SHOWELL'S DICTIONARY OF BIRMINGHAM.
203
eloquence and admiring his sterling honesty, though many differed with his opinions. Addresses were early issued by Baron Dickenson Webster and Mr. McGeachy, but both were at once withdrawn when Mr. Bright consented to stand and his address appeared.
1859, April).—At the election of this year, though defeat must have been a foregone conclusion, Mr. Thomas D. Acland waged battle with Messrs. Scholefield and Bright, and the result was:—
| William Scholefield | 4,425 | Returned. | |
| John Bright | 4,282 | ||
| T. D. Acland | 1,544 |
1864, December.—On the death of Mr. Spooner, Mr. Davenport-Bromley, (afterwards Bromley-Davenport) was elected unopposed, and retained his seat until his death, June 15, 1884.
1864.—Householders, whose rates were compounded for by their landlords, had hitherto not been allowed to exercise their right of voting, but the decision given in their favour, Feb. 17, 1864, was the means of raising the number of voters' names on the register to over 40,000.
1865, July.—Whether from fear of the newly-formed Liberal Association (which was inaugurated in February for the avowed purpose of controlling the Parliamentary elections in the borough and adjoining county divisions), or the lack of a sufficiently popular local man, there was no opposition offered to the return of Messrs. Scholefield and Bright at the election of this year.
1867, July.—On the death of Mr. Scholefield, Mr. George Dixon was nominated by the Liberals and opposed by Mr. Sampson S. Lloyd The result was:—
| Geo. Dixon | 5,819 | Returned. |
| S. S. Lloyd | 4,214 |
1868, November.—This was the first election after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1867, by which Birmingham became entitled to send three members to the House of Commons; and as the Bill contained a proviso (generally known as the "minority clause") that each voter should be limited to giving his support to two only of the candidates, an immense amount of interest was taken in the interest that ensued. The Conservatives brought forward Mr. Sampson S. Lloyd and Mr. Sebastian Evans, the Liberal Association nominating Messrs. John Blight, George Dixon and Philip Henry Muntz (brother to the old member G. F. Muntz). The election has become historical from the cleverly-manipulated scheme devised by the Liberal Association, and the strict enforcement of their "vote-as-you're-told" policy, by which, abnegating all personal freedom or choice in the matter the electors under the influence of the Association were moved at the will of the chiefs of their party. That the new tactics were successful is shown by the returns:—
| George Dixon | 15,188 | Returned. | |
| P. H. Muntz | 14,614 | ||
| John Bright | 14,607 | ||
| S. S. Lloyd | 8,700 | ||
| S. Evans | 7,061 |
1868, Dec. 21.—Mr. Bright having been appointed President of the Board of Trade, was re-elected without opposition. He held office till the close of 1870, but for a long time was absent from Parliament through illness
1873, Aug. 6.—Mr. John Jaffray, one of the proprietors of the Daily Post, contested East Staffordshire against Mr. Allsopp, but he only obtained 2,893 votes, as against Mr. Allsopp's 3.630.
1873, Oct. 18.—Soon after recovery of health Mr. Bright returned to his seat, and being appointed to the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was re-elected in due course.
