Part 2 (1/2)

Before I exhaust my recollections of Duke-street and its celebrities, I ought not to omit mention of a worthy gentleman who resided in it, and whose name occupied the attention of the public in many ways, in all honourable to himself, as a man, a soldier, and a citizen. I refer to Colonel Bolton, whose mansion in Duke-street, between Suffolk-street and Kent-street (called after, and by Mr. Kent, who lived at the corner of the street, and who also named the streets adjacent after the southern counties), was in bye-gone years the head-quarters of the Tory party in Liverpool, in election times. From the balcony of that house, wherein the utmost hospitality was always exercised, the great statesmen who have represented Liverpool in Parliament--George Canning and William Huskisson--have many a time poured forth the floods of their eloquence, stirring up the heart's-blood of the thousands a.s.sembled in the street to hear them, making pulses beat quicker, and exciting pa.s.sions to fever-heat. Mr. Canning used also to address the electors from Sir Thomas Brancker's house in Rodney-street.

The lengths to which election zeal carried men may be understood, when, during the progress of an election, business was suspended in the town for days and days. Hatred, envy, and malice were engendered. Neighbour was set against neighbour, and I have known many instances where serious divisions in families have taken place when opposite sides in politics have been chosen by the members of such families. It has required years to heal wounds made in family circles, and time in some instances never succeeded in bringing relatives to esteem each other again. The small knot of reformers in this town stuck manfully together and fought their battles well; and if the Tory side could boast of substantial names amongst their ranks, those of Henry Brougham, Egerton Smith, Dr.

Shepherd, Mr. Mulock, Edward Rushton, and many others, occupy a place in the pantheon of worthies who stood forward on all great and public occasions when improvement in the const.i.tution was to be advocated. I recollect a time when it was scarcely wise for a man to confess himself a reformer. At the beginning of this century, when the horrors of the French Revolution were fresh in all men's minds, and knowing so well as we did that there were many mischievous, dangerous, and disaffected people amongst us, ripe and ready to foment and foster broils, bringing anarchy and confusion in their train, it seemed to be the duty of all men who had characters and property to lose, to stick fast to the state as it was, without daring to change anything, however trifling or however necessary. A man was almost thought a traitor to talk of reform or change at one time, for there were not a few influential men who would rather have risen on the ruins of Old England than have fallen with her glory. Ticklish times we had in the beginning of the present century.

On the subject of Reform, it was said that an elector one day meeting Mr.

Brougham in Castle-street, thus accosted him:--”Well, Mister, so you are going to try for Reform again?” ”Yes,” said the great orator, ”and I hope we shall get it.” Elector:--”Very good, Mister, we really do want a reform in parliament, for I think it is a very hard thing that a man can only get a paltry 5 or 10 pounds for his vote. There ought to be some fixed sum--certainly not less than 25 pounds.”

One of the most remarkable election events that has taken place in Liverpool was that in which Messrs. Ewart and Denison were engaged in 1830. Remarkable not only for the vigour with which it was carried on, but for the intense excitement that it created, the number of days it occupied, and also for the enormous sums of money it cost. The bribery that took place on both sides and all sides was really frightful. It was a positive disgrace to humanity. The contest was continued for seven days. While it was carried on business in the town was partly suspended, and all men's thoughts, and acts, and interests, seemed engrossed by the one prevailing subject. On the death of Mr. Huskisson, those interested in political matters set about to look for a successor to represent their interests in parliament. Several distinguished gentlemen were invited to stand; amongst others were Sir Robert Peel, and the Right Hon. Charles Grant, both of whom, however, declined the honour. Mr. Grant had had enough of an election contest to last him for some time, his success at Inverness had only been won by too hard fighting to be lightly thought of; while Sir Robert Peel freely confessed that the duties of Home Secretary were such as to prevent him from devoting sufficient time to the interests of so large and important a const.i.tuency as that of Liverpool.

By the way, I recollect a rather curious anecdote of Mr. Huskisson, which may perhaps not be devoid of interest. About 1834 I was dining on board one of the beautiful American sailing-packets, the _George Was.h.i.+ngton_.

It was only a small party, and amongst others present was the late Sir George Drinkwater, who related the following curious circ.u.mstance connected with Mr. Huskisson:--Sir George told us that the day before the lamentable occurrence took place, which deprived this town of a valuable representative, and the country of so distinguished a statesman, Mr.

Huskisson called upon him at the Town Hall (Sir George being then Mayor), and asked permission to write a letter. While doing so an announcement was made that there was a deputation from Hyde, near Manchester, wis.h.i.+ng to see Mr. Huskisson. ”Oh!” said that gentleman, ”I know what they want; but I will send them back to Hyde with a flea in their ears!” The gentlemen of the deputation having been ushered into the room, they stated their case, to the effect that they solicited Mr. Huskisson to support a pet.i.tion in parliament to enable them to construct a railway between their town and Manchester. They had no sooner stated their errand than Mr. Huskisson, angrily throwing down his pen, in very few words refused their request, winding up his reply with these memorable words--remarkable not only for the fallacy of his then opinions, but also in connection with the calamitous event of the next day--”Gentlemen, I supported the scheme of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester as an experiment, but as long as I have the honour to hold a seat in parliament, _I will never consent to see England gridironed by railways_!” What would Mr. Huskisson say now-a-days, when a map of England shows it not only gridironed, but spread over as with an iron net-work of railroads, that to the eye appear in a state of a inextricable entanglement?

