MR. ALDERMAN HEYWOOD.

Manchester is proud of its patriarchal alderman, who has fully earned the title of “Father of the Corporation.’ His career as a public man even antedates the history of the Corporation, for he was a Commissioner of Police in 1836 before the new charter of incorporation, over which there was so much local contention, was granted. He early made his mark as a Reformer; and he lived in the days when to be a Reformer involved consequences which the arm-chair reformers of the present day are exempt from. The present generation remembers little of the “taxes on knowledge “ - the oppressive duty on paper, the stamp duty on newspapers and so on-which caused high-priced newspapers, and confined the circulation of literature within narrow circles. No family literature, cheap weekly journals; penny dailies and halfpenny evening papers in those days! Faces and Places could not have been published then at its present cheap rate, because, among other things, of the heavy duty it would have had to pay, and even if photography and lithography had advanced then to its present point of perfection, instead of being published at 6d., such a periodical would more probably have cost four or five times the amount. Mr. Heywood, being in business in Manchester as a bookseller, was led by force of circumstances, and his proclivities to resist oppressive laws, to publish in defiance of the Stamp Duties a paper called the Poor Man’s Guardian, which was regarded as an offence so heinous as to merit severe - or as it is now regarded cruel - punishment.

As one of his local biographers states “Leaving his birthplace at Prestwich he came to Manchester in 1819 (when he was nine years of age) and his early career was a hard uphill fight against what he considered an injustice, and an ordinary. man would have succumbed to the. many difficulties by. which he was surrounded· and had to contend against.” But Alderman Heywood is not an ordinary man, and nothing tended more to prove this than his unflinching opposition to the Stamp Office authorities, who prosecuted and imprisoned him in the Salford New Bailey-now no more-for selling un stamped publications; yet by his noble efforts, and those of his fellow-martyrs, if we may use the term, the stamp duty was. quickly reduced from fourpence to a penny.

When, in October, ·1888,’ Alderman Heywood was speaking in the present Municipal Palace, on the occasion of a great banquet in his honour to commemorate the jubilee of his corporate work; he referred to this incident in his career in the following terms :- “In early days I worked and suffered in the struggle for the repeal of the taxes on knowledge. At this point may I say a few words in personal explanation of a matter not always correctly understood? It was in March, 1832, that, at the instance of the Commissioners of Stamps, I was summoned before Mr. Foster at the New Hailey for an infringement of the Stamp Laws, and was fined .£54 for selling a political paper called the. Poor Man’s Guardian, published by Mr. Hetherington in London. I would not pay the fine, for I considered it unjust, and I was sent to the New Bailey prison for four calendar months. I made efforts by memorial to the Secretary of State to avoid the penalty, but was not successful. My contention was that the paper was not a newspaper. At that time newspapers were sevenpence each, the publishers paying to the Revenue nominally fourpence on each paper, 20 per cent, however, being allowed on payment. It was not till after six years’ agitation that the duty was reduced to a penny on-each paper, this concession by the Government being mainly owing -to a decision of the Court of Exchequer, before Lord Lyndhurst and a special jury. that the very ·.Poor Man’s Guardian, for selling which I had been. imprisoned. was a strictly legal publication.”

The Alderman’s autobiographical reminiscences on this occasion were of a very interesting character, especially with reference to his connection with the government of the city: - “When -.first I became connected with the government -of Manchester, this Council was not in existence. I was elected a Commissioner of Police on the and November. 1836. and practically without a single break I have served in the Corporation till this day-a period just within 52 years. In old days, by a charter dated centuries back, the great privilege was given to Manchester of electing its own borough-reeve for the due ordering of the town. Under this form of feudal government, Manchester remained till the very end of last century. The Commissioners of Police then came into existence to look after the police department, the lighting and -paving, and so on, of Manchester. Before one could be elected a Commissioner his rental had to be something short of £30 a year. In 1836 I could boast of more than that rental for my bookseller’s shop in Oldham-Street. The working classes knew of my sympathy with them, for I was one of them; and so it was that in the year named I became one of the 180 Commissioners who then ruled affairs. In the previous year, 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act had been passed. At the time of my election, however, so far as memory serves me, there was no great public outcry in favour of a charter. The Commissioners were a fairly efficient body, and among their number were men of undoubted public spirit. But yet the institution was not of a popular order. There was much that was feudal about the government of the town. The very word “police” had an ungrateful sound. Other towns under the Municipal Reform Act had been incorporated, and so it came about that what we may term the Liberal party of Manchester (without any reference to present-day politics) began to agitate for a more modern form of government suited to the great developments which had taken place in Manchester by our increasing commerce, flourishing institutions -and advancing wealth. A great reform always has its opponents, and within a year after I was elected as a Commissioner on what we may call the Paving and Sewering Committee of that day, each member of the community Was distinguished either as corporator or anti-corporator. The members of our great City Council of to-day will, I hope, learn with satisfaction that their colleague-the solitary representative in public life of the old Commissioners-was a supporter of the new ideas. I had a great respect for my fellow Commissioners, who honestly tried to do -their duty ; but with the-growing democratic feeling, I saw, apart from my own sympathies, that the day of change was at hand, and that the majority of the body were bound to suffer extinction.

