Derbyshire North

Economic and social profile:

North Derbyshire contained a mixture of agriculture, manufacturing and extractive industries, but its topography was ‘very dissimilar’ to that of the southern division of the county, High Peak hundred being ‘a region of high bleak moors’.1The Times, 10 Nov. 1851. Territorially, the constituency was dominated by the estates of the dukes of Devonshire, ‘who owned upwards of 70,000 acres’.2S. Bagshaw, History, gazetteer and directory of Derbyshire (1846), 484. Dairy and livestock farming were significant, but crops, including barley, potatoes and especially oats, were all vulnerable to the heavy summer rain or even snow caused by the microclimate of the peaks.3Morn. Chro., 30 Oct. 1841, 22 Aug. 1845; Derby Mercury, 14 Nov. 1860; Bagshaw, History, 8, 13-14. ‘Even in the midst of summer, a chillness pervades the air’ noted one observer.4Morn. Chro., 7 Jan. 1845. The constituency had several market towns, including Bakewell, Glossop, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Alfreton, Chesterfield, Tideswell, and Winster.5Bagshaw, History, 1-2. Lead mining was concentrated in the north-western quarter of the county, with collieries located on the eastern border with Nottinghamshire, beginning in the south and leading up to and including Chesterfield and Eckington.6; Bagshaw, History, 20, 25; S. Glover, The history and gazetteer of the county of Derby (1843), 45-49, 64-67; G. Turbutt, A history of Derbyshire (1999), iv. 1431-44 & maps 15, 16. The former town also produced pottery, lace, and silk, and possessed ironstone and coal deposits.7Glover, History, 82, 212-13; G. Hall, The history of Chesterfield (1839), 166-74. The production of cotton and other textiles was clustered around Glossop, near the border with Cheshire, the parish containing 56 mills in 1843.8Bagshaw, History, 517, 521-23; Glover, History, 214-16; Turbutt, History, iv. maps 18, 24. A railway line starting from the middle of the county, going through Clay Cross, the site of a major colliery, Chesterfield, and on to Leeds was opened in 1840. However, it was only in the 1860s that the engineering problems caused by the terrain of the region were overcome and the Buxton to Manchester line could be completed.9Turbutt, History, iv. 1552-56 & map 22. The area was also famous for the hot ‘healing streams’ of Matlock and Buxton, which attracted middle-class tourists from the 1840s, having previously been largely the preserve of fashionable society.10Bagshaw, History, 429-30 (at 429); Glover, History, 21-28; Turbutt, History, iii. 1319-24; ibid., iv. 1567.

Electoral history:

Before 1832 the representation of Derbyshire had long been cordially shared between the Whig dukes of Devonshire and the gentry in the south of the constituency, who had Tory leanings. The Reform Act divided the county into two, and North Derbyshire reflected the ‘immense influence’ of the 6th duke (1790-1858), with one seat always being held by the Cavendish family, and the other by a Reformer or Liberal.11Derby Mercury, 17 Feb. 1858. The Tories and their Conservative successors competed vigorously in 1832 and 1837, but thereafter the Whig-Liberal alliance faced no opposition, apart from an internecine by-election contest in 1853. Although Conservatives complained that the constituency was ‘as complete a rotten borough, as ever existed under the old system of representation’, the duke was extremely careful not to exceed what was considered to be his legitimate influence, and he was praised for avoiding ‘territorial arrogance’.12Derby Mercury, 11 Feb. 1835; Daily News, 22 July 1853. The electoral policy of the Devonshire interest was summed up in a letter from Lord George Henry Cavendish advising his brother, who had recently succeeded as the 7th duke, to ‘take the same line as the late Duke, that having one of your family already in, you would leave it to the N[orth] D[erbyshire] liberals to choose their own man; but when they had done so, you would support him against a conservative, should one be started’.13Qu. by C. Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1852-1865’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1981), ci. 151-72 (at 163). It would be misleading, therefore, to view the constituency as simply an example of continued proprietorial influence, as the Cavendishes made a partisan choice to co-operate with local liberals rather than attempt to share the representation with the Conservative 6th duke of Rutland, which they considered untenable in the post-reform era. There was a party struggle in the 1830s as the Conservatives expended considerable efforts on the constituency, although their campaign never matched the intensity or organisation of that of their colleagues in Derby and the southern division.

