Even in sleepy 19th century Bridport, politics was a controversial topic.  For nearly 600 years, Bridport had returned two Members of Parliament.  In 1868, the constituency was reduced to a single MP, and in 1885 it was absorbed into a new constituency of West Dorset.

At the beginning of the 19^th century, the election of Members of Parliament was a very different process from today.  Those entitled to vote presented themselves to the Town Clerk, identified themselves, showed proof that they were entitled to vote, and then indicated which two candidates they wished to vote for.  They also had the option of voting for just one candidate only, known as ‘plumping’.  The voting could take place over several days;  each vote was recorded, along with the name of the voter.  At the end of the election this allowed the candidates, on payment of a fee, to see how each individual had cast their vote.  Secret Ballot it was not!  The Bridport Local History Centre has a copy of the 1832 election showing how the results were recorded.

Why should candidates be interested in who did or didn’t vote for them?  The History of Parliament Online website for the years 1820 to 1830 gives us a clue.  It describes Bridport as “open and venal”, and suggests that, for a long time, it had “defied management”.  It seems it cost a lot of money to be elected as an MP in the early 1800s:  in 1818 one candidate notched up expenses of about £2,500, which he itemised as payments to 157 voters and 3 plumpers of £10 each.  These costs, which rose in later contests to £20 or £30 per voter, were seen as a voter’s right.  Indeed, the Sherborne Journal reported in 1831 that, in a meeting at the Antelope Inn, 160 electors had decided to exclude the sitting member of Parliament at the next election unless they were paid the £10 due for their support at the last one!

One further incident occurred in 1835, following the introduction of the Municipal Corporations Act, when the Town Clerk, Edwin Nicholetts was accused of corruption. The judge at the hearing expressed the opinion that, although Nicholetts’ interpretation of the new Act was faulty, he was doubtful whether corruption could be proved. The jury dismissed the case without hearing the defence, but the evidence does give us a clear description of the voting process.  Each candidate could inspect any or every vote on payment of one shilling per vote.  (Nicholetts had insisted this be paid in coin for each vote inspected, and would not allow candidates to pay up front in the form of a bank note!)

The Great Reform Bill of 1832 generated considerable discussion.  Bridport seemed likely to be reduced to a single MP, but the Boundaries Commission decided that, by including parts of Bradpole and Allington in the Municipal Borough, the size of the Borough was sufficient for two MPs.  There was a difference of opinion between the Borough’s returning officers and the Commissioner.  The returning officers suggested that there were 13 houses that were part of the borough but outside the parish.  The Commissioner decided that, by including Allington, and the parts of Bradpole close to the Borough, there were 254.  The resulting proposal to make the parish boundary the same as the Municipal Borough was strongly resisted by Allington and Bradpole parishes, and was eventually rejected.

Another feature of the 19^th Century was the use of handbills and satirical verse to spread messages.  Bridport fostered some interesting examples over the Bridport Railway and the state of the water supply.  Another one with the title ‘Boroughmongering’ was produced to encourage support of the 1832 Reform Bill, and makes interesting reading!

P.S. in case you were wondering, as I was, Dr Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary states that ‘bum-bailiff’ is a corruption of the term ‘bound bailiff’, a bailiff employed in arrests!

Graham Avis- Research Volunteer

(adapted from an article original published in The Bridport Times)

All of the information included in this article is correct to the best of our knowledge. However, if you believe anything is incorrect, or would like to submit further information, then don’t hesitate to get in touch.