To return to the election of 1830. During seven days the town was kept at fever-heat, each day its intensity becoming heightened. Denison, in his opening address on 'Change, on the 14th October, in appealing to the const.i.tuency for support, avowed himself ent.i.tled to it, not only as being Mr. Huskisson's friend--”the friend of your friend”--but an enthusiastic admirer of his principles. Mr. Denison was son-in-law to the Duke of Portland. Mr. Ewart was a townsman, and a barrister, and had represented the town of Bletchingly (or Bl_ee_ching_ly_, as they call it in Surrey), so that both candidates came well recommended. The writ was moved for in the House of Commons on the 17th November, and received in Liverpool on the Friday following. An army of canva.s.sers was organised on both sides, who plied their vocations in all directions. Mr.

Denison's friends mustered on Tuesday morning, 23rd November, in front of Mr. Bolton's house in Duke-street, and moved in grand procession to the Town Hall. Amongst them were Mr. Bolton, Mr. Gladstone, Sir J. Tobin, Messrs. Wm. Brown, Ritson, Shand, and Garnett. Mr. Ewart's friends met opposite to the Adelphi Hotel. The horses were taken from Mr. Ewart's carriage, which was then drawn by the people. With Mr. Ewart were Messrs. J. Brancker, Hugh Jones, W. Wallace Currie, W. Earle, jun., Hall (barrister), Captain Colquitt, Rev. Wm. Shepherd, etc. The processions were both got up in admirable style; splendid and costly banners and flags of all descriptions were displayed, while ribbons, of which Denison's were scarlet, and Ewart's blue, fluttered in the wind in all directions. The following was the result of the polls. I give it to show how remarkably close the contest was carried on, and how the tide of favour ebbed and flowed: 1st day--Denison, 260; Ewart, 248. 2nd day--Denison, 583; Ewart, 568. 3rd day--Denison, 930; Ewart, 918. 4th day--Denison; 1320; Ewart, 1308. 5th day--Denison, 1700; Ewart, 1688.

6th day--Denison, 2020; Ewart, 2008. 7th day--Denison, 2186; Ewart, 2215. The number of freemen who voted was 4401.

If ever a borough deserved disfranchising, it was Liverpool on that election. The conduct of the freemen was atrocious. I speak of them as a body. The bribery on that occasion was so broad, barefaced, and unblus.h.i.+ngly carried on, as to excite disgust in all thoughtful men's minds. Sums of money 3 to 100 pounds were said to have been given for votes, and I recollect that after the heat of the election had subsided, a list of those who voted was published, with the sums attached, which were paid to and received by each freeman. I have a copy of it in my possession. Whether true or false who can tell? Where there is fire there will be smoke. It is a well-known fact that many of the canva.s.sers never looked behind them after that memorable time, and numbers of tradesmen signally benefited by the money that was spread about with such liberal hands. In some cases money was received by freemen from both parties. In one case I find a man (among the H's) voting for Mr.

Denison, who received 35 and 10 pounds. Amongst the C's was a recipient of 28 and 25 pounds from each side; and another, a Mr. C., took 50 pounds from Denison and 15 pounds from Ewart, the said voter being a chimney-sweeper, and favouring Mr. Denison with the weight of his influence and the honour of his suffrage. In looking over the list I find that the princ.i.p.al recipients of the good things going, were ropers, coopers, sailmakers, and s.h.i.+pwrights. Yet the name of ”merchant” and ”tradesman” not unfrequently occurs in the descriptions of borough voters. Amongst the W's there appears to be scarcely a voter that escaped ”the gold fever.” Amongst others who declined taking any part in the election was Mr. Brooks Yates; he, feeling so disgusted with the veniality of the voters, and the bribery that was going on, publicly protested on the seventh day against the conduct of all parties, and said ”he lifted up his voice against the practice of bribery, which was so glaringly exercised, and which had been carried on by both parties to the utmost extent. The friends of Mr. Ewart had made use of his name to fill up their complement without his authority, and he begged to withdraw it, for he was resolved to remain decidedly neutral. The corruption was so gross and flagrant that he would not give his vote on either side.” It is said that this election cost upwards of 100,000 pounds, of which sum Colonel Bolton supplied 10,000 pounds. Mr. Ewart's family it was understood, entirely furnished his expenses amounting to 65,000 pounds.

Mr. Denison's reached from 47,000 to 50,000 pounds.

Amongst those who addressed the various meetings during the week of the election, and previous to the commencement of the polling, were Mr.

William Rathbone, Mr. Henderson, barrister (afterwards recorder), Rev. W.

Shepherd, Captain Colquitt, Mr. James Brancker (who proposed and seconded Mr. Ewart), and Mr. Falvey. The orators on the part of Mr. Denison were, Mr. Edward Rushton (afterwards stipendiary magistrate), Messrs. Shand, W.

