Leicestershire South

Economic and social profile:

South Leicestershire possessed a varied economy, but the main industry was hosiery manufacture, which was chiefly carried on at Leicester, but also at Hinckley, where 6,000 people were employed in the trade in 1844, and in a number of villages.1Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), ii. 378, iii. 78; W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Leicestershire and Rutland (1863 edn.), 21. Other important towns included Market Harborough, which produced carpets and silk plush, and Market Bosworth.2Parliamentary gazetteer, iii. 375; White, History, 21. A number of collieries, including Snibston, Whitwick, Bagworth and Ibstock, were located in the western part of the constituency, along the border with the northern division, and the coal transported through the Leicester and Swannington Railway, which was one of the first in England and opened in 1832.3Parliamentary gazetteer, iii. 7576; White, History, 86-91; F. Williams, The Midland Railway: its rise and progress (1877, 3rd edn.), 5-6. Until then, the river Soar, beginning in the far south of the county and passing through Leicester and then Loughborough in the north before joining the Trent, and a series of canals, including the Union and Grand Union, provided the main means of conveyance.4Parliamentary gazetteer, iii. 74-75; A. Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester: a history of Leicester, 1780-1850 (1954), 29-40. Famed for the breeding of cattle, the county’s agriculture experienced a shift from ‘tillage to pasturage’ in the first half of the nineteenth century, although the growing of barley, which had replaced beans and wheat as the main crop, was still prevalent.5F. Martin & J.R. McCullogh, A dictionary, geographical, statistical and historical (1866), iii. 142; Parliamentary gazetteer, iii. 77-8; White, History, 58-9 (at 59). Dairy farming, especially the production of Stilton cheese, was concentrated around Hinckley and Market Bosworth.6Parliamentary gazetteer, iii. 77; White, History, 60. Dod noted in 1853 that ‘the number of landed proprietors prevents much influence from becoming centred in individuals’, although the Halfords, of Wistow Hall, possessed a ‘strong position’ in the division.7C. Dod, Electoral facts, 1832-1853, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972 edn.; first published 1852), 179.

Electoral history:

With the exception of 1818, the representation of Leicestershire had long been shared between the nominees of the Manners family of Belvoir Castle, dukes of Rutland, and those of the local gentry.8HP Commons, 1820-1832. This arrangement, which delivered both seats to the Tory party, had been challenged in 1830 and collapsed at the 1831 election, resulting in a triumph for the Reformers.9Ibid. The 1832 Reform Act divided the county horizontally as it was believed that the alternative, creating eastern and western constituencies, would concentrate population and manufacturing in the latter.10PP 1831-32 (357), xli. 361. Although the South Leicestershire division was initially shared, the Conservatives soon established a dominance that was largely unchallenged, only facing opposition at the 1841 general election, and the 1867 by-election, when the Liberals captured a seat.

This lack of contests attracted the interest of D.C. Moore, who used the constituency as a case study for a 1974 article, which was then reworked in his The politics of deference (1976).11D.C. Moore, ‘The matter of the missing contests: towards a theory of the mid-nineteenth century political system’, Albion, 6 (1974), 93-119 (at 111-15); idem, The politics of deference (1976), 258-68. Beginning from the premise that electoral behaviour was conditioned by the groups or networks to which individuals belonged, Moore argued that as long as party agents could ascertain, through poll books, the identity and political allegiance of voters’ landlords or employers, the likely outcome of elections could be predicted and contests avoided.12Moore, ‘Missing contests’, 107-8; idem, Politics of deference, 1-15, 292-7, 314-24, 401-15. South Leicestershire offered support for his larger argument that the Reform Act was designed to insulate county seats from urban influences, thereby preserving the traditional political authority of local landowners.13Ibid., 22, 137-89, 232-42, 419, 431. The revival of Liberal fortunes, culminating in the by-election victory in 1867, Moore contended, stemmed from the increase in the number of electors who qualified through possessing property within the borough of Leicester. These urban freeholders accounted for 1,318 out of 5,205 electors in 1852, increased to 2,316 by 1866, and were much more likely to vote Liberal, counterbalancing the Conservatives’ strength amongst the rest of the electorate.14Moore, ‘Missing contests’, 111-15; PP 1852 (4), xlii. 305; 1866 (335), lvii. 19. The 1867 contest, in Moore’s analysis, was therefore ‘a simple confrontation between rival blocs’, urban and rural, although this of course leaves unexplained the significant minority of ‘deviant’ voters (borough freeholders who were Conservative and ‘county’ electors who were Liberal).15Moore, ‘Missing contests’, 114. Moreover, while there was an undoubted polarity between nonconformist, Radical Leicester, which formed ‘a sort of focus of the division’, and the country districts, there were also other factors at work.16PP 1846 (451), viii. 311; Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester, 322. Divisions amongst Leicester’s Reformers, for example, effectively prevented them from challenging for the constituency again until the 1860s, and Protestantism and Protectionism generated considerable support and sustained momentum for the Conservatives, particularly in the 1830s and 1840s.

