Nottinghamshire South

Social and economic profile

Nottinghamshire South was predominantly rural in nature and agriculturally diverse, producing wheat, oats, barley, rye, beans and peas.1Dod’s electoral facts, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 236-7. The population was chiefly employed in arable farming and its related occupations, though there was a small, but declining, framework knitting industry.2H.H. Swinnerton, Nottinghamshire (1910), 49-53. The county town of Nottingham was dominated by the hosiery industry and its subsidiary lace making, but the textile industry was only evident in the part of the southern division that included the parish of Sneinton.3S.D. Chapman, ‘Industry and Trade’, in J. Beckett (ed.), A Centenary History of Nottingham (1997), 317. The elections were held at Newark, a thriving market town on the River Trent, whose inhabitants were engaged in brewing and malting.4Swinnerton, Nottinghamshire, 54-61. Southwell, which had been briefly considered as the election town in June 1832, was home to a significant minster and its attendant clergy.5Denison to Tallents, 13 June, 7 July 1832: Notts. Archives, Tallents mss. The Southwell workhouse, built in 1824, became the template for the Victorian workhouse system introduced by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. After staunch opposition from the Nottingham Canal Company and the Trent Navigation Company, the first train reached Nottingham in May 1839, but was only served by a branch line from Derby.6R. Church, Economic and Social Change in a Midland Town (1996), 170-3. Newark was connected to London by the Great Northern Railway in 1846.

Electoral history

Described by The Times in 1851 as ‘the most aristocratic county in England’, Nottinghamshire was the centre of the so-called Dukeries.7The Times, 17 Feb. 1851. The 1832 Reform Act split the county into two divisions, but despite the hopes of local reformers that ‘two popular candidates might be returned’ in the southern district, aristocratic domination of the representation largely remained in this period, although two contested by-elections revealed the limitations of proprietorial influence.8Nottingham Review, 27 Jan. 1832. The three major landowners were the dukes of Newcastle-under-Lyne and Portland, and Earl Manvers, all of whom lived very close to the southern division and took a keen interest in its electoral politics. The earl of Chesterfield and Lord Middleton also held estates nearby. The fourth duke of Newcastle, a troubled ultra-Tory whose vehement opposition to Reform had prompted a crowd to burn to the ground his mansion, Nottingham Castle, in 1831, was certainly the most active patron, and although the Reform Act diminished his electoral resources, they were far from destroyed.9Unhappy reactionary: the diaries of the fourth duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1822-1850 (2003), ed. R.A. Gaunt, xxv. The isolated Newcastle had an uneasy relationship with the 4^th duke of Portland, whose family had traditionally held one seat in the Whig interest, while Earl Manvers, who owned the most acreage in the division, initially supported the Whig John Evelyn Denison, Portland’s son-in-law, until shifting his allegiance to his own Conservative son in the 1850s.10Ibid. Although it was arguably dysfunctional, a ‘family compact’ between Newcastle, Portland and Manvers had operated in the pre-Reform era, and by the time of the 1832 general election, Nottinghamshire had not witnessed a contest for over a century.

Although the major landowners commanded the unswerving loyalty of their tenants, they tended to dominate parishes with large farms and few votes.11J.R. Fisher, ‘Issues and influence: two by-elections in South Nottinghamshire in the mid-nineteenth century’, Historical Journal, 24 (1981), 162. The £50 occupiers, who in 1837 numbered 955 out of 3,621 electors, could be relied upon to support the major magnates, but elsewhere the freeholders, who accounted for over 60 per cent of the electorate throughout the period, were a diverse element, with many residing in parishes with no major landowner.12PP 1837-38 (329), xliv. 567-8; PP 1852 (8), xlii. 313. It was in these parishes that the ability of the major magnates to return their choice of candidate (who was usually one of their sons) could be limited, as was the case in the prelude to the uncontested 1837 general election, and two fiercely contested by-elections in 1846 and 1851 which gained national prominence. The major landowners also failed to penetrate the influential farmers’ societies that emerged in this period, most notably the Nottinghamshire Agricultural Protection Society, which was established in 1844. Following the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, the Society maintained its pressure on the nobility to commit to a return to agricultural protection.

