years, the Conservatives had all but given up ever having any prospect of winning in the Borough. They seized their chance and despatched their chosen candidate to claim his prize. He won the election with 1145 votes to the Liberal’s 705.

The losing candidate petitioned successfully for the result to be examined with the result that the election result was declared void and the seat remained vacant until 1885 when further reforms were introduced.

The conduct of the election which is the subject of the present inquiry is distinguished from all others which we have had to deal with, in that both the requirements and the prohibitions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts seem to have been totally disregarded from first to last.
Mr Justice Lush, Sandwich Election Petition, Aug 1880

Background

Prior to the introduction of the 1832 Reform Act, voting in the Parliamentary Borough of Sandwich was limited to Freemen, regardless of whether they were resident in the town. In 1831 this amounted to 955 qualified voters of which only 320 lived there. Despite the Act widening the eligibility to vote, the residency requirements reduced its qualifying voters to 916,  making it too small to warrant its two MPs. Boundary changes however extended the Borough to include the two parishes of Deal and Walmer. By the time of the 1880 General Election, eligible voters numbered 2115.

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.

Sandwich, even with Deal and Walmer thrown in, is not a place of much importance, but as regards bribery it holds a position which is exceptional, even among corrupt constituencies.
The Spectator. 26th February 1881

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.