Warwickshire North

Economic and social profile:

North Warwickshire contained a diverse mix of industry and agriculture. Birmingham was renowned for its production of a remarkable range of metal goods, whilst Coventry was a centre of silk and ribbon weaving, with the latter trade also carried on at Nuneaton.1W. Bates, A pictorial guide to Birmingham (1849), 8, 10; C. Pye, A stranger’s guide to modern Birmingham (1835), 49; F. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Warwickshire (1850), 430, 482-3. The county nominations, however, were held at the ‘small market town’ of Coleshill.2White, History, 844. Also famous as a grazing county, Warwickshire was notable for its livestock, particularly sheep and cattle.3Ibid., 427; Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), iv. 441. Due to its central position, as well as its industrial towns, the constituency was served by ‘extensive railway communications’, notably the London and Birmingham, Birmingham and Derby and London and Northwestern lines, as well as roads and waterways.4White, History, 430-3 (at 430).

Electoral history:

Despite the best efforts of such formidable electioneers as Joseph Parkes, the Birmingham Political Union, the Anti-Corn Law League and the Birmingham Liberal Association, North Warwickshire remained out of Radical and Liberal hands in this period. In his 1976 opus, The politics of deference, D.C. Moore attributed the Conservatives’ dominance to the failure of urban Radicals to organise and register potential voters in the towns: ‘the power of these men would seem to have languished because it was simply not exercised, or exercised effectively’.5D.C. Moore, The politics of deference (1976), 258. However, electoral dynamics were more complicated than a straightforward battle between urban Liberal and Conservative county blocs, for as Derek Fraser has noted there was a ’close connection between town and country, especially on the Tory side’.6D. Fraser, Urban politics in Victorian England (1976), 212. In the 1830s, the activities of the Reformers were ‘bedevilled’ by the slippery Sir John Eardley Wilmot, whose political ambiguity allowed him to profit from the votes of both parties and be returned with a Tory on three occasions.7Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS. In the same decade the Conservatives developed a formidable registration machine, which worked in close co-operation with the Birmingham Loyal and Constitutional Association (LCA). Unlike the southern division, North Warwickshire contained large towns such as Birmingham and Coventry and landed influence was ‘much divided’.8Dod’s electoral facts, 1832-1853, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 327. Conservatives had to work much harder than their southern counterparts to retain control of both seats. However, Conservatives also benefited from the lack of continuity between Radical and Liberal challenges, as well as opposing candidates who were often put up at short notice or lacked weight. Although the large number of Birmingham freeholders usually divided in favour of the Reformers, the Conservatives won more than their fair share and more often than not gained the majority of votes in Coventry. The appeal of Protestantism and protectionism - the latter mixed with a dash of the ideas of the Birmingham currency school - articulated by the indefatigable Charles Newdegate and Richard Spooner must be reckoned on as a key factor in their party’s success in the period.

The 1832 Reform Act’s horizontal division of Warwickshire was justified ‘because it separates [the] Agricultural from the Manufacturing Population of the County’.9PP 1831-2 (357), xli. 435-6. The rivalry between the manufacturing and agricultural interests, a feature of county elections in the unreformed era, was to be mitigated by this partition, with Birmingham and Coventry placed in the northern division.10‘Warwickshire’, HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 120-9. As a consequence its electorate was much larger than the southern division, and rose from 3,730 in 1833 to a peak of 7,475 in 1854-5, thereafter declining slightly to 6,710 in 1864-5.11PP 1833 (189), xxvii. 98; 1857 sess. 2 (4), xxxiv. 96; 1865 (448), xliv. 551. The growth was largely due to an increase in 40s. freeholders, who accounted for the overwhelming majority of the electorate, with £50 occupying tenants numbering around 1,000 and copyholders 150.12PP 1836 (190), xliii. 367; 1837-38 (329), xliv. 571; 1840 (579), xxxix. 190; 1844 (11), xxxviii. 430; 1847 (751), xlvi. 338; PP 1852 (8), xlii. 313; PP 1857 sess. 2 (4), xxxiv. 96; 1865 (448), xliv. 551. The number of leaseholders increased modestly from 427 in 1835-6 to 610 in 1853-4 before falling back.13PP 1836 (190), xliii. 367; 1840 (579), xxxix. 190; 1854 (69), liii. 221; 1854 (280), liii. 213. Urban freeholders accounted for a significant portion of the electorate with 2,726 (39.9%) out of 6,832 electors qualifying through property situated in parliamentary boroughs in 1857-8.14PP 1857-8 (108), xlvi. 576. During the debates on the representation of the people bill, Newdegate said the constituency included 2,000 electors from Birmingham and 800 from Coventry: Hansard, 17 June 1867, vol. 187, c. 1980.