The Liberal-supporting Nottingham Review (weekly circulation 2,100 in 1841) with its editorials indulging in anti-landlord rhetoric, perpetuated the misleading picture of a constituency whose electorate was completely dominated by tyrannical magnates, whereas the Nottingham Journal (weekly circulation 1,923 in 1839), whose editor was close to Newcastle and zealously committed to checking ‘the spread of such democratical and irreligious doctrines’, gave staunch backing to the Conservative ducal households.13D. Fraser, ‘The Nottingham Press, 1800-1850’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society, 67 (1963), 51-2. The Journal was initially opposed to repeal of the corn laws, but in April 1846 switched position, calling protection ‘a mockery’ and ‘delusion’. Outraged by this apparent treachery, the county gentry established the Nottinghamshire Guardian in May 1846, though even at its peak (weekly circulation 1,850 in 1851), it never outsold the Journal.14Ibid., 53-4.

The 1832 general election underlined the ‘family compact’ between Newcastle, Portland and Manvers in the southern division. Although he claimed in his diary that he was ‘indifferent’ about the elections, Newcastle was concerned about the prospective candidature of his eldest son, the earl of Lincoln. In August 1832 he was unimpressed by the ‘not so numerously signed’ requisition calling for Lincoln to stand, and seemed displeased at the notion of his son entering Parliament so soon after his marriage.15Unhappy reactionary, 95. However, following Lincoln’s successful canvass in September, Newcastle threw his weight behind his candidature.16J. Martineau, The life of Henry Pelham, fifth duke of Newcastle, 1811-1864 (1908), 42. Portland’s interest was represented by his son-in-law, John Evelyn Denison, who also enjoyed the support of Manvers. Denison, whose relatively modest estates were situated in the north of the division, stood nominally as a Reformer, though he was otherwise independent of party ties. He had been returned for Nottinghamshire in 1831, but his original suggestion that Southwell, rather than Newark, should be the polling town for the southern division made him the target of local anger.17HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 897. The prospect of a contest was raised when William Fletcher Norton Norton, a well-known county magistrate who resided at Elton Hall, near Bingham, offered as a radical, but despite the earlier efforts of his agents to keep likely opponents off the register, he garnered little support and withdrew before the nomination.18Morning Post, 2 Oct., 8 Dec. 1832. Denison and Lincoln were subsequently returned unopposed.

William IV’s controversial replacement of the Whigs in November 1834 with a Conservative ministry under Peel was applauded by Newcastle, who recorded in his diary that ‘I wish that no succeeding parl[iament] may perpetuate such indelible mischief as had been committed by this vile parl[iament]’.19Unhappy reactionary, 104. His views were echoed by Lincoln, who attacked the destructive nature of the late Whig ministry and declared his ‘fulsome adulation’ of Peel and Wellington.20Morning Chronicle, 15 Jan. 1835. Denison, who was briefly part of the ‘Derby Dilly’, defended the late government’s record on taxation, but refused to be drawn into condemning the king’s actions, insisting that Peel’s ministry should be given ‘a fair trial’.21Ibid. The short canvass was largely devoid of controversy, and following a nomination that was ‘very tamely’ greeted by a small crowd of less than 200, both men were re-elected without a contest.

Although the 1837 general election was also ultimately uncontested, its proceedings were to become ingrained in local political memory. With Denison moving inexorably towards the Whigs, the local Conservatives, fortified by the success of a grand dinner held in January in honour of Lincoln, sought a second candidate.22Unhappy reactionary, 104. Sir Robert Bromley, a close ally of Newcastle who had chaired the dinner, was initially seen as the obvious choice, but his appeal was superseded by the better-known Lancelot Rolleston, one of the county’s most assiduous magistrates, who received a requisition containing over 1,200 signatures from 97 parishes.23J.R. Fisher, ‘The Tory revival of the 1830s: an uncontested election in South Nottinghamshire’, Midland History, 6 (1981), 99-100. Significantly, his position as colonel of the South Nottinghamshire yeomanry cavalry, described by a Liberal critic as ‘a real Tory regiment’, provided him with close connections to the region’s leading families.24Ibid., 100; G. Fellows, History of the South Notts. Yeomanry Cavalry 1794-1894 (1894), 33-8. Backed by a highly organised election committee which included John Hicklin, the editor of the Nottingham Journal, Rolleston was a formidable candidate, prompting Denison, who had lost the crucial support of the Portland interest and had met with, in his own words, a ‘want of co-operation’ from many of those who had supported him over Reform, to withdraw in June.25Quoted in ibid., 103; Standard, 19 June 1837.