The majority of the new electorate were forty shilling freeholders, 3,481 out of 4,590 electors (76%) qualifying as such in 1835-36, with £50 tenants-at-will accounting for most of the remainder.17PP 1836 (190), xliii. 367; 1840 (579), xxxix. 189. The number of freeholders rose to 4,000 in 1842-43 and thereafter levelled out, whilst the tenants-at-will remained at around 1,000.18PP 1844 (11), xxxviii. 429; 1847 (751), xlvi. 337; 1852 (8), xlii. 311; 1860 (277), lv. 89. Much of the growth from the 1850s onwards was attributable to the increase of urban freeholders, and the electorate stood at 6,283 in 1864-5.19PP 1865 (448), xliv. 550; Moore, Politics of deference, 263-4.

In 1830, the traditional arrangement between Rutland and the gentry had been challenged by Thomas Paget, a Unitarian banker and leader of Leicester’s independent party, and the following year, popular enthusiasm for reform and antipathy to the Manners interest forced both incumbents from the field, leaving Paget and the Whig Charles March Phillipps to be returned unopposed.20HP Commons, 1820-1832: ‘Leicestershire’; Leicester Journal, 6 May 1831. After 1832, the Conservatives quickly asserted control over the northern division, with one seat always held by the Manners family. There was a similar pattern in South Leicestershire, although the Reformers possessed greater advantages than their northern counterparts.21Moore, Politics of deference, 259-60. The 1832 general election marked a partial Tory recovery after the capitulation of the previous year, for although Paget did not stand, Edward Dawson, of Whatton House, one of a number of country gentlemen who had supported the Leicester banker at the two previous elections, offered for the Reformers, and, in a compromise, was returned unopposed alongside the Tory Henry Halford, of Wistow Hall.22HP Commons, 1820-1832: ‘Leicestershire’; Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester, 180-1.

At the 1835 general election, Halford stood his ground and was joined by another Conservative, Thomas Frewen Turner, of Cold Overton Hall. The Conservative canvass, aided by the exertions of Lady Howe, wife of 1st earl Howe of Gopsall Hall, indicated victory by a 5 to 1 margin, forcing Dawson’s withdrawal, although his supporters complained bitterly of their opponents’ ‘audacious system of intimidation’.23Morn. Chro., 6, 17 Jan. 1835; The Times, 16 Jan. 1835. The Reformers’ morale was also sapped by their surprise defeat in the borough, 9 Jan. 1835.24Morn. Chro., 14 Jan. 1835. Both Conservatives were returned unopposed at the nomination, 15 Jan. 1835, with Halford pledging to maintain ‘those great institutions on which depend the efficiency and freedom of our ancient form of government’.25The Times, 17 Jan. 1835. Turner, who promised to be the ‘instrument’ of his supporters, hoped that ‘the triumph which has taken place may be a permanent one, and that the Conservative cause in this country may be placed on a firm, and lasting foundation’.26Ibid. The Conservatives’ position was underpinned by formidable organisation, and regular meetings, often held at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, which drew attendees, including parliamentarians, from the northern and southern divisions, as well as South Derbyshire. At a ‘Conservative festival’ held in the town, 17 Feb. 1835, to celebrate the party’s triumphs, Turner asserted that their core principles were an ‘ecclesiastical polity’, reverence for the monarchy, and firm attachment to the constitution.27Report from Nottingham Journal, qu. in Derby Mercury, 25 Feb. 1835.