The severe struggle for the Charter was thus humorously referred to by the worthy Alderman on the same occasion: “Between corporators and anti-corporators, the Manchester atmosphere was unusually bracing My own efforts were directed towards obtaining a majority of the Commissioners in favour of incorporation, but this was a work of time. In the meantime the corporators got up a huge petition, and by and by the enormous bundle of names was laid before her Majesty’s Privy Council. Then, on the and of October, 1838, the charter of incorporation was granted, and it was decreed that the inhabitants of that day and their successors • shall be for ever hereafter one body politic and corporate, in deed, fact, and name, and that the said body corporate shall be called the Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the .borough of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster.’ Still all was not yet smooth sailing. The charter, it is true, .was granted; certain powers were given to the Corporation. which was entitled to, among other things, a common seal. The Council itself, consisting of 64 aldermen and councillors, was elected in December, 1838, and Thomas Potter (afterwards Sir Thomas) was chosen as the first Mayor. The Council included many well-known Manchester names, such as those of John Edward Taylor, Alderman Nield, Thomas Potter, Archibald Prentice, Alderman Hopkins, John Shuttleworth, and Edward and John Shawcross. Mr. Alderman Nield, in the days when the lord of the manor appointed boroughreeve and constable, declined to accept the former office, and had to pay a fine of £50 in consequence. Mr. Alderman Nield, long the chairman of the Watch Committee, died suddenly while at work in the Town Hall in the presence of myself and other members. . The struggle was not over with the election of a Council. The Commissioners-on various grounds declined to surrender their powers to the Corporation. The petition on which the charter was granted was disputed. It was declared that it contained a huge number of bogus signatures. The Privy Council appointed Major Jebb to examine into the petition, and true enough it was that a man well known as ‘Big Mick’ had, in a drunken freak of enthusiasm, signed and got persons not entitled to sign some of the petition sheets, Apart from this, however, Major Jebb no doubt saw that the sympathies of the bulk of the inhabitants were with the incorporators.”

Alderman Heywood was one of the first pioneers in the movement for the present splendid building in Albert Square for Corporation purposes. It is a privilege to be able to give the story of the origin, completion, and opening of that building in his own words :- “In 1853 I became an alderman of Manchester, and ten years later I was for the first time Mayor. We were then beginning to feel the inconveniences of the King Street Town Hall, and it was on my motion that a Town Hall Sub-Committee was appointed to consider the advisableness of building a new home for the Council and the corporate workers. Of that committee I was chairman. We determined, and the Council approved our determination, to build a new Town Hall in Albert Square. On this matter I need dwell but briefly. Most of you are well acquainted with what was done. We cleared a vast area of its buildings, and Mr. Waterhouse’s beautiful design rose, stone on stone and pillar on pillar, until this wonderful structure was at last completed. We spared no expense, yet we were not extravagant. Every detail we desired to have perfect. To have been parsimonious, to have neglected corners or recesses which were obscure, to have allowed ornamentation which was tawdry, would have been for ever to brand Manchester as a city given up to no higher thought than the quickest accumulation of wealth. By universal admission, the town hall is a worthy monument of the industrial greatness of Manchester, and an outward and visible sign to the world that our thoughts are not wholly given up to Mammon, but that the higher culture is not neglected among us. Time may have darkened the outside purity of these walls, but the graceful tapering towers and noble archways are still as full of beauty as when the sounds of the last hammer and chisel ceased; while the long cathedral aisles of the interior, this magnificent banqueting hall, the splendid central hall, with the mural paintings on which Mr. Madox Brown has bestowed so much artistic care-these are the admiration of every stranger who visits our city. Day by day I saw this glorious building rise, until every pinnacle was complete, and when at last came the opening day I found myself for the second time, by your favour and the favour of the citizens, Mayor of this city of Manchester.”