The Liberal-supporting Nottingham Review claimed that Denison’s loss of influential support had been determined by ‘the £50 tenants who are dragged to the hustings at the will of their landlords’.26Nottingham Review, 4 Aug. 1837. The reality was somewhat different. A canvass made by Rolleston’s election committee in July revealed that although Denison had virtually no support in the six parishes dominated by the major magnates, Conservative support, in absolute terms, was highest in seven parishes with no major owner.27Fisher, ‘Tory revival’, 103. The Nottingham Journal, meanwhile, portrayed Denison’s withdrawal as a victory for the independent action of the small freeholders. Given Denison’s loss of the Portland interest, and the fact that many of Rolleston’s agents had direct ties to the Newcastle interest, the Journal’s interpretation was partial at best, but, following Rolleston and Lincoln’s unopposed return, the force of the newspaper’s rhetoric ensured that the conquering role of the small freeholders quickly became part of local political folklore.28Ibid., 100-4.

The 1841 general election cemented the strength of the Conservative interest in the southern division. A series of county meetings held at Newark to protest against a repeal of the corn laws had revealed the strength of protectionist sentiment in the division, and at the nomination both Lincoln and Rolleston confirmed their attachment to the existing legislation.29Unhappy reactionary, 110. At the end of a rather long-winded and prosaic speech about the triumph of Conservatism, Lincoln advocated a sliding scale on corn duties, a position echoed by Rolleston’s more succinct address.30Standard, 6 July 1841. Both men were returned without a contest. Following the formation of Peel’s second ministry, Lincoln was appointed commissioner of woods and forests and was subsequently re-elected without opposition in September 1841.

Lincoln’s votes in favour of corn law repeal in 1846 and his subsequent acceptance of the post of chief secretary for Ireland in Peel’s reshuffled ministry caused an outcry in the southern division. The Nottinghamshire Agricultural Protection Society, formed in 1844 by the county’s owner-occupiers and tenant-farmers, mobilised its network of supporters in preparation for the by-election triggered by Lincoln’s acceptance of office.31Fisher, ‘Issues and influence’, 157-8. In a letter to Peel, Lincoln lamented that ‘the farmers volunteer in all quarters [for Hildyard], and all my oldest and staunchest friends amongst the yeomanry are the most violent against me’.32Lincoln to Peel, 10 Feb. 1846, cited in Martineau, Pelham, 63. Lincoln had also, dramatically, lost the support of his father. Newcastle, who had ceased communicating with Lincoln after his son publicly supported the Maynooth grant, despaired at his son’s actions and his ‘ill-advised’ cabinet post, and resolved to oppose him.33F.D. Munsell, The unfortunate duke: Henry Pelham, fifth duke of Newcastle (1985), 53; Unhappy reactionary, 137, 140. For Peel, the by-election was essentially a referendum on repeal, and in a letter to the queen, he wrote that ‘the risk is great ... but the advantage of success would greatly overbalance the risk of failure’.34Quoted in N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 233.

The Protection Society’s candidate was Thomas Blackborne Thoroton Hildyard, of Flintham Hall, near Newark, a young country squire whose address was unequivocal in its denunciations of repeal.35The Times, 11 Feb. 1846. Lincoln, who had kept nearly all of the county’s attorneys on retainers and was supported by the hastily formed Free Trade Committee, canvassed heavily, and in the face of hostile crowds, insisted that ‘in his conscience he believed that what he had done, as a member of the legislature, was for the benefit of the community at large, and the agriculturalists themselves’.36Ibid., 13 Feb. 1846. He also repeatedly attacked Hildyard for his youth and inexperience. An already bitter and personal affair was exacerbated when, in a sensational development, Newcastle published an address attacking Lincoln for being ‘the deluded victim of bad counsel’ and accusing him of being a ‘government emissary’ sent ‘to force upon us opinions which we hate’.37Ibid., 21 Feb. 1846. For Newcastle, the purpose of the address was to make his son ‘see the extreme folly of his ways, and that his conscience may smite him for his heinous sins towards his parent’.38Unhappy reactionary, 142. At the nomination, Lincoln gave an impassioned defence of his conversion to repeal, though his father was left unmoved, criticising Lincoln for thinking ‘that the merit of a speech lies in its length more than its breadth’.39Ibid., 141. Hildyard, in a short but melodramatic speech, declared that the consequences of repeal were ‘too horrible even for contemplations’.40The Times, 23 Feb. 1846.

