Cumberland West

Economic and social profile

A maritime Lakeland county separated from Scotland by the Solway Firth, mountains and lakes comprised nearly a quarter of Cumberland’s one million acres.1Dod’s electoral facts, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 76-7. In 1830 industry was already well established in the western part of the county, with Whitehaven and Workington, on the western seaboard, home to important coal mines. Although the Cumbrian coalfield was a minor producer in national terms, its presence ensured that, throughout this period, the western part of the county enjoyed greater prosperity, in terms of wealth and incomes, than the more agricultural east.2J.D. Marshall and J.K. Walton, The Lake Counties from 1830 to the mid-twentieth century (1981), 20-1. The manufacture of cottons, linens and woollen goods dominated the economy of Cockermouth, the western division’s election town, although the textile industry declined sharply from the 1850s onwards.3C.F. Barnes, ‘The trade union and radical activities of the Carlisle handloom weavers’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 78 (1978), 157. Whitehaven’s port, which was owned by the Lowther family, the region’s leading landowners, contained a shipbuilding industry, but its importance waned in this period, with the first earl of Lonsdale, the head of the Lowther family, taking only a minor interest in the port’s fortunes. By the 1850s, Maryport, which had been connected by railway to Carlisle in 1845, emerged as the county’s leading port.4C.F. O’Neil, ‘The “contest for dominion”: political conflict and the decline of the Lowther interest in Whitehaven, 1820-1900’, Northern History, xviii (1982), 135-7. Iron mining was also an important part of the Cumbrian economy, and in 1854 the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway was opened, allowing Lonsdale’s iron ore to be transported to the west coast.5Marshall and Walton, Lake Counties, 35-9. With the region experiencing only a halting population growth after the middle of the nineteenth century, the western division’s iron mining, shipbuilding and factory-based flax and jute industries attracted a significant influx of Irish immigrants in the 1850s.6D. M. MacRaild, Culture, conflict and migration: the Irish in Victorian Cumbria (1998), 67-8. In 1865 the Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith railway opened, connecting the region to the Durham and Lancashire Union railway, which facilitated Keswick’s growth as an importance centre of tourism.7Marshall and Walton, Lake Counties, 24.

Electoral history

Prior to 1832, Cumberland politics had been characterised by the struggle between, on the one hand, the dukes of Norfolk and Portland and the earls of Carlisle, who, along with the Whig gentry, were known as the ‘Blues’, and on the other, the Lowther family, led by the earl of Lonsdale, whose supporters were known as the ‘Yellows’.8HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 88-91. Since 1774 shared representation had been uneasily maintained, but in 1831 two reformers were returned: Sir James Robert George Graham of Netherby and William Blamire, who praised ‘the force of public opinion in destroying the magic spell of wealth and unconstitutional influence’.9Quoted in E.J. Evans, ‘Blamire, William (1790-1862)’, Oxf. DNB., www.oxforddnb.com; HP Commons, 1820-1832, ii. 208-219. The 1832 Reform Act split the county in two, separating the east, where the majority of the land comprised small individual farms owned by the yeoman, from the west, which contained the county’s ports and coal mining towns.10PP 1831-2 (141), xxxviii. 89. As the chief part of Lonsdale’s property was located in the west of the county, the creation of a second division had been strenuously opposed by Blamire, who, in a coded attack on the Lowther interest, had warned that it ‘would have a most injurious effect upon the freedom of election in that county’.11Hansard, 11 Aug. 1831, vol. 5, c. 1248.