Later that year, the Reformers attempted to ‘inundate the register’ with new claims and also made ‘many hundreds’ of objections, especially against electors living outside the county or some distance from the registration courts, who would therefore have to sacrifice greater time and expense to defend their qualification.28Based on the evidence of Macaulay to the select committee on votes of electors: PP 1846 (451), viii. 306, 310 (at 306). The assault was successfully repelled by the solicitor and registration agent of the South Leicestershire Conservative Society, Colin Campbell Macaulay, who managed a registration fund raised by subscription worth £400-500 annually, which was used to employ one solicitor in each large town and up to two agents in Leicester.29Ibid., 311.

After barely a year in Parliament, Turner resigned, citing his ‘impaired state of health’, and was replaced by another Conservative, Charles William Packe, of Prestwold Hall, at a by-election, 18 Feb. 1836.30Derby Mercury, 13 Jan. 1836; Examiner, 21 Feb. 1836. At the general election the following year, Halford and Packe were returned without opposition.31Morn. Chro., 5 Aug. 1837. The registration of 1838 further consolidated the Conservatives’ lead, with 72 of their 89 objections sustained compared to 41 of their opponents 106.32‘The registration of 1838’, Fraser’s Magazine (1838), xviii. 629-36 (at 631). The Conservatives could not rest whilst the Whigs were in power, however, and their anxieties were given frequent expression by Halford’s apocalyptic public speeches.33The Times, 10 Nov. 1837; Derby Mercury, 15 Nov. 1837. Reflecting his supporters’ concern about O’Connell’s increasing influence, 25 Apr. 1838, he blamed the ‘turbulence, disaffection, incendiarism, and agitation’ in Ireland on the government’s ‘conciliatory policy’, and predicted that the Whigs’ piecemeal reforms would lead to there being ‘no safety or power to prevent revolution, anarchy, and bloodshed’.34Derby Mercury, 2 May 1838. At a later meeting, 26 Jan. 1839, Halford claimed that the Whigs were attempting to turn the new Queen into their instrument and create a ‘virtual republic, in which their influence was to be predominant and supreme’.35The Times, 28 Jan. 1839. For similar reasons, Packe urged supporters to increase their efforts until they had achieved the ‘final overthrow’ of the government.36Derby Mercury, 2 May 1838.

Although the Conservatives were challenged at the 1841 general election, Moore has argued that this was ‘not a serious contest’, but rather a vexatious retaliation by Leicester Reformers (who ‘made no real effort to win’), for the Conservatives having contested the 1839 borough by-election.37Moore, ‘Missing contests’, 111-12; idem, Politics of deference, 259. Contemporary opinion was also surprised, the Chartist Northern Star commenting that it was ‘insane’ to campaign for a county election over cheap bread, which it took as a sign of the hubris of Leicester’s ruling class of hosiers.38Northern Star, 17 July 1841. However, although the Reformers’ prospects were slim, it would be wrong to dismiss the contest as frivolous. Having consolidated their control over the borough’s town council and parliamentary seats, Leicester Reformers sought to extend their influence into the county; the 1841 election can therefore be viewed as the beginning of a longer campaign.39See Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester, 322-3. In preparation for a contest, the Reformers had attended to the register and on 3 June 1841, John Biggs, hosier and campaign manager, issued a rousing address which targeted urban freeholders, stressing the importance of free trade to those dependent upon manufacturing. Boasting that the Reformers’ organisation was in ‘perfect order’, he added that in ‘three hours we can throw 150 unpaid volunteers, old practical electioneerers, over the whole area of the division’.40Morn. Chro., 8 June 1841.

