Staffordshire North

Economic and social profile:

In 1853 North Staffordshire was described by Charles Dod as, with some exceptions, ‘sterile, cold, and dreary’.1C. Dod, Electoral facts, 1832-53, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1978 edn.), 291. This was largely due to the Moorlands, in the northernmost third of the county, which contained ‘large tracts of uncultivated land’.2W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire (1834), 39. The Moorlands was about 100 to 200 yards higher than the ‘general level’ of the county, which made it significantly colder, and more exposed to the elements. Indeed in 1834 one writer said that the Moorlands was ‘almost in a state of nature, without any shelter or covering except stone walls’.3Ibid., 40. A county noted for its pastoral farming, the ‘most profitable livestock’ were horned cattle, sheep, horses and pigs.4Ibid., 46. Although there was less industrialisation and urbanisation than in the southern division, North Staffordshire contained important manufacturing centres, most notably the Potteries, comprising the towns of Stoke, Burslem, Hanley, Longton, Fenton and Tunstall.5A. Popp, Business structure, business culture and the industrial district: the Potteries, c. 1850-1914 (2001), 1-3; J.C. Wedgwood, Staffordshire pottery and its history (1913), 3-9; R.C.M. Fyson, ‘Chartism in North Staffordshire’, Lancaster University Ph. D. thesis (1998), 8-43. There was a declining hat trade in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Stafford and Leek were noted for boot and silk manufacture respectively.6White, History of Staffordshire, 51, 125, 652; VCH Staffs., vi. 217; ibid., vii. 51-2. Burton-on-Trent, the home of hugely successful Bass, Ratcliff and Gretton brewery, flourished in the Victorian period.7C.C. Owen, ‘The greatest brewery in the world’: A history of Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Derbyshire Record Society, XIX (1992). There were also some coal deposits near Newcastle-under-Lyme, the Potteries, Cheadle and Dilhorne, although these were not as significant as those in South Staffordshire.8White, History of Staffordshire, 51.

Transport links were provided by the Trent and Mersey Canal, which opened in 1777, and the river Trent was an important natural waterway.9Ibid., 49-50. The Grand Junction Railway, completed in 1837, passed through Stafford. The North Staffordshire Railway, opened in 1846, connected the Potteries to the north west via Crewe and the East Midlands. A line from Stafford to Lichfield, Rugby and London opened in 1847 and the railway to Uttoxeter in 1867.10VCH Staffs., vi. 196-8. The division was served by the leading county newspaper, the Staffordshire Advertiser, which was established in 1795 and published in Stafford. Mildly Liberal, the paper had a weekly circulation of 6,400 in 1850, and 10,000 by 1859. A Conservative rival, the Staffordshire Gazette, was in existence from January 1839 to March 1842.11Ibid., 258-9. The Hanley-based North Staffordshire Mercury (1824-48) was owned by the Ridgway family, pottery manufacturers and Liberals in politics.12Fyson, ‘Chartism in North Staffordshire’, 42.

Electoral history:

North Staffordshire elected two Reformers at the 1832 general election, but the Conservatives claimed one seat in 1837 and took both in 1841, which they retained with little difficulty thereafter. Although the Liberals regularly challenged, they only regained a seat at the 1865 general election. The Liberals’ poor performance was due to a number of factors, not least their weak organisation. There were also important differences between the northern and southern divisions. Many of the county’s leading Whig magnates had estates in the south, and their activism allowed them to withstand the Conservative onslaught and retain a seat in the 1832-41 period. Thereafter the increasing liberalism of Black Country ironmasters tilted the southern division away from the Conservatives. By contrast, the northern division had a greater number of important Conservative landowners, including the Chetwynd-Talbots, Earls Talbot, of Ingestre Hall, and the Ryders, earls of Harrowby, of Sandon Hall. The main Whig landowner, George Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd duke of Sutherland, of Trentham Hall, was often away at his London town house or his Scottish seat, and in 1847 the duke’s absence and confusion about his wishes enabled a Conservative relative to claim his influence and defeat the Liberal candidate. The criticism directed at the duchess, who was wrongly blamed for the fiasco, sheds illuminating light on the role of female electoral patronage. There was in any case a clear limit to influence in a constituency where freeholders predominated, as Bertram Talbot, 17th earl of Shrewsbury, told another Whig peer before the 1832 general election:

Do not however think that my interest will have any considerable influence in the election. Though my property here extends over nearly 10,000 acres, with upwards of 300 tenants, yet there are only twenty-nine who rent to the amount of £50 a year upwards. At least half of the estate is on life leases.13Earl of Shrewsbury to earl of Lichfield, 12 June 1832, Staffordshire Record Office, D615/P(P)/1/19, qu. in P. Salmon, Electoral reform at work: local parties and national politics, 1832-41 (2002), 128.

Furthermore, £50 occupying tenants remained a relatively small proportion of the electorate, meaning that Liberal failure cannot be simply blamed on Tory landlords and servile tenants. A more significant factor was that urban influences were not necessarily a Liberal force in the northern division, as many of the pottery manufacturers were Conservative. The parliamentary boroughs in the southern division, Lichfield, Walsall and Wolverhampton, were all Liberal strongholds, but those in the northern division, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent, regularly returned Conservative MPs.

Before 1820 the representation of Staffordshire had long been shared between the Trentham interest of the Leveson-Gowers, marquesses of Stafford, later dukes of Sutherland, and the independent gentry.14HP, Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 357-8. However, the assertiveness of the independent freeholders ousted the Trentham nominee in 1820, and returned Whig supporters of the reform bill at the 1831 general election.15HP, Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 5-10. The Boundary Act that accompanied parliamentary reform divided the county into northern and southern divisions.16PP 1831-32 (357), xli. 388. The new electorate for North Staffordshire stood at 8,756, and had risen to over 9,000 by 1843, of which 74.8% were 40s. freeholders and 13% £50 occupying tenants.17PP 1833 (189), xxviii. 92; 1844 (11), xxxviii. 429. This was significantly different from the national average of 23% £50 tenants and 64% freeholders. The electorate rose to 10,116 by 1852 and to almost 12,000 by 1860, before dropping back to 10,841 in 1865, with freeholders accounting for 83% of the electorate in the last year.18PP 1852 (8), xlii. 312; 1860 (277), lv. 90; 1865 (448), xliv. 551. Urban freeholders who qualified through property in parliamentary boroughs comprised 21% of the electorate in 1852, rising to 31% ten years later.19PP 1852 (4), xlii. 306; 1862 (410), xliv. 709.

Both of the sitting members for Staffordshire opted to stand for the southern division at the 1832 general election. First in the field for the northern division were Sir Oswald Mosley, 2nd baronet, of Rolleston Hall, and Edward Buller, of Dilhorne Hall, who were described by one local Tory as ‘both radical reformers and … staunch whigs’.20Dyott’s diary, ii. 132 (23 June 1832). Ralph Sneyd, of Keele Park, declined to stand as the Tory candidate, but although he thought the ‘struggle is doubtful’, he agreed to act as the campaign chairman for Jesse Watts Russell, of Ilam Hall.21Ralph Sneyd to earl of Clare, 16 Aug. 1832, Sneyd papers, Keele University Library, SC 6/179. There was considerable bitterness caused by the Tory objections to registered voters, which were attacked as vexatious and against the spirit of the Reform Act.22Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Oct. 1832. As one elector put it, it was a ‘trick to deprive us of our franchise because we declined to exercise it in your favour’.23‘A Leaseholder for Lives’, letter, Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Oct. 1832. Of the 1,329 Tory objections, 444 were sustained, compared to 82 of the 388 objections made by Reformers, an early indication of the former party’s greater efficiency in the revision courts.24Staffordshire Advertiser, 24 Nov. 1832.