Possessing a smaller electorate than the southern division, there were 4,370 registered voters in North Derbyshire in 1833, a figure which rose to 5,410 in 1836, remaining around that level thereafter.14PP 1833 (189), xxvii. 34; 1836 (190), xliii. 365. The majority of the electorate were forty shilling freeholders, with 3,858 (69.8%) out of a total of 5,527 qualifying as such in 1837-38, with tenants-at-will the next largest group, accounting for 1,226 (22.2%), and the composition remained essentially the same for the rest of the period.15PP 1837-38 (329), xliv. 557; 1840 (579), xxxix. 188; 1844 (11), xxxvii. 428; 1847 (751), xlvi. 337; 1852 (8), xlii. 310; 1860 (277), lv. 86; 1866 [3736], lvii. 135.

At the 1832 election the cause of Reform was represented by the young Whig Lord Cavendish, the cousin and heir to the 6th duke, who had briefly represented Derbyshire in the unreformed Parliament, and the Radical Thomas Gisborne of Yoxall Lodge, Staffordshire, and Horwich House, near Chapel-en-le-Frith, who had been member for Stafford since 1830.16HP Commons, 1820-1832. There was an attempt to push forward another Whig, Sir Thomas Denman, of Stoney Middleton, later Lord Chief Justice, but he declined due to his connection with Nottingham, where he had been member, 1820-26, and 1830-32.17C. Hogarth, ‘The Derbyshire Parliamentary elections of 1832’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1969), lxxxix. 68-85 (at 82); HP Commons, 1820-1832; Morn. Chro., 17 Sept. 1832. However, Sir George Sitwell, 2nd bt., of Renishaw Hall, described by one observer as a ‘bigoted old Tory’ and a ‘miserable’ speaker, came forward, forcing a contest.18Hogarth, ‘Derbyshire elections of 1832’, 82; The Times, 12 Nov. 1832. Accompanied to the nomination at Bakewell by 200 people, three musical bands and numerous flags inscribed ‘Sitwell and Independence’, Sitwell carefully avoided describing himself as a Tory, saying only that he belonged to the ‘party of the constitution’, and he also favoured a paper currency.19Derby Mercury, 19 Dec. 1832. Cavendish stood as a ministerial supporter and called for further reforms, while Gisborne, after beginning humorously, angrily accused Sitwell of having ‘distributed libels from his carriage, in his canvass in the Peak’, which gave the impression that Gisborne was hostile to farmers and was the candidate of the manufacturers.20Ibid. After the Reformers won the show of hands a poll was demanded but the outcome was no different. Cavendish topped the poll by almost a thousand votes, and a similar margin secured Gisborne second place over Sitwell, who abandoned the contest after the first day’s polling, complaining of having ‘much undue influence to contend with’, broken pledges, and of anonymous threats made to his friends and supporters.21 Derby Mercury, 26 Dec. 1832; Morn. Chro., 24 Dec. 1832. At the declaration, the Reformers denied there had been any coalition between them, Gisborne saying that there was ‘a coalition of the electors, and not of candidates’.22Ibid. The members were then carried out of Bakewell in chairs ‘tastefully decorated with ribbons and evergreens’.23Derby Mercury, 26 Dec. 1832.

Cavendish succeeded his grandfather as 2nd Earl of Burlington and was replaced at a by-election, 27 May 1834, by his brother, George Henry Cavendish, who was proposed by the Liberal William Pole Thornhill, and seconded by the Conservative Robert Arkwright, of Sutton Hall, and a leading local manufacturer. He was returned without opposition after praising the record of the ministry, particularly over slavery, and calling for the commutation of tithes and reform of the church and the poor laws.24Derby Mercury, 28 May 1834.