It proved difficult to secure candidates to oppose the Conservative incumbents, however, as both the former member Edward Dawson and the Leicester banker Thomas Pares were unwilling to stand.41Leicester Journal, qu. by The Times, 14 June 1841. It was only on 5 July 1841, that Colonel Edward Cheney of Monyash, Derbyshire, and Thomas Gisborne of Yoxall Lodge, Staffordshire, offered, having been solicited by a ‘large number’ of electors. Fresh from defeat in Newport, Isle of Wight, Gisborne adopted a radical line which included the removal of all restrictions on trade, and the ballot. Cheney, meanwhile, stressed his landed and agricultural credentials and proposed a low fixed duty on corn.42Burke’s landed gentry (1847), i. 211; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 212; Morn. Chro., 6 July 1841, 2nd edn. The nomination, 10 July 1841, at which the Reformers wore green ribands, was notable for much ‘uproar’. Halford, reprising his speeches to innumerable Conservative meetings, described the Whigs as ‘the most feeble and false government that ever disgraced a country’. Packe added little other than to express his confidence that both he and his colleague would be comfortably returned. The show of hands was ‘nearly equal’, but the sheriff said that it favoured the Reformers.43Details of nomination all from The Times, 12 July 1841. A poll was demanded, and the Conservatives established a big lead on the first day, even in Leicester. The final result was a heavy defeat for the Reformers, with Halford topping the poll and Packe in second place, both over 1,400 votes ahead of Gisborne in third, with Cheney finishing bottom.44The Times, 14 July 1841. After the declaration the victorious Conservatives proceeded with their banners and bands through Leicester to The Crown inn for a banquet, well satisfied with the drubbing they had inflicted on the ‘Dissenting busybodies of the borough’.45The Times, 15 July 1841; Morn. Chro., 17 July 1841.

The Reformers were not short of excuses in defeat, declaring that they did not canvass or employ any agents, and had merely put up candidates to give electors the opportunity of expressing their opinion on the corn laws.46Morn. Chro., 16 July 1841. Biggs later claimed that the campaign was a diversionary tactic designed to weaken any Conservative challenge for the borough, and was launched after £500 was promised from the Reform Club.47Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester, 344. According to the Leicester Chronicle (qu. in Leeds Mercury, 12 June 1847), when this money was not forthcoming, Biggs sought to bring an action against the Club. There were also complaints of landlord influence. It was reported that a number of the earl of Stamford’s tenants, ignorant of the names of the candidates, said they would ‘vote for the two as Lord Stamford supports.’ However, these votes were rejected by the deputy sheriff.48Morn. Chro., 16 July 1841. A local observer complained that in his district ‘a great many’ Liberal electors discovered at a late hour that ‘their names were not in the printed lists’ of voters. More generally, he blamed the influence of landowners, their agents, magistrates, and the clergy, adding that the Conservatives had created votes ‘by giving receipts to father and son in all those cases where the tenant has a son of the legal age residing at home; thus nominally, though not really, dividing the farms’.49Letter of ‘An independent admirer of the principles so ably advocated in your journal’, Morn. Chro., 21 July 1841. In response, the Conservatives protested that their opponents had attempted to import the corrupt practices they had perfected in borough elections, and a later report alleged that a Leicester tailor who produced uniforms for the local police lost his trade from the town council after supporting the Conservative candidates.50The Times, 17 July 1841; Leicester Journal, qu. in Derby Mercury, 15 Sept. 1841.

In 1845 another attempt was made through the registration courts to weaken the Conservatives’ grip, which was part of a wider campaign by free traders to capture the counties through large scale objections and the purchase and division of land to create freehold votes.51See J. Prest, Politics in the Age of Cobden (1977), ch. 5. Unlike in other constituencies however, the 1,370 objections against Conservative electors were not processed by the Anti-Corn Law League, but made on the initiative of Leicester Reformers, with Biggs orchestrating the campaign and the local wirepuller Lawrence Staines handling the detail.52Although Macaulay thought the League must have had some involvement, given the expense of the making such a large number of claims, the League’s secretary George Wilson told the 1846 select committee on votes of electors that ‘Leicestershire has been done by Mr. Biggs and other gentlemen in Leicester, not by us’: PP 1846 (451), viii. 307, 313, 315-16, 381 (at 381). Many of the claims related to the signatures of overseers, or the lists of electors not being put upon the church doors in time.53Ibid., 317. Notable objections were made against Packe, Edward Farnham, MP for North Derbyshire, and Mr. King, the chairman of South Leicestershire Conservative Association.54Ibid., 309. In the event, only 30 of the objections were sustained following the revising barrister’s ruling that he would award costs to electors who travelled to defend their votes from groundless objections, which prompted Staines to withdraw 1,000 of the objections, presumably because such costs could not have been met.55Ibid., 307-10, 314-17, 321 (at 315). (The remaining objections were prosecuted but not sustained.56Ibid., 309.)