At the nomination in 1832 the supporters of Mosley, Buller and Russell sported laurels, ivy and holly respectively.25Staffordshire Advertiser, 8 Dec. 1832. The Tory diarist William Dyott, of Freeford, described Mosley’s speech as ‘prosey, lengthy, and violent and extremely tiresome’.26Dyott’s diary, ii. 149 (13 Dec. 1832). The baronet associated himself with the reform principles of the late MPs for Staffordshire and declared support for retrenchment and reform of the Church.27Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. Buller’s ‘flowery and well delivered’ speech called for reform to be carried into ‘every department of the state’, including the church. Although critical of monopolies, Buller denied that he was an ‘enemy of the farmer’.28Dyott’s diary, ii. 149 (13 Dec. 1832); Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. Russell, who spoke against the ‘free trade system’, lost the show of hands to the Reformers.29Ibid. Although he performed well in Leek and Newcastle-under-Lyme, Russell was comprehensively beaten by over a thousand votes by Mosley and Buller, who were elected in first and second place respectively.30Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 Dec. 1832; Dyott’s diary, ii. 150 (18 Dec. 1832). Describing the result as ‘a complete & signal failure’, Sneyd blamed ‘a system of intimidation wh[ic]h prevented our supporters from coming up to the poll & a coalition solemnly denied & shamefully practiced’.31Sneyd to Clare, 23 Dec. 1832, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 6/182. While 2,409 (71%) of Russell’s 3,387 votes were plumps, the Reformers shared 4,003 votes. There were 190 plumps for Mosley, 199 for Buller, 585 Mosley-Russell splits and 393 Buller-Russell splits.32Derived from figures in H. Stooks Smith, The register of parliamentary elections (2nd edn., 1842), 145.

Before the 1835 general election one local Conservative suggested that it would ‘require but little’ effort and organisation to turn out the Whig incumbents.33Qu. in letter from John Chetwynd-Talbot to Ralph Sneyd, 19 Dec. 1834, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 13/59. The problem was that the party was unable to find any willing candidates. Sneyd was not prepared to stand and John Chetwynd-Talbot, son of Earl Talbot, declined an invitation on the grounds that he could not afford to give up his legal practice for a parliamentary career.34John Chetwynd-Talbot to Sneyd, 19 Dec. 1834; John Chetywnd-Talbot, Address to the electors of North Staffordshire, 19 Dec. 1834, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 13/59-60. Other mooted candidates included Edmund Peel, brother of the prime minister and former MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and John Bateman, of Knypersley.35Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 3 Dec. 1834; Derby Mercury, 17, 24 Dec. 1834. Russell offered but withdrew as he was unwilling to enter a contest without a second Conservative alongside him.36Morning Chronicle, 31 Dec. 1834, 1 Jan. 1835. However, the unopposed return of Buller and Mosley was not unpalatable to the Conservatives, as by now the baronet was perceived as a ‘Conservative Whig’ and a supporter of Lord Stanley’s ‘Derby dilly’.37Morning Post, 7, 10 Jan. 1835. Both members seemed prepared to give Peel’s ministry a fair trial. At the nomination, however, Buller strongly defended the late Whig government, as well as his votes in favour of a low fixed duty on corn and against the immediate abolition of malt duty.38Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 Jan. 1835. In the event both Mosley and Buller gravitated towards Peel’s Conservative party, prompting the Whig magnate, Thomas William Anson, 1st earl of Lichfield to write:

I am so disquieted with Mosley and Buller that if there is a dissolution and I can see any chance of success, George [Anson, Lichfield’s brother] will stand and win. If a Tory comes forward, I would split with him to turn them out; words cannot express my contemptible opinion of their conduct.39Lord Lichfield to Edward John Littleton, Feb. 1835, Hatherton MSS, qu. by G.B. Kent, ‘The beginnings of party political organisation in Staffordshire, 1832-41’, North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 1 (1961), 86-100 (at 93).

The Conservatives’ increasing strength between 1835 and 1841 meant that they had secured complete control of the constituency by the latter date. Although Buller and Mosley had been unopposed in 1835, their platform speeches and subsequent votes indicated that a significant portion of Reform voters had drifted towards Conservatism. While the electorate increased modestly in comparison with South Staffordshire, from 8,717 in 1835 to 10,020 in 1840, the addition of new electors and purging of the register favoured the Conservatives.40PP 1836 (199), xliii. 379; 1840 (579), xxxix. 189. In this the party benefited from its impressive, though costly, organisation.