Although there was no question of challenging Devonshire’s nominee, the Conservatives were determined to win the other seat at the next election, not least because they found Gisborne’s radical opinions so irksome. A meeting held in Wirksworth following the appointment of the Wellington ministry, 9 Dec. 1834, resolved that Arkwright, described by the Morning Chronicle as a ‘high Tory millionaire’, would be their candidate at the next election.25Derby Mercury, 10 Dec. 1834; Morn. Chro., 12 Dec. 1834; C. Hogarth, ‘The 1835 elections in Derbyshire’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1974), xciv. 45-59 (at 52). Privately, Sitwell sought to persuade the duke to share the representation with Arkwright in a manner reminiscent of the unreformed era, but the Whig magnate insisted that his preference was for a second liberal supporter of the government and that he did not wish a contest, and so the Conservatives withdrew.26Ibid., 52-53; Examiner, 28 Dec. 1834. Cavendish, who supported reform of the church, but would ‘never consent’ to disestablishment, was returned with Gisborne, who attacked the court, the House of Lords, and Sir Robert Peel, whom he described as a ‘tool’ of the duke of Wellington.27Derby Mercury, 7, 14 Jan. 1835.

Despite their rebuff and complaints about the duke’s influence, the Conservatives, boosted by their capture of South Derbyshire and an increased vote in Derby, harboured hopes for the constituency, not least because they could count on the support of the manufacturing and landowning Arkwright family.28Derby Mercury, 11 Feb. 1835. The party made considerable gains on the registers in 1835, with 265 out of 380 objections sustained against their opponents’ 65 successful claims.29Derby Mercury, 12 Aug. 1835, 14 Oct. 1835. However, the following year the Liberals claimed that the registration, particularly in High Peak, was ‘most favourable to the cause of Reform’.30Derby Mercury, 2 Nov. 1836. Even so, the Conservatives were determined to force a contest at the next election and in June 1835 a requisition with almost 500 signatures was presented to Arkwright, who accepted the invitation to stand.31Derby Mercury, 17 June 1835. The partisan battle was also carried on through house-building schemes to create freehold votes, funded by wealthy benefactors on both sides.32C. Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1837-47’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1975), xcv. 48-58 (at 49).

Illness prevented Arkwright from honouring his pledge at the 1837 general election, but his son, George, offered in his stead, promising to resist ‘all Revolutionary Schemes and Rash Projects for Innovation’.33Derby Mercury, 12 Apr. 1837, 12 July 1837; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1837-47’, 48. He was accompanied to the nomination by ‘an immense retinue of his friends’, brass bands, performers on horseback, and ‘three magnificent flags’ inscribed ‘Arkwright and Independence’.34North Derbyshire poll book 1837 election (1837), p.i. Having long contemplated retirement due to fatigue, Gisborne was replaced by his brother-in-law, the extremely rich businessman and landowner William Evans of Allestree Hall, who had previously sat for East Retford and Leicester.35Derby Mercury, 2 Nov. 1836, 19 Apr. 1837, 12 July 1837. Evans supported reform rather than repeal of the corn laws, retrenchment, and the ending of church rates, while Cavendish rebutted allegations that the constituency was a ‘close borough’ and that the duke’s tenants had been told to vote against their consciences.36Morn. Chro., 5 Aug. 1837. Echoing Sitwell in 1832, Arkwright insisted that he was an ‘independent candidate, of no party or faction’, but admitted that the Whig administration ‘have not my confidence’ and demanded a ‘very great alteration’ of the poor law.37Ibid. Although Arkwright withdrew at the end of the first day’s poll, by when he trailed by an insurmountable margin, he had secured a considerable lead over Evans in Chesterfield, but was ultimately undone by the votes that the Liberals secured in Bakewell, Chapel-en-le-Frith, and Glossop.38Derby Mercury, 9 Aug. 1837; The Times, 9 Aug. 1837; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1837-47’, 49; North Derbyshire poll book 1837, p.iii. The election was marked by disturbances at Glossop, where drunken Conservative supporters had ‘attacked a young gentleman in the colours of Cavendish and Evans’, prompting the Reformers to retaliate by pelting with stones a carriage containing Conservative voters.39Manchester Times, 12 Aug. 1837.

Encouraged by the 1838 registration, when 144 objections were sustained compared to their opponents’ 37, the Conservatives declared at a meeting in Chesterfield, 28 May 1839, that they would ‘start two candidates’ to oppose Cavendish and Evans at the next opportunity.40‘The registration of 1838’, Fraser’s Magazine (1838), xviii. 629-36 (at 631); The Times, 30 May 1839. It was rumoured that one of these would be the marquis of Granby, the heir to the Conservative duke of Rutland, whose estates were principally in Leicestershire, but also included Haddon Hall, near Bakewell. That year, Rutland suggested to Devonshire that the constituency be shared between Granby and Cavendish, which he thought was a reasonable request given his support for successive nominees of the duke. After taking advice from Cavendish, however, Devonshire rejected his friend’s proposal, believing such an arrangement would prove unpopular with the constituency, would provoke radical opposition, and risk leaving Cavendish dependent on Conservative support.41Bagshaw, History, 36; Examiner, 19, 26 Mar. 1839; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1837-47’, 50-52.

