Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham Part 31

~Park Road.~--Leading over the hill from Aston Cross to Aston Church, was the first laid out, and the first opened to the public (Easter Monday, 1855) through the old grounds belonging to the Holts.

~Parks.~--Thanks to the munificence of Miss Ryland, Lord Calthorpe, Sir Charles Adderley, and Mr. W. Middlemore, with the concurrent generosity of the Church authorities, in whom the freehold of our churchyards was invested, Birmingham cannot be said to be short of parks and public grounds, though with all put together the area is nothing like that taken from the inhabitants under the Enclosures Acts of last century.

The first movement for the acquisition of public parks took the shape of a town's meeting, Dec. 22, 1853, when the burgesses approved the purchase, and in 1854 an Act was obtained for the formation thereof. The first to be opened was Adderley Park, Aug. 30, 1856, the gift of Sir Charles Adderley. Its area is 10A. Or. 22P., and it is held nominally on a 999 years' lease, at a rental of 5s. per year. Calthorpe Park was opened June 1, 1857; its area being 31A. 1R. 13P., and it is held under a grant by the Calthorpe family that is equivalent to a conveyance in fee. Aston Park was opened Sept. 22, 1864; its area is 49A. 2R. 8P., and it belongs to the town by purchase. Cannon Hill Park, the gift of Miss Ryland, was opened Sept. 1, 1873; its area being 57A. 1R. 9P. In 1874, the Town Council gave the Trustees of Holliers' Charity the sum of 8,300 for the 8A. 8R. 28P. of land situated between the Moseley Road and Alcester Street, and after expending over 5,400 in laying out, fencing, and planting, opened it as Highgate Park June 2, 1876. In 1876 Summerfield House and grounds covering 12A. 0R. 20P. were purchased from Mr. Henry Weiss for 9,000, and after fencing, &c., was thrown open as Summerfield Park, July 29, 1876. In the following year, Mr. William Middlemore presented to the town a plot of ground, 4A. 1R. 3p. in extent, in Burbury Street, having spent about 3,500 in fencing and laying it out, princ.i.p.ally as a recreation ground for children (the total value being over 12,000), and it was opened as Hockley Park, December 1, 1877.--Small Heath Park, comprising 41A. 3R. 34p., is another of the gifts of Miss Ryland, who presented it to the town June 2, 1876, and in addition provided 4,000 of the 10,000 the Town Council expended in laying it out. The formal opening ceremony took place April 5, 1879. There are still several points of the compa.s.s directing to suburbs which would be benefited by the appropriation of a little breathing place or two, and possibly in due time they will be acquired.

The Nech.e.l.ls people have had laid out for their delectation the waste ground near the gas works which may be called Nech.e.l.ls Park for the time being. The Earl of Dartmouth in June, 1878, gave 56 acres out of Sandwell Park to the inhabitants of West Bromwich, and they call it Dartmouth Park.

~Park Street~ takes its name from the small park or wood surrounding Park House, once existing somewhere near to the burial ground.

~Park Street Gardens~--As they are now called, comprise the Park Street Burial Ground and St. Bartholomew's Churchyard, the possession of which (under a nominal lease for 999 years) was given by the Rectors of St.

Martin's and St. Bartholomew's to the Corporation according to the provisions of the Closed Burial Grounds Act. The whole area included a little over five acres, and the size thus given was valued at 50,000.

About half an acre was devoted to the widening of the surrounding streets, the remainder being properly fenced in and laid out as recreating grounds and gardens. The opening ceremony took place, June 25, 1880.

~Parliamentary Elections.~--Notwithstanding the safeguards provided by the Ballot Act, and all the deterrent measures enacted against bribery and intimidation, and those peculiar tactics known as "getting up steam," the period of an election for Parliamentary representatives is a time of great excitement even in these days. But it is comparatively naught to what it used to be, when the art of kidnapping Tory voters, or "bottling" Whigs, was considered as only a small part of the education required by aspiring political agents. Leading burly prizefighters to clear the hustings on nomination day, upsetting carriages containing voters going to poll, and such like practical jokes were all _en regle_, and as such "goings-on" were to be found as much on the one side as the other, neither party's pot had a right to call the opponent's kettle black. Prior to the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the borough, one of the most exciting elections in which the Brums had been engaged was that for the county of Warwick in 1774, when Sir Charles Holte, of Aston Hall, was returned. The nomination took place Oct. 13, the candidates being Mr.