From 1832 onwards, the Lowther interest was utterly dominant in Cumberland West, giving the Yellows complete political hegemony. As the Carlisle Journal noted in 1865, ‘Lord Lonsdale reigns supreme’ and ‘only candidates who were “native and to the manor born” would be brought forward’.12Ibid., 21 July 1865. Beset by poor organisation and an inability to match the Yellows’ assiduousness in attending to the register, the Blues mounted only four challenges in this period, and failed to bring forward a single candidate between 1835 and 1857. The only consistent Liberal voice in the division was the Carlisle Journal, whose editorials were dogged not only in their attacks on the nature of the Lowther influence, but also in their criticism of the Blues’ ‘political laziness’ in failing to generate further support.13Carlisle Journal, 31 Aug. 1860. Another notable voice of opposition were the non-electors, who, at the hustings, assailed the Yellows with verbal, and sometimes physical attacks, although the Yellows were more than equal to the task, with Lonsdale bringing down his colliers from Whitehaven to the hustings at Cockermouth to drown out the dissenting voices. The Yellows, largely in defence of the Lowther interest, were also keen to emphasise the separate identity of the western division, and frequently attacked the Blues for relying on the vocal support of the ‘statesmen’, the smaller landowners, whose estates were generally located in the east of the county.14J.D. Marshall, ‘Statesmen in Cumbria’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 72 (1972), 248-73.

At the 1832 general election William Lowther, styled viscount Lowther, the eldest son of the earl of Lonsdale, was brought forward in absentia, following a requisition signed by the electors of Whitehaven, even though he was already standing at Westmorland.15Morning Chronicle, 24 Dec. 1832. Lowther, who had sat for Cockermouth, 1808-13, and Westmorland, 1813-31, had been defeated at Cumberland in 1831, owing to his resolute stance against reform, but the creation of the western division, where his family was the largest landholder, coupled with the ‘prodigious exertions’ of the Yellows in attending to the register, revitalised his prospects.16Morning Chronicle, 26 Dec. 1832. The second Yellow candidate, also a Lowther nominee, was Edward Stanley of Ponsonby Hall, another major landowner, who was seconded at the nomination by William Browne, of Tallantire Hall, who had come over from the Blues.17The Times, 26 Dec. 1832; HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 217. Blue mismanagement appeared to be endemic in Cumberland West in 1832. Not only was it reported that they ‘shamefully neglected’ to attend to the register, but also Sir Wilfrid Lawson, of Brayton Hall, who was originally brought forward as a Reformer, retired on the eve of the nomination, believing his chances were poor.18Morning Chronicle, 26 Dec. 1832; R.S. Ferguson, Cumberland and Westmoreland MPs from the Restoration to the Reform Bill of 1867 (1871), 262. Henry Curwen, a leading member of the Blue hierarchy from Workington, in the eastern part of the county, was their sole candidate.

Agricultural issues dominated the contest, with the Yellows taking great pains ‘to persuade farmers that the present ministry were contemplating measures ruinous to the agriculturalists’, leaving Curwen to reassure the electors that a Liberal government would not repeal the corn laws.19Morning Chronicle, 24, 26 Dec. 1832. Following a ‘most active and indefatigable’ canvass by the Yellows, Lowther was elected in first place, signalling the triumphant return of the family interest in the county, while Stanley was returned in second. With nearly 600 out of the 3,861 registered electors remaining unpolled, the Liberal-supporting press blamed the result on the ‘very negligent’ Blues, who made ‘scarcely any’ effort to ‘bring up their forces’.20Ibid., 24, 26 Dec. 1832. However, the strength of the Lowther interest cannot be discounted. Curwen, whose 1,336 plumpers accounted for 89 per cent of his total, convincingly won the poll in the districts of Aspatria (near Lawson’s Brayton Hall) and Cockermouth, but he was comprehensively beaten in Egremont, the most populous district that included the port and mining town of Whitehaven, which was controlled by the Lowthers, where he received only 11 per cent of the total vote. He also polled disastrously in Bootle, the most rural district, where he gained only 7 per cent.21W.W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 12.

