HISTORY


by Phil Scoble


rotten as a very rotten thing. At the time, Dartmouth already had a reputation for


Rotten dartmouth E


lections in 1859 were very different from today: it was dubbed the time of the ‘rotten borough’ and Dartmouth was the site of an election as


corruption. Only 250 people had the vote in Dartmouth – even though the population was more than 5,000 – and this meant it was relatively easy to bribe enough people to win, and gain the prestige and influence offered by a seat in the House of Commons. To get the vote you had to be a man and you had to either be a property owner, or pay a rent of £10 or more a year. The ballot was also not secret – so everyone could find out how you had voted which meant all candidates knew exactly who supported them and where to spend the money to get the votes they needed. In 1837, just five years after the


Parliamentary Reform act which was supposed to stop this kind of behaviour, Joseph somes, one of the country’s richest ship owners, was accused of ‘buying’ an election in Dartmouth with payments of £5 - £50 per vote. He won by just seven votes, and was reported to the House of Commons by his Liberal opponent, George Moffat. Moffat said that not only had somes bought voters


off, he was also a Government contractor buying himself into a position of influence, essentially trying to give himself contracts through the halls of power. The Commons Committee in charge of these decisions decided that somes had not bribed people (because none of those who had received a payment would come forward to testify that they had, in fact, broken the law) and that somes was not, strictly, a contractor when he was elected. Although he did become one immediately after being elected. When somes suddenly died, not long after, Moffat won the subse-


Joseph Somes


Joseph Somes, one of the country’s richest ship owners, was


Dartmouth with


accused of ‘buying’ an election in


payments of £5 - £50 per vote.


quent by-election, by 14 votes. He was then promptly accused of bribing voters himself by his opponent. It seems the question was not if you were corrupt when you stood for election, just how much you could afford to pay. In 1859 Dartmouth was in the grip of a political and ideologi- cal struggle between the traditionalist Conservatives and the modernising Liberals. Charles seale-Hayne, nephew of 16-times Mayor sir Henry Paul seale, was an enthusiastic Liberal. sir Henry, on the other hand, was a staunch Conservative who had supported the election of sir Thomas Herbert, a colourful military man, in 1852. Charles then sued his own uncle – he


Charles Seale-Hayne


said that sir Henry, who had been mayor at the time of the election, had discounted


the votes of 42 residents of Townstal on a technicality. The election was won by only 11 votes and this meant Charles’ action caused a new election the next year. Charles stood against his uncle’s candidate, a man named Caird. sir Henry convinced the largest


ship owner who used the port to state loudly and often that if Caird failed to win he would stop all his ships visiting Dartmouth and would use his influence to stop others doing so too. Charles lost by 30 votes. This caused a rift with his uncle


that was never to heal. When Charles started


energetically pursuing the dream of bringing the railway to Dartmouth, he was fighting, he believed, for the very future of Dartmouth. Ahead


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164