s.h.i.+pworth (a previous member), Mr. (afterwards Lord) Mordaunt, and Sir Charles, who for once pleased the Birmingham folks by calling himself an "Independent." The polling, which commenced on the 20th, was continued for ten days, closing on the 31st, and as Mr. Mordaunt had the lead for many days the excitement was intense, and the rejoicings proportionate at the end when the local candidate came in with flying colours. The voting ran:--s.h.i.+pwith, 2,954; Holte, 1,845; Mordaunt, 1,787.--A Birmingham man was a candidate at the next great county contest, forty-six years after. This was Mr. Richard Spooner, then (1820) a young man and of rather Radical tendencies. His opponent, Mr. Francis Lawley, was of the old-fas.h.i.+oned Whig party, and the treatment his supporters received at the hands of the Birmingham and Coventry people was disgraceful. Hundreds of special constables had to be sworn in at Warwick during the fourteen days' polling, business being suspended for days together, but Radical Richard's roughs failed to influence the election, as Mr. Lawley obtained 2,153 votes against Mr. Spooner's 970.

As Mr. Spooner grew older he became more prominent in commercial circles, and was peculiarly _au fait_ in all currency matters, but he lost his hold on local electors by turning to the Conservative side of politics. Of this he was more than once reminded in after years, when speaking in the Town Hall, by individuals taking off their coats, turning them inside out, and having put them on again, standing prominently in front of "Yellow d.i.c.k" as they then called him.

That the inhabitants of Birmingham, so rapidly increasing in numbers and wealth, should be desirous of direct representation in the House of Commons, could be no wonder even to the most bigoted politicians of the last and early part of the present century. Possibly, had there been '91 Riots, nor quite so much "tall talk," the Legislature might have vouchsafed us a share in the manufacture of our country's laws a little earlier than they did, and the attempt to _force_ a member through the doors of the House could not have added to any desire that may have existed in the minds of the gentlemen inside to admit the representative of Birmingham. The Newhall Hill meeting of July 12th, 1819, may be reckoned as the first pitched battle between the invaders and defenders of the then existing Parliamentary Const.i.tution. The appointment of Sir Charles Wolesey as "Legislatorial Attorney and Representative," with instructions to take his seat as M.P. for the town (and many so styled him), even though made at a meeting of 20,000 would-be electors, does not appear to have been the wisest way to have gone to work, notwithstanding the fact that Sir Charles himself said _he_ had no doubt of their right to send him up as their Member. Prosecution of the leaders followed, as a matter of course, and if the twenty-and-odd-thousands of the local Conservative electors of to-day were thus to try to obtain _their_ due share of representation in the House, most likely the leaders of such a movement would be as liberally dealt with. The "battle of freedom," as the great Reform movement came to be called, has often been described, and honour been given to all who took part in it. The old soldiers of the campaign should be allowed, if they choose, to "fight their battles o'er again," as long as they live, but it is about time that the hatchet of party spite, (hitherto so freely used in local political warfare) was buried out of sight, and all sides be as willing to give equal rights as their fathers were to fight for theirs. Birmingham, however, was not without _some_ friends in Parliament, and on the occasion of the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the borough of East Retford in 1827, it was proposed by Mr. Charles Tennyson that the two seats thus voided should be given to Birmingham. Mr. George Attwood was High Bailiff at the time, and he at once called a public meeting to support Mr. Tennyson's proposition by pet.i.tion. The Public Office was not large enough for those who attended the meeting (June 22, 1827) and they adjourned to Beardsworth's Repository, where speeches were delivered by the leading men of all parties. Pet.i.tions to both Houses were drawn up and signed, the county members, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale and Francis Lawley, Esqrs., being asked to introduce the one to the House of Commons, and Lord Dudley and Ward (Baron of Birmingham) and Lord Calthorpe to support the pet.i.tioners' prayer in the Upper House.

Mr. Tennyson (who afterwards took the name of D'Eyncourt) brought in his Bill, but notwithstanding all that could be said or done by the friends of the town they were outvoted (March 21, 1828), and the Bill was thrown out. The next four years were full of trouble, and the news of the pa.s.sing of the Reform Bill (June 7, 1832), which at last gave Birmingham its long-sought political rights was most welcome indeed. The first election day was fixed for December 12, and for some time it was rumoured that Mr. Richard Spooner would stand in opposition to Messrs.