Returned for both Cumberland West and Westmorland, Lowther elected to sit for the latter, prompting the Carlisle Journal to mock that ‘his pearls are too precious to be cast before the swine’.22Carlisle Journal, 23 Mar. 1833. At the ensuing by-election, the Lowther interest brought forward Samuel Irton of Irton, Santon, in the south-west corner of the division, who immediately took up the mantle of not only defending the corn laws, which he claimed had been ‘beneficial to every class’, but also attacking free trade, arguing that the policy had ‘thrown a great portion of our trade into the hands of foreigners’.23Ibid. At the nomination Irton insisted that he was an ‘independent’, though this was met with derisive laughter from his audience. His Blue opponent, Francis Aglionby, of Nunnery, near Penrith, attempted to capitalise on this issue, declaring that he wished ‘not to be the representative of craving, crouching, venal slaves, but to be the choice of an honest and enlightened constituency’. In contrast to Irton, Aglionby stated that he had ‘no desire to exalt agriculture above manufacturing, or manufacturers over agriculture’.24Ibid.

Significantly, although Aglionby was from Cumbria, the fact that his estates were in the eastern division was seized upon by Thomas Hoskins, Irton’s seconder, who declared that ‘this is no trifle, when we consider how frequently there are collisions of interests between the two divisions, and which render it highly improper for any gentleman connected with the Eastern division to represent the Western’.25Ibid. With the majority of the Lowther estates in the west of the county, it was clear that the Yellows wished to foster the separate identity of the division. Following a hard fought contest which, according to the Carlisle Journal, witnessed the ‘toiling and sweating’ of the Conservative party whip ‘Billy’ Holmes, Irton narrowly won the poll, again benefitting from a large majority in the Egremont and Bootle districts.26Ibid., 30 Mar. 1833; Morning Post, 23 Mar. 1833; Bean, Parliamentary representation, 12.

Concerned by their slender majority in 1833, the Yellows became ‘indefatigable in making votes, and in looking after the register’ while the Blues remained ‘in both ... respects, ... very deficient’.27Morning Chronicle, 24 Jan. 1835. At the 1835 general election Aglionby again offered in the Blue interest, issuing an address which called for an alteration in the corn laws, but owing to the death of one of his children, he did not appear at the nomination. The most vocal and visible opposition to the Yellow candidates at the nomination came from the assembled crowd. Stanley was persistently interrupted with cries of ‘what have we to do with ancient families here?’ and ‘we won’t have him – he is Lord Lowther’s tool’. Members of the crowd also threw snowballs, some of which contained ‘hard missiles’, at the Yellow members on the platform.28Ibid., 21 Jan. 1835. However, the registration drive clearly paid dividends, and Stanley, who topped the poll, and Irton were comfortably re-elected by a margin of over 300 votes.

Stanley and Irton were re-elected without opposition at the 1837 and 1841 general elections, both of which were unremarkable, with proceedings at the latter being described as ‘the most languid, stupid and uninteresting that ever were witnessed on any similar occasion’.29Carlisle Journal, 17 July 1841. With little sign of Blue interest at the nomination in 1837, at which only 200 persons were present, Stanley and Irton merely defended their parliamentary votes. Stanley underlined his opposition to measures dangerous to the ‘established church – which if carried into effect would indeed be ruinous to the monarchy’, while his attack on the poor law drew cheers from the crowd. Irton declared that he had ‘strenuously opposed every attempt’ to alter the provisions of the 1832 Reform Act.30Ibid., 5 Aug. 1837. In 1841, despite the appearance of a handbill from a Mr Hume of the Reform Club urging the electors of Cumberland West to ‘free yourselves from the thraldom of the house of Lowther’, no challenge materialised.31Standard, 12 July 1841. At the nomination Stanley attacked Melbourne’s ministry for their ‘wavering and incapacity’, and insisted that while he had ‘no wish to depreciate the magnitude of the commercial and manufacturing interests of the kingdom, ... they are not so important as the agricultural interest, which is beneficial to every class of society’. Irton stressed his continuing opposition to corn law repeal, but, after a stammering and hesitant beginning to his speech, gave up amidst ‘the laughter and shouting of the crowd’.32Carlisle Journal, 17 July 1841.