A few months after the 1835 election the Staffordshire Conservative Association (SCA) was founded, under the chairmanship of Sneyd, with its ‘leading object’ to attend to the registration.41John Chetwynd-Talbot to Sneyd, 18 Mar. 1835, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 13/62. See also Dyott’s diary, ii. 193, 197, 205 (20 Mar., 8 Apr., 1 July 1835). At the 1835 revision, the Conservatives had 154 out of 261 objections sustained, in comparison to the Reformers 53 out of 130.42Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Oct. 1835. Even so, Dyott complained on a number of occasions that SCA meetings were ‘thinly attended’ and lamented the ‘want of energy’ exhibited by Sneyd and other committee members.43Dyott’s diary, 223, 237 (12 Jan., 18 Oct. 1836). By April 1837 Dyott ‘was grievously disappointed to find the boasted zeal in the Conservative cause fast evaporating’.44Ibid., 249 (5 Apr. 1837). Conservatives were also unsure whether to oust the ‘half Tory half Whig’ Mosley and had at one time considered making overtures to him.45‘A Conservative’, letter, Morning Post, 30 June 1837; Dyott’s diary, 221-3 (6, 12 Jan. 1836). As a result, the Conservatives were poorly prepared for the 1837 general election, Dyott remarking that ‘nothing was done as to candidates’ which he predicted would let Mosley and Buller be returned again without opposition.46Dyott’s diary, ii. 255 (28 June 1837).

At the 1837 general election the Conservatives brought forward William Bingham Baring, a member of the merchant banking dynasty, late MP for Winchester and the recently defeated Conservative candidate for Stafford.47The Standard, 28 July 1837. Baring promised support for the established church and constitution against an ‘unscrupulous coalition of Scotch philosophers, Irish agitators and shallow political economists’.48Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837. Buller only realised the danger he was in at the nomination, when Mosley articulated ambiguous opinions to catch Conservative votes.49The Standard, 29 July 1837. Buller reaffirmed his backing for Irish municipal and church reform and defended his votes for the new poor law and an alteration of the corn laws, both of which were unpopular in the constituency.50Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837.

Baring topped the poll by a large majority, and Buller beat Mosley to second place by 800 votes. Conservatives had been instructed to split with Mosley once Baring was safe, but this came too late to save the baronet, who had been abandoned by the local Whig elite.51Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 Aug. 1837. Mosley received just 110 plumps and his unclear party allegiance meant that neither Baring nor Buller’s supporters split with him in sufficient numbers to secure his re-election.52Stooks Smith, Register of parliamentary elections, 145. The Reformers had desperately fought to ensure Buller’s return by maximising votes in areas where Whig peers such as the marquess of Anglesey, the earl of Shrewsbury and the duke of Sutherland possessed property and influence, and in the radical parts of the Potteries.53The Standard, 1 Aug. 1837. Baring’s total of 4,332 included 2,265 plumps, 326 splits with Buller and 1,628 splits with Mosley. Buller relied heavily on plumps which accounted for 2,237 of his 3,182 votes. Conservatives quickly realised the significance of the result. In 1832 Russell, who had far superior local connections had polled 3,300 votes despite ‘an expenditure of nearly 10,000l.’, while Baring, a stranger put up at late notice who had only contributed £1,000, had received almost 1,000 more than this.54‘A member of Mr. Baring’s central committee’, letter, The Standard, 3 Aug. 1837. If they had been better organised they would have almost certainly carried both seats.55The Standard, 2 Aug. 1837. The Conservatives had also taking both seats at Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent, and reclaimed a seat at Stafford. However, Baring’s refusal to pay towards the cost of the election did not endear him to local supporters, Sneyd commenting that ‘as he is heir to one of the largest fortunes in England, it strikes me as quite unreasonable to expect, and quite unbecoming for him to accept pecuniary aid’, especially when the contest had been ‘short and inexpensive’.56Ralph Sneyd to Lord Sandon, 13 Aug. 1838, Sneyd MSS, qu. by. Kent, ‘Party political organisation’, 92.