There can be no doubt that there was great disappointment on the part of a great number of people, and the majority of the Council also, that her Majesty did not visit the city on the occasion of the opening, as had been hoped, and that Mr. Heywood did not receive the special honour to which he was entitled in the estimation of the citizens. Mr. Heywood is happy, however, in the genuine esteem of the people, unaided by the possession of “estates, degrees, and offices” of another sort. The address presented to him on the jubilee celebration referred to, emphasised the fact that, “During your last mayoralty the new Town Hall was opened, when a trades procession was organised-to a large extent in honour of yourself-and your services as chairman of the Town Hall Committee during the whole period of the erection of the building were thus fittingly recognised. To you, Manchester is largely indebted for the well-known success which has attended the labours of the various committees, and which has resulted in this city being remarkable for its good government, and particularly for the excellence of its street paving. In regard to one of the committees of the Corporation, we ought to make especial mention-namely, the Paving, Sewering, and Highways Committee, of which you have been the honoured chairman for 43 years. Your valued assistance in connection with the provision of the system of tramways for which our city is distinguished is also gratefully recognised. But not only in connection with the Corporation, but in many works outside the Council, having for their object the improvement of the condition of your fellow-men, has your name been conspicuous. And as regards your personal connection with the members of the Council, we may truly say that as years have gone on you have endeared yourself more closely to your colleagues; and they doubt not that so long as you are enabled to give to them your wise counsel-and may this be for many years yet-the bonds of their friendship will not only continue as they are, but will become closer and closer still. And we desire to assure you that whenever the occasion arises for your connection with the Corporation to be severed the remembrance of you and your admirable qualities will never fade from the minds of your colleagues.” That occasion happily has not yet arisen.

Meanwhile Mr. Heywood has been the subject of further respectful congratulation on the part of his large circle of friends. On the occasion of his eightieth birthday recently, the Manchester Reform Club embraced the opportunity of presenting him with a handsome casket in commemoration of the event. Mr. R. Prestwich, who made the presentation, said that Mr. Heywood had by his endowments of natural ability and steadfastness of purpose been one of those whose names would be recorded as makers of history. He referred to the far-off days when. under the banner of the Chartists, he fought on behalf of liberty and justice, and to the bitter cost it entailed in the loss of personal liberty. His sins, such as they were, were neither forgotten nor forgiven, for when he had reached the highest position in the city “the reward that in ordinary circumstances would have been his due” was withheld. Mr. Heywood in reply to this remark said he had never expressed, nor did he feel, regret at anything connected with that period or at any non-bestowal of the honour which many thought was then due. It was sufficient honour, on the day the Town Hall was opened, to see Albert Square filled with workmen as it never had been before or since, and to witness a procession of trades of unique character and dimensions. The people of Manchester gloried in their magnificent possession.

Mr. Heywood acceded to an invitation presented to him in 1859 to become a candidate for Parliamentary honours, and he polled 5,448 votes. He also made a second unsuccessful attempt as a Parliamentary candidate in 1865. His defeat was probably due, remarked a recent writer, to the fact that his opinions were considered too advanced. “Yet, as we well know, men who were Chartists in 183; are in many cases looked upon now as Tories. Not so Abel Heywood. As Liberalism has advanced he has advanced with it, and his opinions now may be said to be as extremely Radical as they were in 1837.”

It was a happy coincidence that the members of the Reform Club, on the occasion referred to, were enabled to congratulate their octogenarian friend on the appointment of his son, Mr. George Washington Heywood, to the Judgeship of the County Courts of Manchester and Salford. Spite of his good old age, the father of the new Judge-a proud title of honour-still takes an active and prominent part in the government of the city.