Shortly after this initiative, Leicester’s Reformers split and spent much of the next decade and a half engaged in a struggle over the borough that effectively precluded further attempts on South Leicestershire.57Temple Patterson, Radical Leicester, ch. 17; VCH Leics., iv. 214-24. The Conservatives now enjoyed an unchallenged ascendancy, although after the corn laws were repealed in July 1846, it was rumoured that Halford would be replaced by viscount Curzon, earl Howe’s heir.58Daily News, 4 July 1846; Derby Mercury, 8 July 1846, qu. Leicester Journal; The Times, 7 July 1846. This came to nothing, but at the general election the following year ‘an opposition was threatened’ against Halford, as some local supporters were dissatisfied with his vote in favour of the Maynooth grant.59The Times, 30 July 1847, 5 Aug. 1847. The rumoured challenger was Sir Edmund Cradock-Hartopp, of Four Oaks Hall, Warwickshire, who possessed land and lineage in Leicestershire.60The Times, 5 Aug. 1847. However, the incumbents were returned unopposed at the nomination, when Packe made a characteristically terse speech and Halford reaffirmed his ‘attachment to the ancient institutions of the country’, but admitted that Peel’s arguments ‘to some extent’ justified the repeal of the corn laws, though he rejected the premises of free traders. He also promised to reintroduce his bill to ameliorate the condition of the stockingers (which had greatly irked many Leicester hosiers), arguing that the current system of charging rent for use of the frames was ‘nothing better than a robbery’.61Ibid.

Protectionism gave the Conservatives considerable impetus in the late 1840s and early 1850s, and the party was ‘perfectly united’ over the issue, although Halford was noticeably less enthusiastic about restoring the corn laws than Packe and earl Howe, a prominent local landowner, disagreed with the policy altogether.62PP 1846 (451), viii. 316; The Times, 9 Dec. 1845, 13 Jan. 1846; Examiner, 26 Jan. 1850. A ‘Great Protectionist’ meeting at Market Harborough, 15 Jan. 1850, expressed the need for agricultural relief, and was followed up by a gathering at Hinckley six days later, where Packe and Charles Newdegate, MP for North Warwickshire, spoke.63Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 17 Jan. 1850; Examiner, 26 Jan. 1850. It ended in a rebuff, however, after a stockinger successfully moved that the meeting should not petition for a restoration of protection, after which Packe dissolved the meeting.64Examiner, 26 Jan. 1850. A meeting of the South Leicestershire Protection Society held at Market Harborough, 11 June 1850, agreed to levy a voluntary rate of one half-penny on members to raise money for the cause and the Society also sent representatives to national protectionist meetings.65Newcastle Courant, 17 May 1850, 21 June 1850; Morn. Chro., 30 Apr. 1851.

Although the intensity of local protectionist sentiment generally benefited the Conservatives, it could also create tension. At a Loughborough meeting, 10 Oct. 1851, which Packe chaired, the general tenor of the speakers, many of whom were tenant farmers, was that they ‘must form political opinions of their own’. Articulating their mood, one tenant declared:

The fault had been that their leaders had represented the landed interest, instead of their constituents, and while that was the case they would never get justice. The tenant farmers … must boldly speak their sentiments. They had not done so yet, they were one great money-making machine for landlords, and government, for they were cultivating their lands with the highest rents and the highest taxes in the world. [But] … the landlords were not suffering as a class, and they were going on in a way that they would yet regret.66Daily News, 21 Oct. 1851.

