Sunderland

Economic and social profile:

Located at the mouth of river Wear, Sunderland was the largest shipbuilding port in the world in the first half of the nineteenth century, launching an average of one-fifth of the total annual tonnage built in the United Kingdom.5J.F. Clarke, ‘Shipbuilding, 1780-1914’, in Milburn and Miller, Sunderland: river, town and people, 33-6. The coal trade was critical to the development of the port, with the Monkwearmouth colliery, the town’s only mine, shipping coal from 1835 onwards. The town was also one of the few parts of the north-east coast where limestone was exposed, making the port the main centre for its export. Glassmaking was important, with the Ayres Quay Bottleworks and the Wear Glassworks being the chief employers, and the industries of clay, cement, paper, rope and fishing were also represented in the Sunderland economy. The Durham and Sunderland railway opened in 1836, and the Gateshead to South Shields line reached Monkwearmouth, on the north bank, three years later.6N. Sinclair, ‘Industry to 1914’, in ibid., 21-5; Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 10-15.

Electoral history:

The borough of Sunderland was created by the 1832 Reform Act, having been allocated two MPs by the original bill of March 1831. The majority of the electors resided on the south bank of the Wear, in the township of Bishopwearmouth and the parish of Sunderland. The smaller township of Monkwearmouth, on the north bank, was controlled by Sir Hedworth Williamson, a Liberal landowner, who commanded some 200 borough electors on his estates.7A. Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics: 1830 to the 1860s’, in Milburn and Miller, Sunderland: river, town and people, 93. His influence in the constituency, however, was never paramount, since the Radical Lord Durham, a son-in-law of the prime minister Lord Grey, whose family exported 150,000 tons of coal through the port every year, could draw on significant support, as could his Conservative rival, Lord Londonderry, who held extensive coal interests in the south of the town, and was represented in the borough by his solicitor Joseph John Wright, a highly-effective political organizer.8T. Nossiter, ‘Dock politics and unholy alliances, 1832-1852’, in H.G. Bowling (ed.), Some chapters on the history of Sunderland (1969), 80-4. Not surprisingly, shipping matters were at the forefront of parliamentary campaigns, and in its first decade the borough’s elections were dominated by the issue of the construction of new docks, with the three local magnates taking competing stands based on their own commercial interests rather than party politics.9Daily News, 12 Mar. 1849; Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 92. In the 1830s and 1840s local shipowners, who were numerous and generally owned only small shares in a limited number of vessels, were protectionist, and therefore a majority favoured the Conservatives, but after a restructuring of the industry in the 1850s, local shipping became dominated by a small number of powerful magnates who not only favoured free trade, but also openly backed Liberal candidates.10Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 123-4. The Liberal interest, however, was far from unified, and throughout the period, parliamentary elections were characterized by internecine strife between its moderate and advanced wings, leading to an ‘unholy alliance’ between the former and the Conservatives, which, from the 1850s onwards, was increasingly challenged by a group of Radicals on the Sunderland town council. 11Nossiter, ‘Dock politics’, 86. This unstable political environment ensured that all but one of the elections in this period was contested.