In autumn 1837, the rival parties established the North Staffordshire Reform Association and the North Staffordshire Conservative Association.57Staffordshire Advertiser, 2 Sept. 1837, 21 Oct. 1837. Reformers intended to use their association to pay £300 towards the annual registration costs. The Conservatives had spent more than four times this figure at the two previous revisions.58Salmon, Electoral reform at work, 73. The duke of Sutherland declined the invitation to be president of the new Reform Association writing, ‘I am quite convinced of the necessity of attending to the registration but I am not sure how far it is right for a Peer’s name to appear in the association, however he may approve of the object’.59Duke of Sutherland to Sir Thomas Sheppard, [1837], Staffs. RO, D593/P/22/12/1/12, qu. in Salmon, Electoral reform at work, 127. At a local meeting Buller warned supporters that ‘unless they would form an association as extensive, as powerful, and as influential as that of their opponents, they might at once abandon the cause of liberal principles in North Staffordshire’.60Staffordshire Advertiser, 2 Sept. 1837. His fears were borne out, as the following year a local Conservative wirepuller, C.H. Webb, boasted that his party had a majority on the register of 1,500.61Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1838. In 1839 the Conservatives had 147 out of 361 objections sustained in comparison to their opponents 94 out of 291.62‘The registration’, Fraser’s Magazine, xx (1839), 636.

Baring announced in January 1841 that he would retire at the next election, following which two young gentlemen, Charles Bowyer Adderley, of Norton-in-the-Moors, and Ham’s Hall, Warwickshire, and Jesse David Watts Russell, of Ilam Hall, the son of the former candidate, were announced as the prospective Conservative candidates.63Staffordshire Advertiser, 2, 9 Jan. 1841. The Conservatives took complete control of the constituency at the general election later that year. Buller, whose criticism of the corn laws had long been unpopular, retired as the state of the register rendered his defeat certain.64The Times, 7 June 1841; Morning Post, 28 June 1841. In his farewell address he conceded that ‘the great majority of the constituency was most decidedly opposed to Whig policy’.65Staffordshire Gazette, qu. in The Times, 2 July 1841. Both Conservatives opposed the repeal of the corn laws, though Adderley admitted that they might need revision and he supported weakening the powers of the Poor Law Commission to ‘mitigate the harshness of the law’.66Staffordshire Advertiser, 19 June 1841. Adderley and Russell were returned unopposed at the nomination, but were dismissed by the Liberal brewer, Michael Thomas Bass, of Burton, as ‘inexperienced young gentlemen’, and the crowd refused to give either candidate a hearing. The Conservatives subsequently addressed their supporters from the Swan Hotel, Russell attacking the Whig government and Adderley offering a riposte to Bass.67Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1841.

Peel’s unexpected conversion to the repeal of the corn laws in late 1845 threatened to undermine the Conservatives’ control of the constituency. Most of the leading local Conservatives opposed the measure, but Russell informed a party meeting in Stafford in February 1846 that he would support Peel. He offered to resign if local supporters overwhelmingly opposed his conduct, but the meeting broke up without a vote.68Morning Post, 3 Feb. 1846. Russell’s abandonment of protectionism compelled his retirement at the 1847 general election, when it was expected that Adderley and Buller would be returned unopposed.69Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1847. However, the entry of George Granville Francis Egerton, viscount Brackley, son of the earl of Ellesmere, led to an acrimonious campaign and contest. During the 1847 general election, Brackley had initially offered for South Lancashire as a Peelite before withdrawing, and had then been defeated as a Liberal candidate for Newcastle-under-Lyme, where he drew on the residual influence of the Trentham interest of his uncle, the 2nd duke of Sutherland.

