THE privilege of sending representatives to parliament was first granted to Tewkesbury by the charter of King James the first, in 1609, and the right^[347] has been uniformly exercised from that time to the present, with the exception of a short period during the usurpation of Cromwell. No borough can with greater propriety be denominated an independent one. In few places is the general body of electors so respectable, and in still fewer open boroughs are they less prone to change their representatives, after their election has been once decided. "The right of election is in the freemen at large,^[348] and in all

persons seized of an estate of freehold, in an entire dwelling-house,^[349] within the ancient limits of the borough;^[350] "who, in the whole, probably amount to about six hundred voters. The bailiffs are the returning officers. The representatives are elected in the town-hall; but in cases of opposition, after the business has been opened in the hall, the polling is adjourned to temporary hustings in front of the building.

Immediately after the granting of the charter, in 1609, a writ was issued, and Sir Dudley Digges, knight,^[351] and Edward

Ferrers, esq.^[352] were chosen the first representatives for Tewkesbury, and retained their seats during the remaining five years of the first parliament of King James the first.

The following is a list of the representatives, from that period to the present:

At the election of members for this parliament, by historians called the "long parliament", which met Nov. 3, 1640, four persons were returned for this borough, viz. Sir Edward Alford, knight, and John Craven, esq. (who was created Lord Craven, of Ryton, Salop, Mar. 21, 1622), in one indenture, and Sir Robert Cooke, knight, and Edward Stephens, esq. in another indenture. A committee was immediately afterwards appointed to investigate this double return; upon the

recommendation of this committee, the house of commons resolved, that neither of the members should take their seats until the election was determined; and agreed, that Mr. Thomas Hale, one of the bailiffs of the borough, should be sent for, by the serjeant at arms, as a delinquent, for his conduct respecting such double return. He was in consequence taken to London, and detained in custody for nearly a month. The House subsequently declared the election to be totally void, ordered a new writ for the borough, and recommended the committee to prepare a bill to prevent inconveniences at elections at Tewkesbury in future; it does not appear that this recommendation was carried into effect. At the second election, a double return was again made: the bailiffs under their seal, returned Sir Robert Cooke and Sir Edward Alford, knights, and the inhabitants returned Sir Robert Cooke, knight, and Edward Stephens, esq. Another parliamentary committee was appointed, in 1643, when the election of Sir Edward Alford was declared void, in consequence of his having previously taken his seat as member for Arundel; and the House afterwards "commanded the clerk of the crown to appear at the bar, and there to take off the writ from the indenture returned by the bailiffs, and to fix it to the indenture returned by the inhabitants".^[359] In a MS. book, belonging to the Tewkesbury Feoffees, is the following entry, made in 1640. "The 3rd Nov. the parliament began, and we had great difference about our burgesses, two being returned by one bailiff and two by another; and so the election was quashed, because we admitted some that we should not to give voices, and not resolved whether that election should be by freemen only or all that inhabitate, (except almsmen)". At the latter end of the year 1645, John Craven, esq. member for Tewkesbury, was "expelled the House, for deserting the parliament and going to the king".^[360] He must have been a son of Lord Craven,

and perhaps elected on the death of Sir Robert Cooke, which happened in the August preceding. John Stephens, esq. at one period of the long parliament, sat as member for Tewkesbury, having been returned in the place of his brother Edward, who died in Dec. 1643.

Cromwell, having rudely broken up the "long parliament" on the 20th of April, 1653, took immediate steps to supply its place with a legislative assembly of his own construction. With the concurrence of his council of officers, he nominated one hundred and forty-four persons - one hundred and twenty-two for the English counties and cities, six for Wales, six for Ireland, and five for Scotland: Lambert, Harrison, Disbrowe, Tomlinson, and Cromwell himself, completing the one hundred and forty-four. In this convention, called by Hume, "Barebone's parliament", but more frequently designated "the little parliament", which assembled on the 5th of July, 1653, and was dissolved by the army on the 12th of December following, no members were returned for Tewkesbury.

This convention, which assembled on Sunday, Sept. 3, 1654, was found so unmanageable, that Cromwell suddenly dissolved it on the 22d of January following, and took the government into his own hands. Sir A.A. Cooper was chosen for this borough, but being also returned for Wiltshire, he made his election for that county; in his place, Francis St. John, eldest son of the Lord Chief Justice St. John, was elected for Tewkesbury, but, it is said, never took his seat. Only one member was returned for Tewkesbury in this or the following parliament.

In the third protectorate parliament, which met Sept. 17, 1656, and was dissolved Feb. 4, 1658, Valentine Disbrowe, esq.