The first candidate to offer ahead of the 1832 general election, after accepting a requisition signed by 1,000 electors, was the Tory William Stratford Dugdale, of Blyth and Merevale Halls, whose father had been a long-serving MP for the county.15The Times, 15 Nov. 1832. Other contenders included the Reformer Dempster Heming, of Lindley Hall, an East India nabob, whose popularity drove Sir George Chetwynd of Grendon Hall, a former Tory MP for Stafford, from the field, and Sir John Eardley Wilmot, of Berkswell Hall, ‘formerly a Tory’ but by now a supporter of the reform bill and of ‘liberal opinions’. However, Wilmot was ‘trimming a little’ and observers correctly predicted that he would benefit from Tory splits and keep out Heming.16The Times, 17 Dec. 1832. At the nomination, Wilmot declared his support for the ballot, but was circumspect on other issues. Rigorously questioned by the radical election agent Joseph Parkes, he gave firmer pledges on shorter parliaments and other reforms.17The Times, 20 Dec. 1832. Some local Tories took a dim view of Wilmot allowing himself to be ‘catechised by that upstart attorney, Mr. Joe Parkes’.18Morning Post, 26 Dec. 1832. Dugdale’s speech was largely drowned out by ‘groans and yells’, and John Greene, the representative of Birmingham Dissenters, forced him to pledge support for the abolition of slavery. Parkes then challenged Dugdale over his allusion to an ‘extended currency’, which the Birmingham attorney opposed, but this resulted in a ‘loud and general cry’ for Thomas Attwood, leader of the Birmingham Political Union (BPU), champion of currency reform and recently returned as MP for Birmingham. He responded to the crowd’s plea and argued that Dugdale was not a suitable representative as ‘a mere gentleman was not what the times required’. The nomination closed after Wilmot and Heming won the show of hands, with Dugdale demanding a poll.19The Times, 20 Dec. 1832.

The ‘tumultuous disorder of the mob’ forced the suspension of polling at Nuneaton for a time, as Tory supporters were apparently greeted with the shout of ‘there’s a Dugdale, kill him!’20The Times, 26 Dec. 1832, 9 Apr. 1833. The leader of the mob, Bettridge, a ‘noted pugilist’ was later tried and acquitted: ibid. The Riot Act was read to no effect and two detachments of the military had to be called in to restore order.21The Times, 26 Dec. 1832; Morn. Chro., 26 Dec. 1832. As Wilmot led throughout the poll, the real contest was to secure second place. However, although Heming led Dugdale in Birmingham, Nuneaton and Coventry, the Conservative’s advantage of over 400 votes in Coleshill proved to be decisive.22Morn. Chro., 26 Dec. 1832. Heming’s supporters cited three reasons for their defeat. Wilmot’s party and ‘moderate Whigs’ had plumped for the baronet rather than sharing their votes with Heming, but Reformers also admitted that ‘the superior organisation of the Conservatives, and their money’ was another factor. Finally, they complained of the £50 tenants at will, who were mere ‘sheep’ following their landlords’ orders.23Morn. Chro., 31 Dec. 1832.