At the 1847 general election Irton made way for Henry Lowther, the nephew of William Lowther, who had vacated Cumberland West for Westmorland in 1832 and was now the second earl of Lonsdale. Although Lowther admitted that he had no past conduct to call upon, he insisted that ‘he had a name in which confidence might be placed’.33Daily News, 14 Aug. 1847. The recent votes in the Commons on the Maynooth grant and the repeal of the corn laws cast a shadow over the election. Lowther stressed his opposition to ‘any attempt which may be made to elevate Romanism into a higher power in this country’, and while confirming that he would give the ‘free-trade system a fair trial’, he insisted that ‘he was ready to give the agricultural and the labour interest those compensations to which they were entitled by reason of the late government’s submission to the Anti-Corn Law League’.34Kendal Mercury, 24 July 1847; Morning Post, 28 July 1847. Similarly, Stanley stated that he would ‘do nothing to prevent the free trade changes from having a fair trial’, but declared that he would resist further ‘inroads which were calculated to injure British industry’, and would oppose the ‘further endowment of popery’.35The Times, 13 Aug. 1841. The Blues were again unable to muster a challenge, leaving Lowther and Stanley to be returned without opposition.

Following Stanley’s decision to retire from public life at the dissolution in 1852, the Yellows brought back Irton. The Carlisle Journal ridiculed this decision, stating that the man ‘who has been rusticating about Irton woods since his retirement’ was only brought forward to replace Stanley because ‘there is not another young fledging of the Lowther family ready to succeed him’.36Carlisle Journal, 21 May 1852. As was the case at the 1847 general election, the protection of British industry, specifically the agricultural interest, and an unequivocal opposition to ‘Papal aggression’ dominated all other issues, with Irton and Lowther united in their dislike of the ‘Manchester school of politics’.37Westmorland Gazette, 22 May 1852; Morning Chronicle, 14 July 1852; Morning Post, 15 July 1852. With any semblance of Blue leadership absent from the campaign, opposition to the Yellows on election day relied on the ‘portions of the crowd’, who heckled the two candidates, although Lonsdale’s colliers, whom he had brought down by special train from Whitehaven, noisily countered any interventions. Lowther and Irton were returned without opposition.38Carlisle Journal, 15 July 1842.

The 1857 general election witnessed the first Liberal candidate to go to the poll at West Cumberland for nearly a quarter of a century. Invited by a requisition signed by local Liberal electors, Wilfrid Lawson, the son and heir of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, of Brayton Hall, came forward in the Blue interest, and issued an address calling for ‘reform, reduction of taxation, peace, religious equality, and extension of the suffrage’.39Daily News, 24 Mar. 1857; The Times, 21 Mar. 1857. Unsurprisingly, Lawson’s campaign revolved around a zealous attack on the dominance of the Lowther interest, urging the electors to ‘enter heart and soul into the endeavour to restore the political independence of this division of the county, and to return at last an independent member’. He also questioned the legitimacy of the requisition inviting Henry Wyndham to replace Irton, who had retired at the dissolution, asserting that ‘only one influential person would have signed it – the earl of Lonsdale’.40Carlisle Journal, 3 Apr. 1857. Lawson’s most high-profile supporter was Fretcheville Dykes, MP for East Cumberland 1832-35, who admitted that the local Blue party had hitherto ‘lain in a state of utter paralysis and stagnation’. Referring to the fact that the Blues only held one out of five seats in the county, he declared that it was akin to ‘giving something like the lion’s share to them, and taking the ass’s skin for ourselves’.41Ibid. However, as Dykes’s estates were in the east of the county, his presence in the campaign prompted the Yellows to portray this as outside interference, as they, again, sought to highlight the separate identity of the western division.