Following an exhaustive contest that scaled new heights of personal acrimony, Hildyard was returned by an impressive majority of nearly 700 votes. Newcastle called it ‘a noble triumph of principle’.41Unhappy reactionary, 142. Echoing its editorial during the 1837 contest, the Nottingham Review blamed the defeat on ‘landlord despotism – ducal bigotry’ and ‘personal cant’.42Nottingham Review, 27 Feb. 1846. As was the case in 1837, reality did not bear this out. Although Hildyard was backed by the dukes of Newcastle and Portland, and the earl of Chesterfield, Manvers had declared his neutrality, and Lincoln had received the support of Lord Middleton, Earl Howe, and leading figures among the minor gentry such as Sir Robert Bromley and Denison. Significantly, the tenants of the landowners who supported Lincoln voted in his favour.43Fisher, ‘Issues and influence’, 158. Moreover, while it was certainly the case that Newcastle’s and Portland’s tenants voted almost exclusively for Hildyard, his support was also strong in areas where the major landowners remained neutral, and in the parishes with no dominant owner.44For a breakdown of the poll see The Times, 25, 26 Feb. 1846. Thus while the deference of the tenants to the major landowners cannot be overlooked, the result was a triumph for the policy of agricultural protection, and not just the dictatorial landlord.45Fisher, ‘Issues and influence’, 157-60; cf. D.C. Moore, The politics of deference: a study of the mid-nineteenth century English political system (1976), 10. The strength of local protectionism was certainly evident at the 1847 general election, when, with no prospect of a contest, Hildyard and Rolleston, both zealous opponents of free trade, were re-elected unopposed.46Daily News, 6 Aug. 1847.

Although the local protectionists were in the ascendancy, they were divided over their choice of candidate to succeed Rolleston, who, owing to his inability to devote the necessary time to parliamentary business, resigned his seat in April 1849.47Nottinghamshire Guardian, 5 Apr. 1849. Sydney Pierrepont, the second son of Earl Manvers, intimated that he would offer for the vacancy providing that there was no contest, but according to Newcastle, the farmers, ‘would not hear of him’, reflecting the concern that many of the smaller landowners had about the commitment of the major magnates to restoring agricultural protection.48Unhappy reactionary, 156. At a Conservative meeting held to nominate Robert Bromley, the son of Sir Robert Bromley, repeated calls were made for Lord John Manners, the son of the duke of Rutland, to offer instead, but following further canvassing, Bromley was selected. Lord Henry Bentinck, MP for Nottinghamshire North, who had backed Manners, admitted to Disraeli that they had been ‘checkmated’ by Bromley’s supporters.49Disraeli to Sarah Disraeli, 26 Mar. 1849, Benjamin Disraeli letters: 1860-1864 (2009), ed. M.G. Wiebe, M.S. Miller and A.P. Robson, viii. 162 Bromley was too ill to canvass personally, but he appeared at the nomination to deliver a belligerent speech which attacked the ‘weak, vacillating government, unable to cope with existing difficulties’ and called for ‘a return to protection’.50Nottinghamshire Guardian, 19 Apr. 1849. He was returned unopposed, but his election did little to please Newcastle, who believed that Bromley was ‘a dying man and can do no good’.51Unhappy reactionary, 156. After only eighteen months in Parliament, Bromley, citing poor health, announced his intention to resign his seat at the opening of the 1851 session, though he died before that took place.