At the next general election in 1835, the Birmingham Reform Election Committee, an adjunct of the BPU, brought forward Captain Arthur Francis Gregory, of Stivichall, a former president of the Coventry Political Union, who was variously described as an ‘ultra-Liberal’ and ‘a Reformer of the Durham school’.24The Times, 5, 6 Jan. 1835; Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS. His campaign, according to Parkes, rested ‘wholly on my personal management & organisation’, which led some to describe Gregory as the Radical agent’s ‘nominee’.25Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS;The Times, 5 Jan. 1835. The candidate had the strong backing of Birmingham Reformers, who subscribed £2,000 for Gregory within a couple of days of him offering.26Morn. Chro., 6 Jan. 1835. Gregory spoke impressively at local meetings, benefited from the support of local Whigs, such as the Leigh family, barons, of Stoneleigh Park, and it was common knowledge that Wilmot’s fragile financial position meant that he was poorly placed to resist any serious challenge.27The Times, 5, 13 Jan. 1835; The Standard, 15 Dec. 1834; Leicester Chronicle, 17 Jan. 1835. Although he was still described as a ‘Reformer’, Wilmot had alienated many of that party, and it was thought that his best hope would be to curry favour with Dissenters by emphasising his support for the abolition of slavery.28The Standard, 15 Dec. 1834; The Times, 14 Jan. 1835; Parkes to Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS. The baronet ‘buttered Peel at the nomination’, where the show of hands favoured him and Dugdale, prompting Gregory to demand a poll.29Parkes to Lord Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS; The Times, 14 Jan. 1835.

The outcome was a comprehensive victory for Wilmot and Dugdale as Gregory failed to win a single district. Although he polled strongly in Birmingham and Coventry, even there he trailed Wilmot, who topped the poll.30The Times, 19 Jan. 1835. Conservatives crowed that the victory was a personal rebuff for Parkes, who offered a lengthy post-mortem in a letter to Lord Durham.31Morning Post, 20 Jan. 1835. A good campaign had been fatally undermined by ‘our own neglect of Registration & pre-arrangement’. Parkes estimated that of the 1,037 electors who had been added to the register since 1832, three-quarters were Conservative. Secondly, Wilmot, a ‘semi-Whig, semi-Tory had the splits of both parties & bedevilled us as he did in 1832’. A second Reformer would have prevented this to some degree but then ‘200 Whigs & moderates would have quitted us’. Thirdly, despite having a majority of freeholders and leaseholders, the £50 tenants-at-will divided strongly against Gregory, by a 5 to 1 ratio. This was partly attributable to the fourth factor, the exertions of the parsons who ‘worked liked Devils day & night’.32Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 18 Jan. 1835, Lambton MSS.

As Wilmot held aloof from local Conservative meetings it was left to Dugdale to praise the party’s efforts at the annual meeting of the North Warwickshire Conservative Association in January 1837. The British constitution was a ‘model of perfection’, he told supporters, and any changes were likely to be detrimental. Those radicals who professed to revere the ‘people’ would prove to be tyrannical and despotic rulers should they ever gain the reforms they demanded. However, with 300 MPs in the Commons, a majority in the Lords and a ‘Protestant King’, the Conservatives were well-placed to block further proposals.33The Standard, 27 Jan. 1837.

At the 1837 general election the dissatisfaction of Conservatives and Reformers with Wilmot encouraged the latter party to bring forward Sir Grey Skipwith, of Newbould Pacey, a former MP for the southern division, and Charles Holte Bracebridge, of Atherstone Hall.34The Standard, 22 July 1837. The latter was a ‘vote trap’ designed to stop Reform voters splitting with Wilmot.35Joseph Parkes to Edward John Stanley, 5 Aug. 1837, MS Kingsland. Parkes had attended to the register, believing that the addition of 600 voters at the 1835 registration, mostly due to new claims, made North Warwickshire one of the constituencies where Reformers would ‘secure or gain seats’.36Parkes to Stanley, 11 Oct. 1835, MS Kingsland; Parkes to Durham, 23 Oct. 1835, Lambton MSS. Again conscious of Wilmot’s poor financial position, Parkes prophesised that ‘this contest will ruin Wilmot finally if he wins or loses’.37Parkes to Stanley, 5 Aug. 1837, MS Kingsland. A joint address condemned Wilmot’s ‘slippery policy and shifty voting’, although it was left to Conservatives to point out that Bracebridge had proposed him at the previous election.38The Standard, 28 July 1837. The incumbents won the show of hands at the nomination, prompting the Reformers to demand a poll.39The Standard, 7 Aug. 1837. The result was an easy victory for Dugdale, who was returned 600 votes ahead of Wilmot, who enjoyed a similar margin over Skipwith, with Bracebridge last. Although the Reformers led in Birmingham, even in that district Wilmot and Dugdale polled strongly. Skipwith was ahead of Wilmot in Dunchurch and Nuneaton, but the incumbents swept every other district, including Coventry.40Morning Post, 11 Aug. 1837. As Parkes had feared, Dugdale’s supporters, who had included 600 plumpers at the previous election, split their votes with Wilmot to ensure his return.41Parkes to Stanley, 5, 13 Aug. 1837, MS Kingsland. Conservative electors preferred an ‘undecided character’ to a confirmed Radical.42‘A voter for North Warwickshire’, The Times, 14 Aug. 1837. The only consolation for Parkes, who admitted that his side had been ‘licked’, was that the election had at least forced the ‘Impostor’ into an expensive contest he could ill afford.43Parkes to Stanley, 13 Aug. 1837, MS Kingsland.