Although the Conservatives had made gains through objections on some occasions, Henry Barker, a leading local Liberal claimed in September 1837 that his party had a majority of 700-800 on the registers, and they made a ‘considerable gain’ in 1839.42Derby Mercury, 20 Sept. 1837; Morn. Chro., 21 Nov. 1839. Consequently, Cavendish and Evans were returned unopposed at the 1841 election, despite rumours that the latter would be replaced by one of the sons of the duke of Norfolk, who owned a small amount of property in the constituency.43Derby Mercury, 16 June 1841; The Times, 21 June 1841. Both men supported the reduction of tariffs to boost consumption and stimulate manufacturing at a nomination which was otherwise only notable for Liberal supporters holding up an effigy representing the ‘corpse’ of George Arkwright.44Morn. Chro., 13 July 1841; Derby Mercury, 14 July 1841. The Conservatives were heavily criticised in the pages of the Times for their failure to challenge, and one local supporter blamed the duke of Rutland for allowing ‘his all powerful Conservative interest in North Derbyshire to be so perverted by the Whig Duke of Devonshire, as to return two Whig-Radical Members’.45The Times, 12, 26 July 1841, 2 July 1841; Derby Mercury, 27 Jan. 1841. Evans replied that Rutland’s influence in the county was greatly exaggerated and even if it had been deployed on behalf of the party, any Conservative candidates would have been easily defeated.46Derby Mercury, 3 Feb. 1841.

After 1841 the Conservatives seem to have given up the fight for the constituency, despite occasional rumours to the contrary. They gained no traction from the corn laws, as local farmers were apathetic on the issue, and attempts to form a local protectionist organisation were frustrated by Devonshire’s tenants standing aloof.47Morn. Chro., 4 Mar. 1844; Derby Mercury, 2 Apr. 1851. The 1845 registration greatly strengthened the Liberals, rendering any opposition ‘fruitless’, and the incumbents were predictably returned without a contest in 1847.48Morn. Chro., 13 Dec. 1845. Evans spoke in favour of the ballot, extension of the franchise, the abolition of church rates, but most of all free trade, while Cavendish praised Lord John Russell. The election was characterised by frugality: ‘There were no banners or music, and no dinner, the electors having resolved not to put the members to any expense’.49Morn. Chro., 6 Aug. 1847; Derby Mercury, 11 Aug. 1847.

In 1851 there were reports that Lord John Manners, another of Rutland’s sons, would challenge Evans, but the two incumbents were again returned unopposed at the general election the following year, both stressing their devotion to local interests, although Cavendish suggested that he might support a reform of taxation to relieve the agricultural classes, if it were proved that they suffered unequal and unjust burdens.50Daily News, 5 Apr. 1851; Derby Mercury, 7, 21 July 1852.

The tranquillity of the constituency, however, was disturbed by Evans’s unexpected resignation, 5 July 1853, apparently in favour of his son, Thomas William Evans, whose address followed suspiciously quickly.51Derby Mercury, 13 July 1853; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1852-1865’, 155-56. Evans had allegedly gained the approval of Thornhill, one of the most respected local Liberals, before resigning. However, having initially said that ‘I have not the slightest wish to be in Parliament’, Thornhill voiced the dissatisfaction of local supporters, and warned Evans that there would be a split if his son stood. When a meeting of agriculturists at Edensor called for Thornhill to come forward, he asked Evans to release him from his pledge not to stand, but was told that young Evans could not withdraw as he had begun his canvass. His father also flatly rejected the entreaties of a deputation of local liberals.52Derby Mercury, 20 July 1853. A contest was unavoidable, which placed the duke and Cavendish in the difficult situation of choosing between the son of their long-time colleague, or Thornhill, their neighbour and friend. In the end, despite reports that the latter had the backing of the Conservatives, they opted for neutrality.53Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1852-1865’, 156. At the nomination, Evans was reprimanded by local Liberals for his presumptuous behaviour, which was deemed as a ‘perfect insult’.54Derby Mercury, 20 July 1853. Young Evans expressed support for free trade and a moderate extension of the franchise.55Ibid. Describing himself as a ‘country gentleman’, Thornhill had a similar programme to his opponent, but also favoured law reform and free trade in land, that is the reform of the laws of primogeniture and entail.56Derby Mercury, 27 July 1853. He won the contest by a comfortable margin, despite declining to canvass, and was accompanied to the declaration by a procession of 300 men on horseback and eighty carriages, ‘all decorated with crimson rosettes’.57Ibid.; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire elections, 1852-1865’, 156. After his acceptance speech he mounted a ‘very spirited grey horse’ and led the procession, which included two large crimson flags bearing in gold the legend ‘Thornhill and Independence’.58Derby Mercury, 27 July 1853. There was again trouble at Glossop during the election, where ‘several persons were severely beaten’.59Daily News, 20 July 1853.