At the 1832 general election, the four candidates were all representatives of the great local interests. Durham, under the aegis of the Sunderland Reform Association, brought forward Sir William Chaytor, a local coalowner, and Captain George Barrington, another son-in-law of the premier. Chaytor, a regular visitor to the town, who had spoken at its first reform meeting in February 1831, was a strong candidate, and employed Wright, Londonderry’s solicitor, as his agent to secure cross-party support.12Papers of Sir William Chaytor (1771-1847): a list with extracts, ed. M.Y. Ashcroft (1993), 180. Barrington, in contrast, missed most of the canvass due to illness, and when he did appear, Durham’s supporters found him to be ‘a man of ... little talent and political information’.13Hedworth Lambton to Lord Durham, 1 Jan. 1833. Quoted in Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 93. Although Londonderry brought forward Alderman William Thompson of London in the Conservative interest, he and Durham were united in their support for the south docks proposal, as both had coal interests south of the Wear. Thompson’s outspoken support for the secret ballot and repeal of the corn laws also blurred party divisions.14Newcastle Courant, 15 Dec. 1832. Williamson, in contrast, wanted the docks on his own property in Monkwearmouth on the north bank of the river, a position that drew criticism from the borough’s inhabitants who, residing chiefly in Bishopwearmouth and Sunderland parish, favoured the south dock scheme. Despite their shared Liberal allegiance, therefore, Durham condemned Williamson through his newspaper, the Durham Chronicle, for promoting the candidature of his brother-in-law, David Barclay, a London-based merchant.15Durham Chronicle, 22 June 1832. In truth, all three magnates were promoting their own candidates, but Durham’s influence appeared to be stronger. Chaytor, who consistently stressed his local credentials, gave his tacit support to Barrington, and both men were returned in the ensuing poll.16Newcastle Courant, 15 Dec. 1832; Papers of Sir William Chaytor, 180.

Durham’s influence, however, was compromised by Barrington’s election. On 12 March 1833, a letter signed by 158 Sunderland electors was sent to Grey, advising him that Barrington was in ‘a state of mental affliction’ which ‘now prevails to an extent requiring constant personal restraint’,17The letter, signed by a ‘Mr. Lotherington’, was later published in the Morning Chronicle, 5 Apr. 1833. and, in response, the premier advised his resignation.18Peel’s reply was published in the Morning Chronicle, 2 Apr. 1833. Conservative handbills were also circulated in the borough, claiming that Barrington’s condition had been kept from the electorate during the campaign. Durham’s brother, Hedworth Lambton, thus warned him that ‘whenever you send down a candidate either now or hereafter’ they must be ‘most highly eligible in every respect’, as ‘staunch supporters’ would not tolerate ‘anything like positive dictation’.19Hedworth Lambton to Lord Durham, 1 Jan. 1833. Quoted in ‘Parliamentary politics’, 93. Following Barrington’s retirement, 25 Mar. 1833, Durham, on the advice of his brother, declined to bring forward a candidate at the by-election, leaving the field to Barclay and Thompson, the two previously defeated candidates. At the hustings, Thompson, who presented himself as a reforming, independent Tory and ‘the advocate for the south docks’, attacked the Liberal ‘coalition’ of Williamson and Durham, claiming that a victory for Barclay would turn Sunderland ‘into a pocket borough’.20Newcastle Courant, 6 Apr. 1833. Not surprisingly, Barclay polled well in Monkwearmouth, gaining 229 out of 254 votes, but his association with Williamson and the north dock scheme tainted his candidature, and Thompson narrowly defeated him. After the declaration, the windows of the 25 electors who had voted for Thompson in Monkwearmouth were smashed.21Standard, 6 Apr. 1833.

The 1835 general election saw Barclay finally returned at the expense of Chaytor, who endured a risible campaign. The sitting member’s absence from the division on the ballot, 25 Apr. 1833, despite his declared support for it, had already undermined his local credibility, and when his agent, Wright, switched his allegiance to Thompson in protest against what he perceived as the interference of Durham and his supporters in Chaytor’s campaign, the damage was irrevocable.22J.J. Wright to Chaytor, 7 May 1833, Papers of Sir William Chaytor, 185-6; Morning Post, 27 Nov. 1834. Barclay, who conceded that the south docks seemed to be ‘desired by a large majority of the inhabitants of the borough’, agreed to support the idea and secured second place. Thompson comfortably topped the poll for the Conservatives.