Thomas Attwood and Joshua Scholefield, the chosen representatives of the Liberals; but the Conservative party, deeming it but right that those who had borne the brunt of the const.i.tutional fight should be allowed the first honours of the local victory, declined to oppose those gentlemen, and they were accordingly returned without opposition. The hustings had been erected on a plot of land opposite the Public Offices and here the nominations took place at the early hour of 8 a.m. The proceedings were over by nine o'clock, but the "victory," as the popular party chose to consider it, did not satisfy them, and as there was an election on at Walsall the same day it was determined that the Birmingham Liberals should go there to help Mr. Bosco Attwood in his contest with Mr. Foster. A procession of some thousands, with bands and banners, according marched the whole of the distance so Walsall, and if their behaviour there represented what they were prepared to do at home had they not been allowed to have their own way, it was well for Birmingham they were not opposed. Long before evening this town was in the most fearful excitement, the pa.s.sengers and guards of the various coaches which had pa.s.sed through Walsall bringing the direst news of fire and riot, mixed with reports of the military being called out and firing on the people, numbers being killed, &c. Fortunately there was much exaggeration in these tales, and by degrees most of the Birmingham men found their way home, though many were in sad plight through the outrageous behaviour of themselves and the "victorious" crew who went off so gaily with them in the morning. The elections in after years may be briefly chronicled.

1835.--At the general election, which occurred this year, the Town Hall was first used as the place of nomination (Jan. 7th). During the proceedings the front of the great gallery gave way and precipitated those sitting there on to the heads of the people below, but providentially, the injuries received were not of a serious character.

Mr. R. Spooner was most impatiently heard, and the show of hands was decidedly against him. The state of the poll showed:--

Thomas Attwood 1,718 votes } Joshua Scholefidd 1,660 " } Returned.

Richard Spooner 915 "

1837, August.--At this election the late sitting members were opposed by Mr. A. G. Stapleton, but unsuccessfully, the voting being

Thomas Attwood .. 2,145 } Joshua Scholefield .. 2,114 }Returned.

A.G. Stapleton .. 1,046

1840, January.--Mr. Attwood having resigned, Sir Charles Wetherell appeared in the Conservative interest against Mr. G.F. Muntz. Mr. Joseph Sturge, who also issued an address to the electors, retiring on the solicitation of his friends, on the understanding that the whole Liberal party would support him at the next vacancy. The result was in favour of Mr. Muntz, thus--

Geo. Fred. Muntz .. 1,454--Returned.

Sir C. Wetherell .. 915

1841, July.--Mr. Richard Spooner, who opposed Messrs. Muntz and Scholefield, was again defeated, through receiving the suffrages of double the number of electors who voted for him in 1835. The returns were--

Geo. Fred. Muntz .. 2,176 } Joshua Scholefield .. 1,963 }Returned.

Richard Spooner .. 1,825

1857, March.--The same gentlemen were again returned without opposition.

1857, August.--On the death of Mr. Muntz, though the names of George Dawson and others were whispered, the unanimous choice fell upon Mr.

John Bright, "the rejected of Manchester," and it may be truly said he was at that time the chosen of the people. Birmingham men of all shades of politics appreciating his eloquence and admiring his sterling honesty, though many differed with his opinions. Addresses were early issued by Baron d.i.c.kenson Webster and Mr. M'Geachy, 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 } John Bright .. .. ..4,282 }Returned.

T.D. Acland .. .. ..1,544

1864, December.--On the death of Mr. Spooner, Mr. Davenport-Bromley, (afterwards Bromley-Davenport) was elected un-opposed, 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 a.s.sociation (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 pa.s.sing of the Reform Bill of 1867, by which Birmingham became ent.i.tled 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 a.s.sociation nominating Messrs. John Bright, 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 a.s.sociation, 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 a.s.sociation 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 } P.H. Muntz .. .. .. 14,614 }Returned.

John Bright .. .. .. 14,601 } 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 Staffords.h.i.+re 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.

1874, Jan. 30.--No opposition was made to the re-election of Messrs.

Bright, Dixon, and Muntz.

1876, June 27.--Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was elected without opposition on the resignation of Mr. Dixon.

1880, March 31.--Though free from all the rioting and possible bloodshed that would have attended such an occasion a hundred years ago, the election of 1880 was the most exciting and hardest-fought battle between the two great political parties of the town yet recorded in local history. The candidates were Messrs. John Bright, Joseph Chamberlain and Philip Henry Muntz, the previous members and nominees of the Liberal a.s.sociation, and Major Burnaby and the Hon. A.C.G. Calthorpe, Conservatives. There were 139 polling stations, and no less than 47,776 out of the 63,398 persons whose names were on the register, recorded their votes under the protection of the Ballot Act of 1870, now first brought into use at a Parliamentary election. The usual courtesies (!) appertaining to political contests were indulged in to considerable extent, and personalities of all sorts much too freely bandied about, but the election altogether pa.s.sed off in the most creditable manner.

The returns of the polling stood thus--

Philip Henry Muntz..... 22,803} John Bright............ 21,986} Returned.