Brackley was still staying at Trentham when he was invited to a Conservative meeting at which he agree to stand in coalition with Adderley.70Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 Aug. 1847. Buller, who had thought of Brackley as a fellow Liberal, was astonished to discover ‘that with very little disguise he was the Conservative, Protectionist & No Popery candidate’.71Edward Buller to Lord Hatherton, 1 Aug. 1847, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/17. Having received the absent duke’s backing for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and having assured the duchess of his Liberal opinions before going to the meeting, it appeared that Brackley had the support of the Trentham interest. The duchess of Sutherland was ‘placed in a most difficult position’ by her nephew’s conduct, and did ‘all that was possible in the circumstances’ to correct the widespread view that Brackley had the duke’s support.72Viscount Anson, Memorandum, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22. See also The Observer, qu. in The Times, 16 Aug. 1847. She heard from the duke to confirm ‘what we already knew, that he would not approve of’ a coalition to ‘turn out a supporter of the Govt - & His Grace’s Catholic opinions do not agree with Brackley’s’.73Duchess of Sutherland to Viscount Anson, n.d. Staffs. RO, Anson papers, D615/P(P)/1/22. She authorised Buller to publish a handbill to state that the duke’s ‘best wishes’ were with him and that Brackley ‘has no support from the duke’s family’.74E. Buller, ‘To the electors of North Staffordshire’, 7 Aug. 1847, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22. The circumstances gave added edge to the nomination. Although a protectionist, Adderley had to defend his vote for the Maynooth college bill that was unpopular with many of his strongly Protestant supporters. Buller contrasted Brackley’s previously stated principles with his alliance with Adderley, and received an unconvincing reply from the nobleman, who added to existing confusion about his party allegiance by offering qualified support for Lord John Russell’s government. Viscount Anson, Whig MP for Lichfield, stood as a second Liberal candidate to support Buller but withdrew after the nomination.75Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 Aug. 1847.

Adderley topped the poll, sixteen votes ahead of Brackley, with Buller trailing by several hundred votes in third place. The duchess became the public scapegoat for the Liberal failure, a Morning Chronicle editorial bemoaning the ‘inconceivable freak of a lady’ misusing her husband’s influence and allowing Brackley to profit from his duplicity.76Morning Chronicle, 7 Aug. 1847. Lord Morpeth thought the editorial ‘very unjust & ungentlemanlike’ in its treatment of his sister: Lord Morpeth to Viscount Anson, 7 Aug. 1847, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22. Publicly Buller exonerated the duchess and blamed Brackley for the fiasco, but privately he thought the result ‘might have been reversed if Trentham had been true to us’.77Morning Chronicle, 10 Aug. 1847. Edward Buller to Viscount Anson, Anson papers, 11 Aug. 1847, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22. Sneyd believed that the duchess’s error was the ‘result of her usual blind & amiable feelings towards her relatives’, adding that ‘a woman does not fully understand these matters’.78Sneyd to Clare, n.d., Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 7/93. Nevertheless, Sneyd thought that the ‘mess’ had been created by Brackley, a verdict shared by other observers such as Viscount Anson, and the Whig MP for Walsall, Edward Richard Littleton, who wrote that ‘the general impression [is] that Ld Brackley behaved in a shabby manner’.79Ibid.; Viscount Anson, Memorandum, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22; Edward Richard Littleton journal, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/99. For their part, some Conservatives thought that the Trentham association damaged their cause, throwing ‘doubt and suspicion on our party’ and making Buller a ‘martyr, of which he made most profitable use’.80Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Aug. 1847.

The controversy surrounding Trentham obscured other Liberal failings that were probably more decisive. There is little reason to think that free trade was a vote winner for Buller in what remained a protectionist constituency. As the land agent Richard Sutton Ford informed his employer, the Whig landowner, Thomas Fitzherbert of Swynnerton, ‘all give Mr Buller credit for consistency; but then it is a consistency which most of the farmers think hostile to their interests’.81Richard Sutton Ford to Thomas Fitzherbert, 8 Aug. 1847, Fitzherbert papers, Staffs. RO, D641/5/E(C)/28. The Liberals were again disorganised, as the Staffordshire Advertiser noted:

throughout the contest the superior organization of the Conservatives was very apparent. Their machinery for working the election seemed to have been previously in existence, and in perfect order … On the Liberal side, as usual, the principal reliance seemed to be placed in popular feeling.82Staffordshire Advertiser, 14 Aug. 1847.