In late 1838 Parkes reported mistaken rumours that Dugdale was about to resign due to ill health, but decided that Reformers should keep their powder dry for the next general election.44Parkes to Stanley, 19 Dec. 1838, MS Kingsland. However, when that election came in July 1841, the only likely candidate, Bracebridge, was unwilling to stand and consequently the incumbents were returned unopposed, and thereafter Parkes, hitherto the linchpin of the Reformers’ efforts in the constituency, seems to have abandoned an active role in the constituency’s politics. The election was notable for the ‘total absence of anything approaching excitement’.45Morning Post, 17 June 1841; The Times, 7 July 1841. Dugdale and Wilmot declared their opposition to the Whigs’ proposed fixed duty on corn, the latter labelling Melbourne’s government ‘an impotent and vacillating ministry’, although he was characteristically vague about his own politics.46The Times, 7 July 1841.

Wilmot’s surprise appointment as governor of Van Diemen’s Land in February 1843 created a vacancy that was filled by the ‘decidedly Conservative’ Charles Newdegate, a young Middlesex-born country gentleman, who had inherited an estate at Arbury, near Nuneaton.47The Times, 28 Feb. 1843. After Wilmot had informed him of his resignation, George Whateley, chief wirepuller of the Birmingham LCA, organised a meeting which endorsed Newdegate and got up a requisition, which was signed mostly by urban inhabitants, especially from Birmingham.48The Times, 27, 28 Feb. 1843; Morning Post, 25 Feb. 1843, 1 Mar. 1843. A Whig-Radical opposition, with possible candidates including an unnamed gentleman of ‘great wealth and influence’, Bracebridge, Skipwith and Heming, did not in the end materialise.49The Times, 27, 28 Feb. 1843; Morning Post, 1 Mar. 1843; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 2 Mar. 1843. Bracebridge was unwilling to suffer another expensive defeat and as a Whig was reluctant to ally himself with the Anti-Corn Law League, who were widely thought likely to intervene in any contest. The Conservative Birmingham banker Richard Spooner was also rumoured, but his opinions on the currency alienated some, whilst Lord Leigh’s heir was considered to be too young.50Morning Post, 28 Feb. 1843. The removal of the votes of ‘all trustees from Dissenting chapels’ at the previous registration had also weakened the Reformers’ chances.51The Times, 27 Feb. 1843.

At the nomination, Newdegate described Peel’s revision of the sliding scale the previous year as a ‘misfortune’, and promised not to support any further diminution in agricultural protection. He reluctantly agreed with the reintroduction of the income tax, even though it was ‘an odious impost’, emphasised his commitment to the established Church, and criticised the new poor law.52The Times, 11 Mar. 1843. His unopposed return was notable for a number of crimson banners displaying Newdegate’s family motto and placards, with slogans such as ‘Newdegate – the Poor Man’s Friend’, ‘Down with the [Anti-] Corn Law League’, and ‘No paid lecturing humbugs, we won’t have you’.53Morning Post, 11 Mar. 1843.