(a son of General Disbrowe, brother-in-law of Oliver Cromwell), was first returned for Tewkesbury;^[362] but Mr. White represented it during the greater part of this "mock parliament".

In this convention, called "Richard's parliament",^[364] the Right Hon. John Thurloe, principal secretary of state during the protectorates of the Cromwells, who had been chief justice of the common pleas in the latter part of the reign of the unfortunate Charles, was chosen to represent this borough. He was also returned, at the same time, for the university of Cambridge, for the borough of Wisbech, and also for Huntingdon; he made his election for the university. Although the Secretary declined the honour intended for him by the electors

of Tewkesbury, it is not improbable that the two individuals who sat for this borough were nominated by him.^[365]

This is by some called the "convention parliament", and by others the "healing parliament", because it was sitting at the return of King Charles, and sanctioned his restoration.

This was called the "pensionary parliament", because it was discovered that many of the members received pensions from the court. Rapin observes, it may be judged how favourable it was to the king, since it continued almost eighteen years, on which account it was more justly called the "long parliament", than that of 1640.- On the death of Mr. Dowdeswell, Sir Francis Russell, bart. was elected in his room, Nov. 1, 1673. From a letter of Mr. Hill, the town-clerk, then in London, addressed to "Mr. Thomas Jeynes, at his house in the Barton-street, Tewkesbury", it appears that Charles Dowdeswell, esq. wished to obtain the vacant seat in the corporation interest; but that the Bishop of Worcester and many others had written to the Lord Chancellor on behalf of Sir Francis Russell. The friends of both parties used every effort to obtain the writ clandestinely from the chancellor; and Sir Francis kept a man and horse ready in London, for the purpose of conveying

it to Tewkesbury the moment it was sealed. His lordship, being apprised of his intention, and being "willing to do right to both parties", sent it unknown to them, by a special messenger, directed to the high sheriff of the county of Gloucester. Mr. Hill, in the epistle before alluded to, points out by what mode some additional freeholders may be made to serve Mr. Dowdeswell; he himself offers to convey some premises for that purpose, observing, "if 'twill do no good, 'twill do no harm": and he finally expresses an ardent hope that, if possible, Mr. Jeynes "may make a good bargain for them all". The return, in 1673, is the first in which "freemen" are mentioned.

A little before this election, the old representatives granted to the electors a release of all demands for wages, &c.^[367]

King James the second, who appears never to have neglected an opportunity of abridging the elective franchise, by his charter, granted in 1686, made Tewkesbury a close borough: he not only confined the liberty of choosing representatives to the corporation, but reserved to himself in council the power of removing at pleasure every member of that body.

This convention met Jan. 22, 1688-9, agreeably to letters issued by the Prince of Orange, and was "turned into a parliament" at its first meeting after the accession of William and Mary. This election was long and severely contested; the number of voters who polled amounted to about three hundred and fifty.

Upon Sir H. Capel being raised to the peerage, in 1692, Sir Francis Wilmington, knight,^[369] was elected to succeed him in the representation of this borough.

Sir Richard Cocks, bart. of Dumbleton, who was high-sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1692, and knight of the shire in three successive parliaments in the reign of King William, presented a petition to the house of commons against the return of Sir Francis Wilmington. Sir Richard complained, that his opponent had threatened to turn those persons out of their houses who had voted for the petitioner, unless they withdrew their votes; that he had detained the town-book, and had been guilty of other undue practices.^[370] It is supposed that this petition was withdrawn, as the House appears to have come to no determination on the case.

It is said that, until this election, no freeholders were permitted to vote, excepting those who possessed front houses in one of the three principal streets.

On the death of Mr. Ireton, in 1711, William Dowdeswell, esq. was elected in his stead.

On the death of Mr. C. Dowdeswell, in 1714, Anthony Lechmere, esq. was elected. Edward Popham, esq. of Tewkesbury-Lodge, was a candidate, and petitioned against the return.

Mr. A. Lechmere having vacated his seat, his brother, Nicholas Lechmeie, esq.^[374] was chosen in his place, on the 25th of June,

1717. Tn March following, the latter gentleman was re-elected, he having accepted a place of profit under his majesty. On Mr. Lechmere being raised to the peerage, the Hon. Thomas Lord Viscount Gage,^[375] was elected, Oct. 25, 1721. He was opposed by George Reade, esq. who presented a petition against the return of Lord Gage, alleging that the bailiffs had objected to many legal votes tendered by the petitioner, and permitted great tumults and disorders in the town, which they refused to quell, and thereby prevented many other voters from polling for him; but the petition was afterwards withdrawn.