The 1851 by-election necessitated by Bromley’s death again exposed the limitations of landlord influence.52For a detailed analysis of the by-election see: J.R. Fisher, ‘The limits of deference: agricultural communities in a mid-nineteenth century election campaign’, Journal of British Studies, 21 (1981), 90-105. Sydney Pierrepont, now styled viscount Newark, came forward as a protectionist, with the support of not only his father, Earl Manvers, but all the major magnates, apart from Lincoln, who had just succeeded as fifth duke of Newcastle and remained neutral. Newark’s address was unequivocal in its denunciations of free trade and condemned papal aggression.53A full and impartial report of the proceedings connected with an election contest in South Nottinghamshire, February 1851 (1851), 3-4. His opponent, William Barrow, a retired attorney and well-known magistrate who had chaired meetings of the local Protection Society, stood on an identical platform. Differences in policy were therefore not at the heart of the contest. Barrow’s candidature was a reflection of the unease the smaller freeholders felt towards the great landowners’ lacklustre commitment to restoring agricultural protection following the repeal of the corn laws. In December 1850 the Newark Farmers’ Club had published an address, signed by more than 1,200 farmers and tradesmen, to the ‘Clergy, Gentry and Nobility of the South Division’, criticising the ‘upper classes’ for ‘standing aloof from the tenants, labourers, and tradesmen’ and urging landowners to give greater backing to the protectionist societies.54Nottinghamshire Guardian, 5 Dec. 1850. These points were later echoed by Barrow’s seconder at the nomination, who asked why Newark had not supported any local protectionist societies.55Report of the proceedings, 9.

Barrow’s campaign rhetoric perpetuated the notion of tenant-farmers fighting against the dominant, dictatorial landowners. His address stated that ‘many of those who think themselves entitled to use ... control are opposed to me’, and called for ‘the independence of South Nottinghamshire’.56Ibid., 3-4. His agent, rather sensationally, described the contest as ‘a fight for liberty against slavery’.57Quoted in Fisher, ‘Limits of deference’, 97. At the nomination, Barrow drew on the example of the 1837 general election, describing how a candidate (Rolleston) with only ‘a very small stake’ in the land had defeated a candidate (Denison) of higher rank, because the former’s ‘sentiments agreed with those of the majority of electors’. Barrow went on to reject the notion that ‘the possession of a large territorial estate is indispensable for county representation’. In response, Newark insisted that he wanted greater unity between landlord and tenant, but he cut an uninspiring figure at the hustings, and admitted to his ‘own inexperience, and want of practical knowledge as a man of business’.58Ibid., 12. After an extremely hard-fought contest, Barrow was narrowly elected by a margin of eleven votes.

In the Commons Barrow continued to cultivate the image of a champion of the tenant-farmer who had defeated the major magnates, declaring that he was:

not returned by the overwhelming power of great landowners to aid in keeping up their rents, but because he was known to have a strong opinion as to the injuries inflicted on the farming class.59Hansard, 25 Nov. 1852, vol. 123, c. 528.

Although contemporary newspapers had also depicted a contest between landlord and tenant-farmer, an analysis of the poll suggests a different picture.60The Times, 17 Feb. 1851. Significantly, the tenants of the great landowners had still voted overwhelmingly for Newark. Indeed, all 73 of Manvers’ tenants voted for his son.61Fisher, ‘Limits of deference’, 92. The problem for Newark was that the major magnates dominated parishes with large farms and few votes.62Ibid., 162. In the parishes with no dominant ownership the ratio of electors to population was higher, particular in the Newark and Southwell districts, and it was in these areas that Barrow’s strength lay.63Ibid., 161-2; Report of the proceedings, 16. His victory, therefore, was not due to the tenant-farmers throwing off the shackles of landlord domination, but rather the existence of a diverse farming community, alongside the rural tradesmen, who believed that Barrow, with his close connections to the local agricultural movement and his mastery of anti-landlord rhetoric, would be a more zealous advocate for restoring agricultural protection.

At the 1852 general election Barrow maintained not only his zealous commitment to agricultural protection but also his populist rhetoric, arguing that the farmers of ‘ordinary skill and ordinary intelligence’ had not benefitted from free trade. Though admitting that his political principles aligned with Derby’s, he also stressed that he came forward as an ‘independent county member’ who was not ‘bound to offer any blind or slavish adherence to any leader’.64Nottinghamshire Guardian, 15 July 1852. With Newark once again in the field, Hildyard announced his intention to ‘retire into private life’, paving the way for an uncontested election.65Ibid., 1 Apr. 1852. Newark was noticeably more ambiguous than Barrow on the subject of restoring agricultural protection, conceding that it was unlikely to be brought back by the Derby ministry, but shared Barrow’s opinion that the Maynooth grant should be abolished.66Ibid., 15 July 1852. Both men were returned without opposition.