This disquiet was reflected at the 1852 general election, when the incumbents were returned unopposed, but not without ‘a fierce show of opposition’.67Morn. Chro., 16 July 1852. A handbill called for the members to be held accountable for their parliamentary conduct and support a series of farmers’ demands, including county rate control, the abolition of the law of distraint and repeal of the malt tax.68Morn. Chro., 16 July 1852. Free traders attempted to capitalise on this dissent by nominating Dawson and George Kilby, a tenant farmer, of Queensborough. In response, Halford declared that if free trade had improved trade and the condition of the people ‘he would be no party to its reversal’, but insisted that it should be applied to domestic items such as malt and also expressed sympathy with farmers’ demands.69The Times, 16 July 1852. Packe remained forthright in his support of protection, demanding it for industry as well as agriculture.70Morn. Chro., 16 July 1852. He also explained, not altogether convincingly, that the ‘absence of farmers’ at the nomination was due to the need to attend to the hay crops and local market days rather than political disaffection.71The Times, 16 July 1852. Kilby and Dawson, who was not present, won the show of hands, but their names were then withdrawn, leaving the protectionists to be returned unopposed.72Morn. Chro., 16 July 1852.

At the 1857 general election Halford retired, his place taken by viscount Curzon, who professed ‘strictly Conservative’ opinions, and firm support for the Protestant church, but added that he could not ‘consider himself pledged to any party’.73The Times, 21 Mar. 1857. He was duly returned without opposition alongside Packe, who criticised the government’s China policy and ‘avowed his opposition to Lord Palmerston’s domestic and foreign policy in general’.74The Times, 31 Mar. 1857. The 1859 general election produced the same outcome.75The Times, 3 May 1859; Derby Mercury, 4 May 1859.

Both parties claimed ‘to have a majority of voters’ by the time of the next general election in 1865, the Liberals having benefited from the increase of urban freeholders, but their likely candidate, the Unitarian banker Thomas Tertius Paget, of Humberstone, the son of Thomas, preferred to keep his powder dry for now.76The Times, 20 June 1865. Packe and Curzon were therefore returned without opposition, although there were reports that the former might stand aside for William Unwin Heygate, who had just been defeated at Leicester.77Birmingham Daily Post, 17 July 1865.

Packe’s death, 27 Oct. 1867, gave Paget the opportunity he was looking for, and after accepting a requisition signed by 1,100 electors, mostly from the agricultural districts, he toured Hinckley, Market Harborough, Ibstock, Lutterworth and Hallaton.78Birmingham Daily Post, 2 Nov. 1867; Pall Mall Gazette, 2 Nov. 1867; The Times, 13 Nov. 1867. At the first town, 11 Nov. 1867, Paget, whose commercial interests and landholdings in the county, as well as his father’s reputation, made him a formidable candidate, was greeted by 5,000 people, and after his speech he was accompanied by music and flags to the local party headquarters.79Leeds Mercury, 13 Nov. 1867. He was opposed by Albert Pell, of Hazlebeach, Northamptonshire, the son-in-law of the former member Halford, and the chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and a tenant farmer who was also a ‘considerable landowner’.80A. Pell, Reminiscences of Albert Pell, sometime MP for South Leicestershire, ed. and intro. T. Mackay (1908), 139-40; Some London newspapers interpreted Pell’s candidacy as a sign that tenant farmers were looking to men from their own class to represent them; it was left to their readers to correct them, pointing out that Pell was a well-connected country gentleman, and the grandson of a peer: The Times, 27, 28 Nov. 1867; Pall Mall Gazette, 2, 15 Nov. 1867. On their visit to Hinckley neither Pell, nor Curzon who accompanied him, could ‘obtain a hearing’, the windows of the local Conservative committee room were smashed, and the police were called after further scuffles.81Leeds Mercury, 13 Nov. 1867.

During his campaign, Pell, a free trader, advocated a reduction rather than abolition of malt duty, which was popular locally, and expressed approval for the Conservative government’s extension of the suffrage.82Leeds Mercury, 4 Nov. 1867; Derby Mercury, 6, 20 Nov. 1867; Pall Mall Gazette, 8 Nov. 1867. Paget held that ‘the time is coming when party ties will again mean something’, with politics being divided between supporters of Disraeli and Gladstone.83Pall Mall Gazette, 11 Nov. 1867. Much was made of reports that a Conservative clergyman had attempted to unduly influence one of his tenants, who angrily replied that he would vote for Paget come what may.84The exchange of letters was published in a number of newspapers including Daily News, 19 Nov. 1867. At the nomination, 25 Nov. 1867, Pell promised to give his full attention to Irish issues, and argued that church rates should only be levied by majorities. Paget, who was nominated by one of the borough’s Liberal MPs, declared himself a ‘decided adherent’ of Gladstone, and urged disestablishment and land reform for Ireland.85Daily News, 26 Nov. 1867; The Times, 26 Nov. 1867. He also called for a ‘national system of education’ and the ‘entire and unconditional abolition’ of church rates.86The Times, 26 Nov. 1867. With the show of hands ‘largely’ in his favour, Pell demanded a poll.87Ibid.