At the 1837 general election, the Sunderland Reform Association brought forward Andrew White, a shipowner who had been elected Sunderland’s first mayor in December 1835. A native of the borough, who claimed that ‘if I am not the friend of the people of Sunderland, I do not know who is’, he declared his support for Irish church appropriation, the extension of the franchise and the ballot.23Newcastle Courant, 28 July 1837. Barclay, whom White denied being in a coalition with, backed Melbourne’s administration and, after previously equivocating on the issue, followed his two opponents and came out in favour of the ballot. Thompson, who attacked the government for being swayed ‘to and fro’ by O’Connell, remained a popular figure among local shipowners, and held his seat. Crucially, in addition to gaining 332 plump votes, he received 214 split votes with White, who came in second, reflecting his appeal to the Liberal electorate. Barclay, who gained 367 split votes with White but only 75 plumpers, finished bottom, highlighting the fact that Sir Hedworth Williamson’s influence was limited when local Liberals were not united.24W.W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 170.

In November 1838 the Sunderland Charter Association was established and by March the following year, there were 18 district societies in the borough alone.25K. Wilson, ‘“Whole Hogs” and “Sucking Pigs” – Chartism and the Complete Suffrage Union in Sunderland’, in M. Callcott and R. Challinor, eds., Working-Class politics in North-East England (1983), 17. Although only 4,000 of the town’s inhabitants signed the national petition in 1839, 17,000 signed the following year, reflecting increased organisational strength. The local leaders were George Binns and James Williams, partners in a Sunderland booksellers and newsagents, who were known as ‘the Castor and Pollux of Northern Chartism’.26M. Chase, Chartism: a new history (2007), 31, 65, 139. Both men were Dissenters and in August 1840 were imprisoned for sedition after warning that a ‘vengeance swift and terrible’ would ‘overwhelm England’ if the Chartists demands were not met.27Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 99. They were presented with an opportunity to go the polls at the 1841 general election, the first after Durham’s death, when the Lambton family declined to offer a candidate, leaving Barclay as the sole Liberal in the field. Binns, who had been feted as a martyr to the cause on his release, was duly nominated and won a show of hands at the hustings, but was unable to proceed to the poll because of the cost.28Newcastle Courant, 2 July 1841. Barclay, who reneged on his previous pledge of support for the ballot and called for a fixed duty on corn, and Thompson, who maintained his opposition to the corn laws, were therefore returned unopposed.29Ibid.

In September 1841 Thompson resigned from the borough to contest a vacancy for the prestigious county of Westmoreland.30Daily News, 15 Mar. 1849. At the ensuing by-election, Henry Morton, chief agent of the Durham estates, brought forward viscount Howick, the eldest son of the former premier Earl Grey, who had been defeated at North Northumberland.31A.J. Heesom, ‘The Sunderland by-election, 1841’, Northern History, ix (1974), 65-6. Binns, Williams and their Chartist supporters, however, wanted their own candidate, and solicited the prominent Radical and Anti-Corn Law League member Colonel Thomas Peronnet Thompson (no relation to William Thompson), believing that only he could provide ‘measures of reform commensurate with the wants and demands of the country’.32Morning Post, 17 Sept. 1841. The invitation also reflected the desire of Williams and Binns, who had recently formed the Complete Suffrage Union in Sunderland, to work with, rather than against, the League, a position that was attacked by Feargus O’Connor.33Wilson, ‘Chartism and the Complete Suffrage Union’, 18-20. Sir Hedworth Williamson, meanwhile, in an intervention that heightened tensions between local Liberals and Chartists, backed Howick, insisting that ‘it was only so long as the electors of Sunderland supported such men as Lord Howick ... that he would retain his influence in the Reform cause’.34Quoted in Heeson, ‘The Sunderland by-election, 1841’, 70-1. A strong candidate with impeccable political connections, Howick advocated free trade, telling the electorate that protection was ‘a delusion’ and duties were ‘all bad in principle’.35Morning Post, 17 Sept. 1841. The Conservatives sought to retain the support of the shipping interest by inviting Matthias Wolverley Attwood, chairman of the Steam Navigation Company and nephew of Thomas Attwood of the Birmingham Political Union, to stand. A London merchant, Attwood stated that ‘we want to place the interests of shipping in the hands of men who know what shipping is’ and attacked Howick as the nominee of the ‘Lambton clique’.36Quoted in Heeson, ‘The Sunderland by-election, 1841’, 67. The campaign was a fractious one, with Howick writing to his father that his supporters were spending vast sums on refreshment tickets,37Howick to Grey, 12 Sept. 1841, quoted in ibid, 70. but it was the Conservative cause that was damaged, however, by Binns’s revelation that their party agent had offered £125 towards the cost of Perronet Thompson’s candidature in an attempt to split the Liberal vote.38Leeds Mercury, 18 Sept. 1841. With Thompson eventually declining to come forward, Liberal voters united behind Howick, who was elected by a comfortable margin after defeating Attwood in every district of the borough. Moreover, despite Attwood’s maritime credentials and Howick’s unequivocal support for free trade, the former polled only marginally better amongst the shipping interest. Not surprisingly, a petition was launched against Howick’s return, 5 Oct. 1841, on the grounds of bribery, treating and intimidation, and it was only after the intervention of Joseph Parkes, who arranged a compromise in exchange for Liberals abandoning their petition at Brighton, that it was withdrawn, 3 June 1842.39Heesom, ‘The Sunderland by-election, 1841’, 75-7.