In August 1845, 710 objections against voters in the Birmingham and Aston districts were made, all apparently signed by one man, William Worthington.54The following paragraph is based on evidence given by the Conservative solicitors George Whateley and John Benbow Hebbert, of Birmingham, and William Willmot, of Coventry, to the 1846 Select Committee on the Votes of Electors, which was set up at Newdegate’s instigation: PP 1846 (451), viii. 189-90, 210, 221-2. It later transpired that Worthington had not in fact signed all the objections, but was a tool used by the League in pursuit of its strategy to carry the fight against protectionists by mass objections to county electors.55Ibid., 189-90, 195. He was selected to make the objections, Whateley thought, probably correctly, because as a poor man he would have been unable to pay costs if the objections were rejected: ibid., 191. The objections had been made as late as possible, and there was some doubt as to whether notices had been posted to electors at all in some cases.56Ibid., 190-3, 207-8. The latter point was of some importance, as if electors were not aware that objections had been made against them, and did not consequently attend the revision court to defend their vote they would be struck off the register. All the objector would need to do was present a stamped duplicate of the letter which had been (supposedly) sent to the elector as proof that they had been informed. The League opportunistically objected to the absence of house numbers for electors, which a recent judgement by the lord chief justice had decided were necessary.57Ibid., 196, 222. However, as the court of common pleas had ruled that the judgement was ‘inapplicable to voters already on the register’, the attempt was unsuccessful.58Ibid., 196. Even so Whateley took care to prove the qualifications of electors in case there was an appeal against the revising barrister’s decision: ibid., 191. Eventually the League was forced to withdraw objections which had been falsely signed in Worthington’s name.59Ibid., 200-1. As a result only a dozen or so voters were struck off, and the 300 or so objections made against voters registered in Coventry, but who ‘lived at great distance’ from their qualifying property, were equally unsuccessful.60Ibid., 190, 210-11, 214, 226 (qu. at 211). The main complaint of the Conservative wirepullers were that the objections had been fraudulent, vexatious and indiscriminate and that the revising barrister had failed to award costs in all but a handful of cases: ibid., 191, 193-5, 200-1, 207, 213, 218, 223, 229.

Dugdale’s support for repeal of the corn laws in 1846 provoked a requisition calling for his resignation, which he ignored.61Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 19 Mar. 1846. However, he retired at the general election the following year when it became clear that he would be challenged by a protectionist, either Lord John Scott, brother of the 5th duke of Buccleuch and a regular speaker at local Conservative meetings, or Spooner, who had just been ousted from Birmingham.62Daily News, 7 Aug. 1847; The Standard, 9 Aug. 1847. Bracebridge offered again, believing that the constituency might be more receptive to his free trade views than in previous elections.63The Times, 9 Aug. 1847; C.H. Bracebridge, letter, Morn. Chro., 16 Aug. 1847. Four candidates appeared at the nomination, the protectionists, Newdegate and Spooner, and the Liberals, Bracebridge and William Henry Leigh, of Stoneleigh Park, the heir of Lord Leigh. Some bitterness was injected into proceedings by Liberal claims that Newdegate had conspired with local protectionists to drive out Dugdale. Newdegate denied this, but defended a constituency’s right to change its MP. He attacked Peel’s free trade policy, which in conjunction with his 1844 Bank Charter Act had brought the country to a ‘deadlock’. Newdegate added that ‘it is more than any man’s character is worth to submit to the blind dictation of Sir R. Peel’. Spooner ‘fully concurred’ with Newdegate, and in his brief oration emphasised his support for the ‘Protestant constitution in church and state’ and ‘ample, complete, and perfect, protection to native industry, be it the farmer or the artisan’. Leigh described himself as a supporter of Russell’s government and a free trader, although he did not ‘deny that he had once been a Protectionist’. He also opposed any endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Bracebridge’s oration was cut short by the uproar provoked by his defence of Dugdale. The show of hands favoured the protectionists.64All references to the nomination unless otherwise stated from The Times, 11 Aug. 1847.