The Liberals initially established a comfortable lead on polling day, 28 Nov. 1867, but the Conservatives published two sets of figures in the afternoon which had Paget ahead by a much narrower margin. Furthermore, ‘each party found it extremely difficult to prepare complete and reliable returns’ from the eight polling places. Paget’s lead dwindled further, and at five o’clock the Conservatives claimed a majority of twenty-three.88The Times, 29 Nov. 1867. The following day, they claimed victory by four votes, whilst Paget’s committee protested that their man had been elected by 33.89The Times, 30 Nov. 1867. The result remained uncertain, however, until the high sheriff declared Paget the victor by 39 votes, 30 Nov. 1867. Pell gained majorities, in some cases by a considerable ratio, in Lutterworth, Market Harborough, Market Bosworth, and Narborough, but these were more than counterbalanced by the support Paget received from Hinckley, Ibstock, where he owned land, and especially Leicester.90The Times, 2 Dec. 1867; South Leicestershire poll book (1867), 136. He also benefited from an increased vote in the other parts of the constituency, one observer noting that in one of the completely rural districts, Pell’s majority had been 168, over two hundred votes less than the Conservatives winning margin in 1841.91‘W.M.C.N.’ letter, Daily News, 5 Dec. 1867.

In his victory address, Paget thanked his supporters for their ‘zeal, energy and devotion’, which had broken ‘the broken the spell of Tory domination’.92Pall Mall Gazette, 2 Dec. 1867. The well-organised campaign had included advertisements in the London papers directed at non-resident electors.93The Times, 20 Nov. 1867; Daily News, 19 Nov. 1867. Pell later complained that he received insufficient support from local landlords, but other excuses included complacency and inattention to the register, whilst Charles Newdegate, MP for North Warwickshire, blamed the candidate for not emphasising his principles enough.94Pell, Reminiscences, 203-4; The Times, 2, 13 Dec. 1867. Local Conservatives also alleged that their opponents had created phoney freehold votes in the borough by letting the backyards or outhouses of Liberal operatives to friends or neighbours, while another observer complained that Mr. Justice Mellor (former Liberal MP for Nottingham) had prevented one of his tenants voting for Pell.95Pell, Reminiscences, 204; Birmingham Daily Post, 18 Dec. 1867. Apart from ‘an effort to stone the Conservative candidate at Leicester’, the election ‘passed off with the utmost good humour’.96Manchester Times, 30 Nov. 1867.

The Liberals had little time to enjoy their triumph. The second Reform Act increased the electorate, but reduced (slightly but significantly) the number of urban freeholders, which contributed to Curzon and Pell’s success at the 1868 general election, when Paget was relegated to third place.97McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 167; Moore, Politics of deference, 265-7; PP 1868-69 (418), l. 114. The Conservatives continued to hold both seats until Paget topped the poll in 1880.98McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 168. After 1885, Leicestershire (excluding the borough) was divided into four single member seats of roughly equal population.99PP 1884-85 (258), lxiii. 246-50; 48 & 49 Vict. c.23. A segment of the old southern division was added to Melton or East Leicestershire, which remained a Conservative stronghold until 1906, whilst a more substantial portion, including Hinckley and Market Bosworth, was amalgamated into West Leicestershire, which was under Liberal control 1885-1910.100PP 1884-85 (258), lxiii. 246, 250; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, 147-8. A shrunken single-member southern division, encompassing most of Leicester as well as Lutterworth and Market Harborough, was represented by Paget, 1885-86, a Conservative 1886-91, and the Liberals thereafter.101PP 1884-85 (258), lxiii. 246, 250; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, 148.