When Howick succeeded his father as Earl Grey in 1845, the subsequent by-election reopened the tensions between moderate and radical Liberals in Sunderland. Peronnet Thompson offered again, but this time, with public support from Richard Cobden and John Bright of the Anti-Corn Law League, had every intention of proceeding to the poll.40The Times, 15 Aug. 1845. Although his campaign was based ostensibly on the call for repeal of the corn laws, the contest undoubtedly revolved around local and personal matters as much as national issues.41N. McCord and P.A. Wood, ‘The Sunderland election of 1845’, Dur. Univ. Jnl., xxi (1959-60), 11; Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 33. Moderate Liberals, led by Sir Hedworth Williamson, opposed Thompson’s candidature, and instead brought forward John Bagshaw, an East India merchant with interests in railway development who had previously sat for Sudbury, 1835-7. Thompson’s supporters, who felt that the sitting member Barclay already represented the town’s moderate interests, were outraged, prompting George Wilson, the chairman of the Anti-Corn Law League, to suggest a ballot of Liberal electors. Thompson, however, refused, which, according to John Bright, ‘put him in the wrong with almost everybody’. Although publicly supportive of the colonel, Bright wrote privately to Cobden that ‘he is without exception about the very worst candidate we could fight with – his obstinacy is beyond belief and if it were not for the cause I would go away by first train.’ Tellingly, Bright felt that a compromise with local moderates was possible as they were ‘almost to a man’ free traders’ and ‘not a bad set ... to have got up a quarrel with them is very annoying’.42John Bright to Richard Cobden, 28 July 1845, BL Add MSS 43383, f. 153.

Although Bagshaw, on the advice of his friends in the Anti-Corn Law League, withdrew before the nomination, Thompson was faced with a formidable Conservative opponent, the ‘Railway King’ George Hudson. Hudson was at the height of his power in 1845, controlling nearly 1,500 miles of railway, and once his candidature was announced, shares in the Sunderland and Durham railway rose three pounds in two days.43Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 95. His political reach drew the ire of Cobden, who later lamented that Hudson ‘would go into every constituency with an intangible bribe for every class – the capitalists would hope for premiums – the smaller fry would look for situations for their sons ... and the rope, iron, coal and timber merchants will all bid for his patronage. His undetectable powers of corruption at this moment are greater than the prime minister’s’.44Sunderland Herald, 24 Oct. 1845. The local economic situation certainly favoured Hudson. With trade at the coal-shipping port of Sunderland in decline, his declaration that, if elected, he would build a new dock and overhaul the local railway, clearly resonated with the electorate.45McCord and Wood, ‘The Sunderland election of 1845’, 17; Daily News, 15 Mar. 1849. Following a fiercely fought campaign therefore, Hudson, who was implacably opposed to repeal of the corn laws, as it would ‘effect a great destruction upon the poor man’, comfortably defeated Thompson.46The Times, 15 Aug. 1845. An analysis of the poll reveals that of those who had supported Howick in September 1841, 12 per cent now supported Hudson, while a further 16 per cent abstained.47Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 100. The polling results for the different districts also showed that Hudson had outpolled Thompson by a majority of 3 in Southwick and Monkwearmouth, two areas dominated by Sir Hedworth Williamson’s estate votes, suggesting that moderate Liberals from across the borough backed Hudson.48The Times, 18 Aug. 1845. However, although the result demonstrated that Sunderland Liberalism was disunited, the split must be put into context. For example, while Walker Featherstonhaugh, chairman of Howick’s election committee in 1841, urged electors to assert their independence from the Anti-Corn Law League and vote for Hudson, he did so on the grounds that the Conservative candidate would do the most for the borough, suggesting that local issues rather than political principles swung the moderate Liberal vote towards the ‘Railway King’.49McCord and Wood, ‘The Sunderland election of 1845’, 17. See also M.J. Turner, ‘Reform politics and the Sunderland election of 1845’, Northern History, 38 (2001), 83-106.