In the first session of this parliament, Thomas Reade, esq. petitioned against the return; he renewed his petition in the second sessions; but eventually withdrew it.

At this election, John Martin, esq. of Overbury, opposed the successful candidates: the numbers at the close of the poll were - for Mr. Tracy, 287; Lord Gage, 279; and Mr. Martin, 232.

Lord Gage, and his son, the Hon. Lieut.-Colonel Gage,^[378] were candidates at this election, and presented a petition against the return. Lord Gage dying soon afterwards, his son obtained leave of the House to withdraw the petition, Jan. 1755. At the close of the poll, the numbers were - for Mr. Calvert, 252; Mr. Martin, 246; Lord Gage, 117; and Colonel Gage, 94. Immediately after the election, Lord Gage published a pamphlet, entitled "A Letter to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and others, Voters for the Borough of Tewkesbury": this was a remonstrance on an illegal association of the electors to sell their votes to mend their roads.

James Martin, esq. was elected in 1776, on the death of his brother Joseph. It appears that Nicholas Hyett, esq. of Painswick, was anxious that his son should have been returned for this borough at the general election in 1774.^[379]

John Embury, esq. of Twyning, formerly of Lincoln's Inn, having without effect endeavoured to induce the corporation to nominate Thomas Dowdeswell, esq. or some other fit person, in lieu of Sir William Codrington, at length offered himself as a candidate. The polling continued two days, at the close of which Mr. Embury resigned, and the numbers were - Mr. Martin, 266; Sir Wm. Codrington, 210; and Mr. Embury, 150. Objections having been made, at the commencement of the election, to voters who had recently become possessed of

tenements, it was agreed that no freeholder should be allowed to poll unless the house for which he claimed the right had been conveyed twelve months before the time of tendering his vote. The returning officers, by the advice of Mr. Stratford, their counsel, adopted this resolution, in consequence of its being notoriously known that Sir Wm. Codrington had conveyed nearly one hundred and fifty houses, without any consideration money being paid, for the mere purpose of creating votes; and that Mr. Embury and his friends had by similar means obtained between fifty and sixty supporters. The usage, antecedent to this election, had uniformly been to admit all persons to vote in respect of their freeholds, without reference to the length of time they had possessed them.

In consequence of the death of Sir Wm. Codrington, in 1792, a strong contest was threatened. Wm. Dowdeswell, esq. then a captain in the guards, immediately declared himself a candidate; John Embury, esq. again came forwards; and the Rev. William Smith pledged himself for the appearance at the hustings of the late Peter Moore, esq. many years member for Coventry, whom he publicly announced as a "Bengal Nabob", who would be content to expend the sum of £.20,000 or £.30,000, if he could apply it for the benefit of the electors of Tewkesbury. Mr. Moore himself subsequently canvassed the town; the society of Friends also introduced and supported Thomas Lloyd, esq. of Cilgwyn, Glamorganshire, a captain in the navy. The whole of the candidates however soon retreated, with the exception of Captain Dowdeswell, who was elected to succeed his venerable relative.

On this occasion, there were three candidates, besides the gentlemen returned, viz. John Embury, esq. who, as in a former instance, declined before the day of election; Peter Moore, esq. who had for some years been courting popularity among the lower classes of freemen and others; and Philip

Francis, esq. (son of Dr. Philip Francis, the translator of Horace and Demosthenes), who had been one of the members in council for the government of Bengal: he was afterwards created a knight of the bath, elected M.P. for Appleby, and distinguished himself in parliament at the impeachment of Governor Hastings. Party feeling and animosity were carried to a very great excess at this election, and the effects were not speedily forgotten. The hustings were erected in front of the town-hall, and the polling commenced on Wednesday the 25th, and ended on Monday the 30th of May; four hundred and thirteen persons voted. The following were the numbers for each candidate: Mr. Martin, 296; Mr. Dowdeswell, 296; Mr. Moore, 168; and Mr. Francis, 100. Messrs. Moore and Francis insisted that no honorary freeman had a right to vote, and that the charter of the borough granted the privilege to the whole of the inhabitants who paid "scot and lot"; and upon the votes of the latter being rejected by the returning officers, the unsuccessful candidates presented a petition to the house of commons against the return. The petitioners contended that the right of election was in the bailiffs, burgesses and commonalty; meaning, by the word burgesses, such persons as were entitled to their freedom by servitude or copy; and, by the word commonalty, the inhabitant householders generally;^[380]