Bracebridge then withdrew, explaining that he had only offered at short notice as no other Liberal was in the field.65C.H. Bracebridge, letter, Morn. Chro., 16 Aug. 1847. Although Leigh gained a majority in Coventry, and enjoyed the support of local Whig and Peelite landowners, including Sir George Chetwynd, Dugdale, Lord Craven, Sir Francis Lawley and Skipwith, the depth of protectionist feeling in the other districts secured Newdegate’s election in first place.66The Standard, 14 Aug. 1847. Spooner’s lead of almost 200 votes over Leigh in Birmingham proved crucial to his return in second place.67Morning Post, 12 Aug. 1847; The Times, 14 Aug. 1847; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 19 Aug. 1847. Peel plumped for Leigh, whilst Attwood voted for Newdegate and Spooner: The Times, 14 Aug. 1847. At the declaration, Newdegate hailed Spooner’s return as indicative of an alliance between the landed aristocracy and farmers of the county and the ‘wealth and intelligence of Birmingham’.68The Times, 17 Aug. 1847.

In defeat, the Liberals argued that Leigh’s youth and inexperience as well as the protectionists’ support for currency reform had told against him in Birmingham in particular.69Morn. Chro., 16 Aug. 1847; Morning Post, 16 Aug. 1847. It was also suggested that Leigh’s moderate views on political reform had cost him many votes in the Radical town, where 640 electors declined to poll.70Daily News, 23 Aug. 1847. The campaign had also been damaged by a rumour that Leigh’s father, Lord Leigh, had used his influence in North Staffordshire in favour of his Conservative son-in-law, Charles Adderley. This was belatedly denied, but may have alienated some Liberals in North Warwickshire.71‘A North Warwickshire Liberal’, Morn. Chro., 16 Aug. 1847; Leicester Chronicle, 21 Aug. 1847. The Morning Chronicle put the blame for the defeat on Birmingham Liberals, arguing that, like Manchester, Birmingham should have been used by Liberals as a powerbase from which to dominate the surrounding county constituency, an additional benefit being that the party would no longer be reliant on the scions of noble houses for candidates.72Morn. Chro., 18 Aug. 1847. However, free trade was not the rallying and unifying cry in Birmingham that it was in Lancashire. The enduring influence of currency reform and the belief in remunerating prices to achieve full employment meant that the town was less receptive to Cobdenite free trade and its emphasis on cheap prices than other urban centres, a local context which helps to explain Newdegate and Spooner’s appeal.

After the election the leadership of the Liberal cause was taken up by a local artisan, James Taylor, founder of the Birmingham Freehold Land Society (BFLS), the first annual report of which noted that it was only after the defeat ’that a sufficient amount of enthusiasm could be generated in our townsmen’ to organise.73Manchester Times, 14 Oct. 1848. See also T. Beggs, ’Freehold land societies’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, (1853), xvi. 338-46; G.J. Johnson, ’On the benefit and freehold land societies of Birmingham’, ibid., (1865), xxviii. 507-17. By October 1848, the Society had 1,115 members, mostly from Birmingham, who had subscribed for 1,316 shares, allotted 195 pieces of freehold land at a cost of £3,700, and purchased two large estates which, once broken up into 40s. freeholds, would create 400 electrs for North Warwickshire.74Manchester Times, 14 Oct. 1848. Whilst the Society stressed its credentials as a prudential investment institution, there was little doubt about its political aims, which Taylor openly stated as the capture of North Warwickshire, East Worcestershire and South Staffordshire.75Sheffield Independent, 24 Feb. 1849; Leeds Mercury, 12 Jan. 1850. The Society’s progress was impressive. In March 1849, it purchased two estates which were estimated to create 700 new votes for North Warwickshire, and a Coventry society was established the following month.76Sheffield Independent, 24 Mar. 1849; Daily News, 4 Apr. 1849. Protectionists resisted these new claims in the revision courts of October 1849 on grounds of insufficient value, but once the smallest plot had been proved to be of requisite value this was taken to validate all other votes created by the Society on behalf of its members.77Daily News, 12 Oct. 1849.