Following his election, Hudson consolidated his local standing by not only buying out the shareholders of the Sunderland and Durham railway but also announcing that the Newcastle and Darlington railway would put up £75,000 towards the construction of the Sunderland south docks.50Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 95. On the eve of the 1847 general election, the Liberal-supporting Sunderland Herald attempted to undermine his local popularity, insisting that electors should not ‘suppose in him any disposition to support the interests of Sunderland at the expense of his own’, but this argument made little impact, and Hudson, who positioned himself as the saviour of the docks and the champion of the working classes, was comfortably re-elected.51Sunderland Herald, 18 June 1847; Newcastle Courant, 6 Aug. 1847. He was also aided by the disunited opposition, as local Radicals again brought forward a League member, this time William Arthur Wilkinson, against Barclay. While Wilkinson boldly called for the repeal of the navigation laws, as they were ‘injurious to the shipping interest and the public’, Barclay was more sensitive to his electorate, stating that the laws ‘formed an exception to the doctrine of free trade’ and if Wilkinson was returned, the voters would have to ‘cut their own throats’.52Newcastle Courant, 6 Aug. 1847. Gaining 532 split votes with Hudson, Barclay successfully defended his seat, leaving Wilkinson, who received 330 plumpers and only 186 split votes with Hudson, bottom of the poll. The extent of the disunity between local radicals and moderates was underlined by the fact that Wilkinson and Barclay shared only 56 split votes.53Bean, Parliamentary representation, 170.

When Barclay resigned his seat in December 1847, due to the collapse of his business interests, the subsequent by-election witnessed a straight fight between the two wings of local Liberalism. To maintain his family’s interest in the borough, Sir Hedworth Williamson offered himself for the seat, and pledged his support for the navigation laws, thus gaining the support of the shipowners’ society.54Newcastle Courant, 24 Dec. 1847; Daily News, 15 Mar. 1849. Standing again, Wilkinson attempted to undermine his opponent by highlighting the north docks controversy, but enjoying Conservative support, Williamson was safely returned. In contrast to earlier contests, there was little excitement, and ‘the affair was altogether tame, spiritless, and lifeless’.55Daily News, 22 Dec. 1847.