Buller reflected that the ‘manufacturing districts have greatly disappointed me’: Liberal agents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stoke and Stafford had not delivered on their promises and had ‘greatly mismanaged’ the election. He believed that ‘there is strength enough to carry one if not two seats in N. Staffordshire, if we have time, money & honest support from those who ought to give it us’.83Buller to Anson, 11 Aug. 1847, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/22. Buller also complained of bribery, but admitted that ‘the expense of a petition is too formidable’.84Ibid. Another Liberal gripe was ‘mushroom voters created, for electioneering purposes’, on the estates of Sneyd, Thomas Kinnersley and James Bateman, producing an ‘army of dependents’ in the polling districts of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Burslem and Leek.85Morning Chronicle, 11 Aug. 1847. A petition against Adderley and Brackley’s return alleging bribery, treating and undue influence was presented, 7 Dec. 1847, but withdrawn, 10 Feb. 1848.86CJ, ciii. 78-80, 200.

Brackley’s chronic ill-health led to his resignation in February 1851, with his place taken by Smith Child, of Rownall Hall, who was returned as a Conservative. The Liberals offered no opposition as Buller declined to come forward and the duke of Sutherland’s heir, the marquess of Stafford, ‘would not hear of standing’.87Sneyd to Clare, 10 Feb. 1851, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 7/94. The election generated little interest, the great landed magnates standing aloof and Child was put up by a ‘half-Puseyite parson and a knot of protectionists’. At the nomination, Child spoke in favour of industrial and agricultural protection and relieving agricultural distress.88Daily News, 24 Feb. 1851. Adderley and Child were returned unopposed at the general election the following year, Buller limiting his involvement to asking the sitting members to state their views on agricultural protection and the duties on sugar, timber and coffee.89Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Apr. 1852. In response, Adderley and Child renounced protection while continuing to argue for a revision of taxation to relieve agricultural distress.90Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Apr. 1852. Child reaffirmed his opposition to Maynooth, while Adderley opposed Jewish emancipation.91The Times, 13 July 1852; Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 July 1852. A public attack by Sir James Graham on the Conservatives for abandoning protection, led Adderley to make a peppery critique of a politician who was a double turn-coat.92The Times, 13 July 1852. Graham was the ‘marplot of all parties’, Adderley later sniped.93C.B. Adderley, letter, The Times, 16 July 1852.

Adderley and Child stood their ground at the 1857 general election, with both seeking to appropriate Palmerston’s popularity for electoral purposes.94Staffordshire Advertiser, 14 Mar. 1857. Adderley declared that he had ‘no desire nor expectation of seeing Lord Palmerston ousted from the premiership’.95Ibid. Buller again came forward, but there was no second Liberal candidate as he expected.96Edward Buller to John Fitzherbert, 28 Mar. 1857, Fitzherbert papers, Staffs. RO, D641/5/P(C)/4/9. Attempts to persuade the marquess of Stafford, or Lord Sandon, the earl of Harrowby’s heir, to stand came to nothing. The Whig grandee Lord Hatherton sneered that ‘the constitution of Sandon’s character is too feminine for the rough work of an election contest, & he shirks from the task’.97Hatherton Journal, 5, 6 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71. Indeed, Hatherton was disgusted that

Here is a Division of a County in which the two most powerful families being the D. of Sutherland & Ld Harrowby, are connected with the Court or the Government – in which county neither Ld Stafford nor Ld Sandon will affect their proper place.98Hatherton Journal, 5 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71.

