372 CITY OF WORCESTER.

Electioneering has always been a great feature in the history of Worcester, and the violence of its party contests has been intense. The city sent Members to Parliament ab origine. They were called "citizens," and the Bailiff (Mayor) was sometimes selected. Wages were paid them, but it was stipulated that they should be "at hit from ye beginnings to ye end of" the session - that is, they were to stick to their duties, and to receive half-a-crown (at one time 4s.) a day, while actually so engaged, and a shilling for a man servant. Three centuries ago the voters were bribed with wine, if with nothing else. That was when the office began to be coveted, and soon afterwards wages ceased. An account of a Worcester election scene in 1553 has come down to us, from which it appears that "the commons " of the city in that year dared to put up one Collins, a shoemaker, as a candidate, in opposition to the nominee of the Corporation; an affray ensued, which nearly ended in manslaughter, and Collins and the ringleaders were imprisoned. Usually, when the Members returned from London, his Worship and the Aldermen drank and smoked with them at the Globe, discussed the news and the prospects of the nation, and advised with them as to their future votes. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the popular tumults were violent and long continued, both county and city fighting for their candidates respectively in the arena of Worcester streets and on the site of the old castle, then turned into a county prison, near Edgar Tower. One cause assigned for the decay of trade in the city was the frequent and expensive oppositions in these elections, though on the other hand it is asserted that the Porcelain Works were founded then chiefly for political purposes, so that the city gained a very large branch of trade as a recompense. Among the most notable of the electioneering disputes was that between Sir John Pakington and Bishop Lloyd in 1702. The Bishop and his son having interfered to oppose the interest of the baronet, it was voted by the House of Conmmons "a malicious, unchristian, and arbitrary proceeding, and a high