and the sitting members stated that the right of election was in the freemen, and in persons seized of an estate of freehold in an entire dwelling-house within the borough. The committee negatived both these statements, and determined that the right of election was in the freemen at large, and in persons seized of an estate of freehold, in an entire dwelling-house, within the ancient limits of the borough. They also declared that the sitting members were duly elected; and that that part of the petition which related to the conduct of the returning officers was frivolous and vexatious.^[381] It is said, that the committee were so equally divided in opinion, as to whether the right of election were vested in the freemen and the proprietors of freehold dwelling-houses or in the freemen only, that the casting vote of the chairman decided the question. - In this contest, freeholders were allowed to vote, without reference to the length of time they had been in possession, if they were bona fide purchasers of the houses for which they claimed the right; but in every instance the returning officers, by the advice of Mr. Whitcombe their assessor, required to be satisfied of the reality of the purchase.

In 1797, Christopher Codrington, esq. (now Sir C.B. Codrington, bart.) was elected in the room of his cousin,

Colonel Dowdeswell, who had been appointed governor of the Bahama islands. He was opposed by Peter Moore, esq. one of the candidates at the prior election; George Tollet, esq. now, of Betley Hall, Staffordshire; and William Dowdeswell, esq. the then recorder of the borough. The latter gentleman relinquished his pretensions before the day of election; and the others, who grounded their hopes of success in a great measure upon the supposed ineligibility of Mr. Codrington, soon gave up the contest. Mr. Codrington polled 134; Mr. Moore, 52; and Mr. Tollet, 11. Mr. Codrington's opponents asserted that he was in reality one of the bailiffs of the borough, and consequently a returning officer, although Mr. Jenkins ostensibly filled the situation; and Mr. Moore, on this ground, presented a petition to the house of commons complaining of an undue return. When the petition came before the select committee, appointed to investigate its merits, it was so evident, even from Mr. Moore's witnesses, that there was no foundation for the complaint, that his own counsel declined to proceed further than the second day; upon which the committee resolved, that Mr. Codrington was duly elected, and that the petition was frivolous and vexatious. Could Mr. Moore, on this occasion, have obtained a majority of freemen in his favour, it was his intention to have petitioned the House to set aside the decision of the committee on the last election, and to have confined the right of voting to freemen only. Previously to the arrival of the day fixed upon for this election, it was discovered that the bailiffs had, contrary to the provisions of the Act of 25 Geo. III. caused the proclamation to be made at too late an hour in the day; in consequence, the election was postponed, and application made to the House for another writ.^[382]

Charles Hanbury Tracy, esq. of Todington, having been invited by a numerous body of electors to offer himself in opposition to Mr. Codrington, the Hon. Henry Augustus Berkeley Craven was induced to signify his intention of becoming a candidate, in case the peace of the borough were disturbed; and Walter Honeywood Yate, esq. proceeded to a canvas. Mr. Tracy declined to come forward, and the other gentlemen severally relinquished their pretensions before the day of election.

John Martin, esq. was a candidate, at this election, to succeed his worthy father; and great spirit was manifested by all parties during the contest. The polling continued for two days, at the close of which Mr. Martin very honourably retired. The numbers were - for Mr. Codrington, 229; Mr. Tracy, 220; and Mr. Martin, 124.

Previously to this election, Samuel Whitcombe, esq. of Gloucester, (who was shortly afterwards knighted by the Prince Regent), avowed himself a candidate, in opposition to Charles Hanbury Tracy, esq. When the latter gentleman made public his intention of retiring from parliament, Mr. Whitcombe seized that opportunity of abandoning his views, which before this he had discovered could not be realized. He declared that, as he had accomplished his only object, which was the defeat of Mr. Tracy, he should not oppose the two new candidates. The friends of Mr. Tracy lost no time in publicly denying that he had been induced to resign in consequence of the threat of Mr. Whitcombe, though its improbability rendered a refutation thereof altogether unnecessary. When Mr. Codrington announced his determination not to offer

himself again to represent the borough, the body corporate, and a respectable party of the electors, severally voted thanks to him, "for the manly, upright and independent manner in which he discharged the studies of that important station during four successive parliaments". The numerous friends of Mr. Tracy also, on his secession, unanimously agreed, at a public meeting, to present him an address, and a piece of plate of one hundred guineas value, "as a small token of the respect and esteem which the electors of Tewkesbury will ever entertain of his determined and manly exertions to stem the torrent of corruption, and his zealous endeavours to check the wanton and lavish expenditure of the public money". A most elegant cup was accordingly presented, on the 30th of August, 1813, on which was engraven the following inscription: "To Charles Hanbury Tracy, esq. late M.P. for the Borough of Tewkesbury, the undaunted advocate of civil and religious liberty, as a token of respect, from his constituents".