Barrow and Newark’s return in 1852 heralded the beginning of three decades of uncontested elections in the southern division. The 1857 general election was dominated by the China question, with Barrow and Newark taking opposite sides. Barrow, who had voted for Cobden’s censure motion on Canton, argued that it was wrong to ‘carry either our commerce or our religion into the interior of China ... at the point of the bayonet’.67Ibid, 2 Apr. 1857. Newark, who had abstained on Cobden’s motion, explained that as he differed ‘from the majority of those with whom I am in the habit of acting’, he was ‘unable to support them’, yet ‘unwilling to oppose them’. He strongly backed Palmerston, who he believed had ‘upheld ... the interests and the honour of England’, and warned against blaming the conduct of public servants abroad.68Ibid. Although opposed on China, both men’s campaigns stressed their independence. Barrow continued to claim that he was ‘not fettered by any ties’, whilst Newark’s seconder at the nomination declared that ‘Newark had shown good sense and manliness in refraining to vote with his party on the China question’.69Ibid.

At the 1859 general election Barrow and Newark were united in their condemnation of Lord John Russell’s resolution against the Derby ministry’s reform bill. Newark, in a lengthy speech that mainly recounted the political events of the previous two years, called for a moderate measure of reform that ‘recognized the tribute to increased education and progressive intelligence’, while Barrow offered the more concrete proposal of extending the suffrage to those who had deposited £60 in a savings bank. Mindful of maintaining his ‘man of the people’ persona, Barrow launched a lengthy attack on any extension of the county franchise that would swamp the 40s. freeholders.70Ibid., 5 May 1859. Disraeli, in a letter to Derby, 19 Sept. 1852, had described Barrow as ‘a man of the people’: Benjamin Disraeli letters, vi. 152. Both candidates were re-elected unopposed.

Following Newark’s succession as third Earl Manvers in October 1860, George Stanhope, styled Lord Stanhope, came forward for the vacancy in the Conservative interest. Stanhope’s father, the 6^th earl of Chesterfield, had been a close ally of the late Earl Manvers, though whilst the latter had been popular with his tenant-farmers, Chesterfield, who was an absentee landlord, had aroused the ire of neighbouring farmers with his policy of maintaining as large a head of game as possible.71Fisher, ‘The limits of deference’, 95. Such issues had little impact on the 1860 by-election though, as Stanhope, who had received a requisition to stand signed by ‘800 or 900’ electors, was returned unopposed. Like his predecessor Newark, he strongly advocated non-intervention in foreign affairs, but was ambiguous on the subject of parliamentary reform. His address supported ‘moderate and well considered reforms’ based on improvements in wealth, intelligence and education, but at the nomination he argued that little should be done as the country was ‘apathetic on the issue’.72Nottinghamshire Guardian, 6 Dec. 1860; The Times, 19, 20 Dec. 1860.

The issue of parliamentary reform remained prominent at the 1865 general election. Barrow reiterated his call for savings to be a test of qualification, but equivocated on the nature of any further reform, stating that ‘I do not like change for its own sake’. Stanhope echoed his colleague’s views, and stated his opposition to lowering the borough franchise to £6. Both men called for the abolition of the malt tax, a key demand of the local farming community, and were re-elected without opposition.73Nottinghamshire Guardian, 14 July 1865. Stanhope’s succession to the earldom the following year necessitated another by-election, which witnessed the return of Hildyard, who had previously retired at the dissolution in 1852. Declaring that the political context of 1866 was just as critical a time as when he was first returned as the protectionist candidate in 1846, Hildyard pledged to ‘secure the constitution against any crude invasion’. He also resurrected his call for the abolition of the malt tax, and was elected without opposition.74The Times, 19 June 1866.

The 1867 Reform Act increased the electorate to 4,846 and retained the existing boundaries. Barrow and Hildyard were re-elected unopposed at the 1868 general election, and following Hildyard’s final retirement in 1874, he was replaced by George Storer, a ‘small country gentlemen’ who had been closely involved with the local agricultural protection movement in the 1840s.75Fisher, ‘The limits of deference’, 100. The division’s only contested general election took place in 1880, but Barrow and Storer were comfortably re-elected and sat until the constituency’s abolition in 1885, whereupon the county was split into four single-member divisions.