Acknowledging the ‘Liberal ascendancy’, the Conservatives did not challenge the incumbents at the 1857 general election, when Thornhill spoke in favour of ‘peace, retrenchment, and reform’, while Cavendish endorsed Palmerston’s administration and also pledged to support the equalisation of the borough and county franchises.60Derby Mercury, 18, 25 Mar. 1857, 8 Apr. 1857. The 1859 general election produced the same outcome, with Cavendish condemning the Conservatives’ reform proposal as ‘a bad bill, defective and unsatisfactory’.61Derby Mercury, 13 Apr. 1859.

Thornhill’s long rumoured retirement due to ill-health was finally announced in August 1864, and mooted replacements included Charles Robert Colvile, the former MP for the southern division and Edward Coke of Longford Hall.62Derby Mercury, 26 Apr. 1865. At a Liberal meeting on 29 April 1865, however, William Jackson of Birkenhead, later Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and whose business interests included Clay Cross Colliery, located in the constituency, was solicited to stand.63Derby Mercury, 3 May 1865. The thin-skinned Jackson stormed out of one meeting after being asked to explain a vote on a gas and water bill, saying he would have nothing to do with ‘local squabbles, and that he would not, [even] if he were paid 50,000l. a year, be their member if he had to defend himself on such matters’.64Derby Mercury, 21 June 1865. He was, however, anxious to reassure county electors that he would uphold agricultural, as well as commercial, interests if elected, and also spoke in favour of a £6 household franchise.65Derby Mercury, 14 June 1865. After a joint tour of the constituency, he and Cavendish were returned without opposition.66Derby Mercury, 12 July 1865.

In 1868 the northern division was re-divided, with the two-member seat of East Derbyshire formed out of Scarsdale hundred, which partly met the long-standing demand of Chesterfield for its own parliamentary representation.67Derby Mercury, 18 Aug. 1858. The Liberal redistribution bill of 1866 proposed a third member for North Derbyshire. The original 1867 reform bill made no provision for East Derbyshire, but the new constituency was introduced by Disraeli at the committee stage, included under schedule D: PP 1866 (138), v. 47; Hansard, 9 July 1867, vol. 188, cc. 1286, 1290; PP 1867 (79), v. 541-43; 1867 (237), v. 571; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. Both seats were contested at every election up to and including 1880, with the Conservatives capturing one seat in 1874. Cavendish had to share the representation of North Derbyshire with a Conservative between 1868 and 1880, when he retired to be replaced by his nephew, who was returned with another Liberal.68McCalmont’s poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton, (8th edn., 1971), 76. The redistribution of 1885 created seven single member county seats. Portions of the old southern and northern constituencies were amalgamated into a new western division, which was represented by the Cavendish family, who became Liberal Unionists in 1886, until 1908. Chesterfield and its surrounding area, the North-Eastern division, were retained by the Liberals until 1906 and 1907 respectively, when both seats switched to Labour. Labour also succeeded the Liberals in Mid-Derbyshire, a seat containing Alfreton and Belper, in 1909. The High Peak division was held by the Conservatives from 1885 until 1900, when the Liberals obtained control.69PP 1884-85 (258), lxiii. 91-95; 48 & 49 Vict. c.23; McCalmont’s poll book, pt. II, 56-58.