Irton’s replacement, General Henry Wyndham, who had sat as Conservative MP for Cockermouth since 1852, was a strong candidate. A distinguished army officer and Waterloo hero, he was the second illegitimate son of George O’Brien Wyndham, the third earl of Egremont, and had inherited his father’s estate at Cockermouth Castle in 1837, giving him a degree of local influence. At the nomination, he attacked Palmerston’s handling of events at Canton, and, in direct contrast to Lawson, declared his unequivocal opposition to the ballot, arguing that it ‘begets suspicion and hatred among the electors. ... Non-electors ... would be cheated and deceived’. Similarly, Lowther attacked Palmerston’s conduct in foreign affairs, and maintained his vehement opposition to Maynooth College, calling it ‘nothing but a hotbed of sedition’.42Ibid. The nomination, at which 3,000 people were present, was a rowdy affair, with the earl of Lonsdale’s Whitehaven colliers intent on ‘interrupting the speakers on the Liberal side of the hustings, and drowning their voices in volleys of exclamations of a personal, and frequently of a disgusting nature’. They saved the worst of their vitriol for Lawson, who broke off from his speech to ask them, ‘are you afraid of hearing the truth?’ 43Ibid. Following a one-day poll, Wyndham was elected in first place, with Lowther returned in second, 271 votes ahead of Lawson. An analysis of the poll reveals that the Blues had made little headway since 1835. As expected, Lawson dominated in his local Aspatria district and won in the market town of Keswick, but he trailed badly in the ports of Whitehaven and Maryport. Like Aglionby in 1833 and 1835, he was victorious in Cockermouth, but even here the Blue majority had dwindled, owing to the re-emergence of the Egremont interest, led by Wyndham.44Bean, Parliamentary representation, 12.

The Blues failed to muster a challenge at the 1859 general election, leaving Lowther and Wyndham to be returned unopposed. At the nomination both men insisted that while they had opposed certain clauses of Derby’s reform bill, given the ‘quiet state of the public mind’ it was worthy of their general support. Lowther singled out Lord John Russell for particular criticism, while Wyndham castigated the Liberals for their ‘most factious and unprincipled’ behaviour in turning out Derby’s ministry.45Carlisle Journal, 3 May 1859.

Wyndham only served for one further parliamentary session before his death in August 1860, which necessitated a by-election.46The Times, 6 Aug. 1860. The Yellows brought forward Percy Wyndham, the late member’s nephew, for the vacancy. Although ‘young and untried’, his seconder Thomas Hoskins, who at previous nominations had proved himself to be a pugnacious advocate of hereditary influence, observed that ‘it was no light consideration to them that Mr Wyndham was connected with a great estate in that district, widely influential and extensive’.47Carlisle Journal, 31 Aug. 1860. During a brief campaign, Wyndham focused mainly on foreign affairs, calling for a policy of non-intervention, while praising the English volunteer movement. Like his uncle, he was also ‘totally opposed’ to the ballot, calling it ‘a cowardly, sneaking and un-English measure, very unfair indeed to the non-electors of the country’.48Ibid. Immediately following Wyndham’s unopposed return, the Carlisle Journal ridiculed his qualifications, describing him as being ‘stuck up in the House of Commons as a sort of monumental tablet to the memory of his uncle’. The Journal reserved its greatest criticism, though, for the Cumberland Blues, stating that their ‘Liberal friends in the west’ were guilty of ‘lapsing into indolence and disorganisation’.49Ibid.

The Blues, however, again declined to offer a candidate at the 1865 general election, which in Cumberland West was dominated by the issues of foreign affairs and franchise reform. Lowther called for a policy of non-intervention, criticising Russell for ‘continually bullying small states, knocking under large ones, and meddling with things he had better leave alone’, while Wyndham condemned the government’s handling of the Danish crisis. Both men were united in their belief that the country did not require a new reform bill.50Carlisle Journal, 18 July 1865.

Following the Second Reform Act the electorate increased from 4,602 to 5,676. Lowther and Wyndham retained their seats at the 1868 general election, defeating two Liberal candidates, and the Conservatives maintained their hegemony until 1880 when the Liberal David Ainsworth was returned at the top of the poll. In 1885 the county was split into four single-member divisions, with the Lowthers controlling Penrith. Cumberland’s politics are analysed in J.D. Marshall and J.K. Walton, The Lake Counties from 1830 to the mid-twentieth century (1981). Robert Ferguson’s Cumberland and Westmoreland MPs from the Restoration to the Reform Bill of 1867 (1871) also provides a useful, though dated, overview of the region’s parliamentary elections.