Brown (now Sir William Brown), John Bolton, W. Earle, Leyland, Sir John Tobin, etc. About the fourth day of the election the real excitement commenced, and the baneful system of bribery was resorted to. On the fifth day the prices of votes advanced from 20 to 25 pounds, and as much as 40 to 50 pounds were asked and obtained. It was expected that on the sixth day the contest would close, but it seemed to be then continued with unabated vigour. On the seventh day voters were brought from all parts of England, Scotland, Ireland, and wherever they could be met with.

The tricks played by both parties on voters were most amusing, either to deter or compel them to vote. Nearly four hundred freemen declined or were unable to record their votes.

Even in the elections for mayor the most inconceivable interest was excited, and in one case, that of 1828, between Messrs. Porter and Robinson, from 16,000 to 20,000 pounds, if not a larger sum, was said to have been expended in carrying the day. I recollect a worthy tobacconist, who kept a little shop in the town, who had a vote and was not inclined to sell it cheap. In every insidious way was he a.s.sailed to part with his vote. On the occasion of this election the list of voters was rapidly running out to the last drop; the hour of closing the poll was approaching, and it was found impossible to keep the poll open another day. ”Come, Mr. Pipes, what about your vote?--it's half-past three!” ”Call again in a quarter of an hour.” In this quarter of an hour the little tobacconist's shop was besieged by canva.s.sers on both sides, when the tempting sum of 30 pounds was reached. The cunning little Abel Drugger knew his value, but no higher sum would either party advance. Pipes had, unfortunately, gone into the back part of his shop for a few minutes, when a wag put his clock back thirteen minutes.

Keeping his eye, while in the shop, on the clock, every now and then--although, as he admitted afterwards, it seemed a long quarter of an hour--he still kept off his persecutors. When the hand approached the quarter on the false-telling dial, one canva.s.ser, bolder than the rest, laid 35 pounds on a box of cigars, as the bid for it. But Master Pipes only was sold, for just as he was about to take up the tissue paper bearing the magic name of Henry Hase, St. George's church struck four, and the prize was re-pocketed to the great discomfiture of ”Pipes,” and the merriment of his customers. Of electioneering tricks I could tell a full score.

The practice of the ”Duello” is, happily, now gone quite out of fas.h.i.+on, but in my young days any and every occasion of offence was seized upon as a _casus belli_. Duels were fought on the most frivolous occasions and for the slightest possible affronts, intentional or supposit.i.tious.

This taste has subsided, as well as that for hard drinking. I can remember both being carried to a lamentable state of excess; but these practices have grown out of date. I have seen, thank goodness, other equally salutary improvements in morals, customs, and manners.

Two remarkable hostile meetings, I recollect, took place in Liverpool at the commencement of the present century, and caused an immense sensation, from the known position and high standing of all the parties concerned.

The first duel I shall mention was that between Mr. Sparling, late of St.

Domingo House, Everton, and Mr. Grayson, an eminent s.h.i.+pbuilder. Both gentlemen moved in the first circles of society in the town. It took place on the 24th of February, 1804.

The occasion of the duel was a conversation that occurred in Mr.

Grayson's carriage, between that gentleman and Major Brooks (who was shot by Colonel Bolton in the ensuing year), on their way to dine at Mr.

Grayson's, at Wavertree. Mr. Grayson, it seems, called Mr. Sparling ”a villain,” for breaking off the marriage between himself and a relative of Mr. Grayson's. Major Brooks repeated this conversation to Mr. Sparling, who instantly commenced a correspondence with Mr. Grayson, calling upon him to apologise for his language. This correspondence continued from October until the time the duel was fought--the meeting being the consequence of the unsatisfactory results of the communications between the parties. They met at a place called Knot's Hole, near the sh.o.r.e by the Aigburth-road. Mr. Sparling was attended by Captain Colquitt, commanding the _Princess_ frigate, then in the river. Mr. Grayson's second was Dr. MacCartney. After the fatal shots were fired Mr.

Grayson's servant found his master alone, lying on the ground with his face downwards. He was desperately wounded in the thigh, and was taken back to Liverpool as quickly as possible. He lingered until the following Sunday, when he died. Mr. Sparling and Captain Colquitt were, at the coroner's inquest, found guilty of murder, and were tried at Lancaster, on the 4th of April, before Sir Alan Chambre. Sergeant c.o.c.kle, Attorney-General for the County Palatine of Lancaster, led for the crown; with him were Messrs. Clark and Scarlett (afterwards Sir James); attorneys, Messrs. Ellames and Norris. For the prisoners, Messrs. Park (afterwards Baron Park), Wood, Topping, Rainc.o.c.k, and Heald; attorney, Mr. William Statham.

It came out in evidence during the trial, that the hour of meeting was seven o'clock on Sunday morning, February 24th. Mr. Sparling and Captain Colquitt arrived first at Park Chapel; on alighting the Captain carried the pistol-case, and the two gentlemen went through a gate into a field opposite, to the place of rendezvous. Soon after Dr. MacCartney and Mr.