At the beginning of the 1850s, the leading figures of local radicalism were now prominent members of the Sunderland town council, most notably James Williams, the owner of the Sunderland Times who had moved away from Chartism to become a councillor in 1848, and John Candlish, owner of the Londonderry bottle works at Seaham harbour and proprietor of the Sunderland News who was elected a councillor the same year. At the 1852 general election, Williams and Candlish backed William Digby Seymour, an Irish-born lawyer who was the son-in-law of Hudson’s agent, Joseph John Wright. A bitter struggle between the two factions of local Liberalism ensued when Williamson, who had retired at the dissolution, and his supporters, brought forward Henry Fenwick, a lawyer and native of county Durham. The Sunderland Times labelled Fenwick’s supporters as ‘the whiggling toadies dangling about at the heels of the sensitive and gentlemanly whiggling candidate for the honour of degrading Sunderland’, while the Sunderland Herald dismissed Seymour as ‘nothing but a Tory-Chartist’, whose ‘wires are worked’ by his father-in-law.56Sunderland Times, 3 July 1852; Sunderland Herald, 3, 10 July 1852. After the election, Seymour and Fenwick continued their personal spat, with Fenwick writing to members of the northern bar for their opinion of Seymour’s politics, and publishing their critical responses. One lawyer, Campbell Foster, was particularly hostile, leading to Seymour and Foster becoming involved in a ‘set-to’ at York Castle, during a meeting that had been arranged to settle their differences. Blackburn Standard, 28 July 1852. Despite the rhetoric, however, the platforms of Seymour and Fenwick were strikingly similar: both men pledged themselves to free trade, and promised to remove the burdens on shipping.57Newcastle Courant, 9 July 1852.

Although by the time of the 1852 election Hudson had been exposed as a fraudster and nationally disgraced, he remained a local hero following his triumphant opening of the new Sunderland docks in 1850.58Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 96. He based his entire campaign, therefore, on his successful efforts to ‘promote the shipping and commercial interests’ of the constituency, and even the Sunderland News admitted that ‘Hudson’s election, it is well known on all hands, is safe’.59Durham Advertiser, 4 June 1852; Sunderland News, 3 July 1852. The fallen ‘Railway king’ duly topped the poll, with Seymour returned in second place. The result once again underlined the extent of Liberal disunity in the borough, with their two candidates sharing only 103 split votes, but Seymour gaining 332 plump votes and Fenwick 249. Seymour, who undoubtedly benefitted from his connections with the Conservative agent Wright, also secured 389 split votes with Hudson, compared to Fenwick’s 302.60Bean, Parliamentary representation, 170.

The 1855 by-election, however, showed that, as was the case in 1847, in a straight fight between a moderate and a radical, the former group appeared stronger. Upon his appointment as recorder of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Seymour came forward for re-election, only to be opposed once again by Fenwick, who ran a highly personalised campaign, attacking his opponent’s voting record on shipping matters, and arguing that Seymour’s appointment in Newcastle was a ‘betrayal’ of his duty to Sunderland.61The Times, 3 Jan. 1855. Seymour denounced ‘Fenwick and his motley coadjutors’ who were ‘endeavouring, in every dirty sewer, to rake up what they could against me’, and at the nomination, Fenwick cut an unpopular figure, being pelted by stones and oranges. 62Ibid. However, having lost the support of a number of local shipowners, Seymour was unable to defend his seat, and Fenwick was returned with a strong majority.

The continuing Liberal disharmony in Sunderland helped to secure the unlikely re-election of Hudson at the 1857 general election. In an attempt to avoid his creditors, Hudson had spent the majority of the previous two years in Paris, reducing the representation of Sunderland to ‘a delusion and a sham’, according to the Herald.63Sunderland Herald, 13 Mar. 1857; Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 97. Promising to serve his constituents in a ‘more efficient and better manner’, Hudson again made his appeal on the basis of the Sunderland docks, and, gaining a crucial 735 split votes with Fenwick, was returned in second place. Ralph Walters, a Radical Newcastle lawyer, secured 524 plump votes, a significant improvement in the straight Radical vote since 1852, but with a total of only 339 split votes, he was soundly defeated, with Fenwick, who strongly backed Palmerston’s foreign policy, comfortably at the top of the poll.64Bean, Parliamentary representation, 170.