Augustus Vernon and Edward Frederick Leveson-Gower, brother of Earl Granville, were other rumoured Liberal candidates, but neither agreed to stand.99Buller to Hatherton, 28 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/30. The nomination was notable for a spat between Adderley and Bass, now Liberal MP for Derby, over, among other things, which party could claim the mantle of the late Sir Robert Peel.100Daily News, 31 Mar. 1857. Although Buller was nominated by Peel’s son Sir Robert Peel, MP for Tamworth, Adderley declared that the late premier had voted for him in 1847, and had almost been murdered by Bass’s supporters on his way to the nomination at that election. Buller easily won the show of hands but was beaten into third place by 800 votes by Child, with Adderley topping the poll.101Staffordshire Advertiser, 4 Apr. 1857. Adderley’s appointment to ministerial office in Derby’s second government necessitated his re-election in February 1858. He was returned unopposed at the nomination, at which he offered support to his government’s proposed reform of Indian government.102Birmingham Daily Post, 9 Mar. 1858.

Child retired at the 1859 general election, when his place was taken by another Conservative, Charles John Chetwynd-Talbot, viscount Ingestre. His father had represented the southern division before succeeding as 3rd Earl Talbot in 1849. In 1858 he had successfully claimed the title and estates of his late kinsman the Whig 17th earl of Shrewsbury, giving him the ‘largest landed estate in N. Staffs’.103Ralph Sneyd to Charles Bowyer Adderley, n.d., draft letter, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 19/3. Adderley offered his usual barbed criticism of his opponents at the nomination, where he and Ingestre were returned unopposed. Both men criticised the ‘factious’ and ‘unscrupulous’ opposition to Derby’s reform bill, but otherwise sought to underplay the differences between the Conservatives and Palmerston.104Birmingham Daily Post, 3 May 1859.

The Liberals were uncharacteristically well-organised at the 1865 general election, when Buller offered again. Despite his father’s territorial influence, Ingestre was an unpopular MP and his seat was in ‘jeopardy’.105Sneyd to Adderley, n.d., draft letter, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 19/3; Birmingham Daily Post, 21 June 1865. Buller declared support for Palmerston’s government, the abolition of church rates and repeal of malt duty, the last policy also backed by Ingestre, who endorsed Lord Derby, and wished to see a settlement of church rates question.106Birmingham Daily Post, 21 June 1865; Derby Mercury, 28 June 1865. The nobleman preferred a reform that would represent ‘men of intelligence and property’ but not the ‘dregs of the population’ and he also opposed the ballot.107Birmingham Daily Post, 6 July 1865. Stung by criticism of his attendance, Ingestre was placed on the defensive at the nomination, and with Liberals predominant in the crowd, he and Adderley struggled to get a hearing.108Morning Post, 14 July 1865. Buller easily won the show of hands and finally had his revenge for past defeats, topping the poll, with Adderley elected in second place and Ingestre relegated into third.109Birmingham Daily Post, 18 July 1865. Ingestre blamed the ‘personal attacks on his character’ for his defeat.110Birmingham Daily Post, 20 July 1865. Although confident of being elected, Buller later admitted that he ‘had no reason to expect to head the poll by so large a majority over Adderley’.111Edward Buller to Lord Lichfield, 18 July 1865, Anson papers, Staffs. RO, D615/P(P)/1/24.

The 1867 Representation of the People Act had little impact on the size of the electorate, which remained at just over 10,000. Adderley and Buller were returned unopposed at the 1868 general election. Two Conservatives were returned in 1874, but the Liberals recaptured one seat in 1880.112McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 271. Staffordshire was re-divided in 1885 into seven single-member constituencies. Of these, Leek, Burton and North West Staffordshire were formed out of the old northern division, while the western division was amalgamated from portions of the old northern and western divisions.113PP 1884-85 [C. 4287], xix. 224-8. Leek was held by the Conservatives, 1886-1906 and the Liberals, 1885-6, 1906-10. The same pattern was evident in North West Staffordshire, except that Labour won the seat at a by-election in 1907. In West Staffordshire and Burton, the Liberal Unionists controlled the representation from 1886-1906 and 1900-10 respectively.114McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, p. 222-4.