The 1859 general election witnessed a rare moment of harmony in local Liberalism, as Fenwick and William Schaw Lindsay, an extensive shipowner who had previously sat for Tynemouth, joined forces in support of Lord John Russell’s reform proposals. For the first time in the post-Reform era, a national issue managed to transcend local rivalries, and with Hudson, whose credibility was irrevocably shattered when his south dock company was unable to pay any dividend that year, attacking Russell for his factional opposition to Derby’s administration, Fenwick and Lindsay enjoyed a commanding victory, gaining an unprecedented 1,191 split votes.65Heesom, ‘Parliamentary politics’, 98, 103; Bean, Parliamentary representation, 171.

This new-found unity, however, did not last, and at the 1865 general election, factionalism resurfaced. John Candlish, who had twice served as mayor and was now an alderman, offered in the Radical interest against Lindsay, whose standing had been undermined by his support for the Confederate South in the American civil war. Though Lindsay withdrew on the eve of the election due to ill-health, Candlish had alienated Lindsay’s friends, most significantly James Williams, whose Sunderland Times remained hostile to his candidature. Candlish also faced a formidable Conservative opponent, his rival alderman James Hartley, proprietor of the Wear Glass Works, who had served three times as mayor. Significantly, Hartley positioned himself as a Liberal-Conservative, backing an extension of the franchise and the abolition of church rates, and was therefore able to draw on cross-party support, as was Fenwick, who stated that he would continue to give his ‘independent’ support to Palmerston, but also called for a widening of the franchise.66The Times, 12 June 1865. Fenwick’s subsequent commanding victory reflected his broad appeal: he gained 823 split votes with Hartley and 914 with Candlish. Hartley’s 382 plumpers to Candlish’s 261 proved to be decisive, and the former was returned in second place. Candlish’s supporters were furious, claiming that Fenwick’s reluctance to back their man had cost the Radicals a seat.67Examiner, 3 Mar. 1866.

An opportunity for revenge presented itself at the 1866 by-election, necessitated by Fenwick’s appointment as a lord of the admiralty. Backed by the newly formed Sunderland Advanced Liberal Association, Candlish launched a viscous attack on Fenwick’s political principles, claiming that he had ‘been in alliance, first with one political party, and then with another, and he has betrayed them both’.68Newcastle Courant, 2 Mar. 1866. Due to illness, Fenwick was unable to canvass personally, and Candlish was elected after a brief campaign in which he spent more than £5,000 and polled the majority among those who were new to the register. 69See Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 126, for a detailed breakdown of the poll. In contrast to the by-elections of 1847 and 1855, therefore, the Radicals had won a straight contest against the moderate Liberals, reflecting the steady rise of support for Radicalism in the borough.70Ibid.

Following the 1867 Reform Act which swelled the constituency’s electorate to over 11,000, the supremacy of Sunderland Radicalism was confirmed at the 1868 general election.71Ibid., 127. With Candlish certain to be re-elected, and Hartley retiring, the newly formed Sunderland Liberal Political Union, which had replaced the Advanced Liberal Association, organised a trial ballot to choose his running-mate. The two candidates were Edward Temperley Gourley, an advanced Liberal and shipowner who had twice been mayor, and Thomas Charles Thompson, a landowner and colliery proprietor, who, although brought forward by local moderates, was supported by the secretary of the Reform League. The trial ballot, however, was abandoned, with both sides accusing the other of corruption. All three Liberals proceeded to the poll, which gave Candlish and Gourley a substantial majority.72H.J. Hanham, Elections and party management: politics in the time of Disraeli and Gladstone (1978), 98-99. The Radicals, under the leadership of Samuel Storey, dominated parliamentary elections thereafter, with unbroken Liberal representation until 1895. The borough’s first Labour member, Thomas Summerbell, was elected in 1906. A fruitful constituency for the study of tensions within the Liberal-Radical alliance, nineteenth-century Sunderland has been the subject of a number of case studies of popular politics, most notably Thomas Nossiter’s formative Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England: Case Studies from the North-east, 1832-74. Geoffrey Milburn and Stuart Miller’s edited collection, Sunderland: river, town and people: a history from the 1780s (1988), offers a wide-ranging survey of the borough’s development.