The success of the Society in enfranchising its members, with estimates of the number of new votes created ranging from 631 to 1,000, prompted the Morning Post to describe it as the ‘Birmingham Vote Manufacturing Society’.78Morning Post, 13 Oct. 1849. An August report from the Eclectic Review (qu. in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 12 Aug. 1849) reported that the Society had enfranchised 900 voters generally; Daily News, 12 Oct. 1849 reported that the Society had added 631 voters for North Warwickshire and 826 in total; the Leeds Mercury, 2 June 1849 said that the Society had added 1,000 votes to the constituency’s register since its creation. The response of local Protectionists was to form a rival body, the Victoria Building and Investment Society, appealing against constitutional change and offering ‘an opportunity, … to those who had not already the means, or, if having them had never used them, of obtaining county votes at a reasonable rate’.79Aris’ Birmingham Gazette, qu. in The Standard, 11 Apr. 1850. At the 1850 registration local Protectionist organisers objected to 100 electors who claimed votes on property acquired through the BFLS, but these objections were ruled invalid and the votes held good.80Daily News, 28 Sept. 1850. The following year Taylor intensifed his campaign by making 1,400 objections to existing voters, of which 1,000 were sustained, mostly on account of lapsed qualifications, and death, adding to which a further 200 voters backed by the Society were enfranchised.81Daily News, 4 Sept. 1851; Reynolds’s Newspaper, 9 Nov. 1851.

Despite rumours that the influence of the BFLS would force him to find another constituency at the 1852 general election, Newdegate issued a joint address with Spooner reiterating their firm commitment to the established Church in particular and Protestantism in general, and promising support for Derby’s government and policies to relieve those who ‘suffer from foreign competition’.82The Times, 29 June 1852. Newdegate was rumoured to be moving to South Lancashire by one newspaper: Leeds Mercury, 13 Mar. 1852. Although no opposition was expected, at a late stage local Whigs and Radicals put up Keppel Craven, brother of Earl Craven and Sir Thomas George Skipwith of Newbold Pacey, son of the 1837 candidate.83The Times, 29 June 1852; Morning Post, 12 July 1852. The belatedness of the challenge, Parkes observed, was because Liberals had been reluctant to challenge Spooner, as ’some Birmingham men fear if he retired from the county he would re-visit and bother the borough’.84Joseph Parkes to George Wilson, 12 June 1852, Wilson papers, Manchester Central Library, qu. by Fraser, Urban politics, 212.

The nomination was disrupted by a mob, apparently from Nuneaton and Coventry, sporting the traditional orange colours of Warwickshire Toryism, whose entry sparked a general tumult. Consequently, Newdegate and Spooner were forced to make uncharacteristically brief speeches, although the former found time to voice his hostility to ‘Papal Aggression’. Craven promised to oppose the reintroduction of the corn laws. After witnessing the ordeal of the other candidates, Skipwith opted to address supporters in close proximity, with the result that ‘no one a yard from him could hear a word he said’. The show of hands favoured the Liberals by a margin of five or six to one.85The Times, 13 July 1852. However, they retired at the end of the first day’s polling, after the protectionists had gained unassailable leads.86The Times, 16, 17, 20 July 1852. At the declaration, a detachment of Birmingham troops was stationed in Coleshill to preserve the peace.87The Times, 20 July 1852.

The incumbents were returned unopposed at the 1857 general election, when Newdegate denied that he had offered a ‘factious opposition’ to Lord Palmerston, before justifying his resistance to the admission of Jews to Parliament as necessary to preserve the ‘Christian character of the constitution’. Spooner expressed similar views, but emphasised the importance of maintaining ‘a high state of efficiency in the army and navy’, warning that ‘peace-at-any-price men had forced their false economy’ on the country before the Crimean War, with disastrous consequences.88The Times, 4 Apr. 1857; The Standard, 4 Apr. 1857. Rumours that Edward Chandos Leigh, barrister brother of Lord Leigh, or Frederick Peel would offer came to nothing.89The Times, 17 Mar. 1857; The Standard, 18 Mar. 1857, 1 Apr. 1857.

The sitting Members were again unchallenged at the 1859 general election, after Chandos Leigh, the only likely challenger, did not offer.90The Times, 6, 11 Apr. 1859. The Liberal election committee published an advertisement calling for Liberal electors to withhold their pledge ‘as an eligible candidate, who will unite all Liberals …, will be announced forthwith’ (Birmingham Daily Post, 11 Apr. 1859), but this promise was not fulfilled. At the nomination, Newdegate, opposing his own government’s reform bill, emphasised his support for retaining county votes for urban freeholders and also complained that counties were under-represented. As Spooner concurred with much of Newdegate’s speech he limited his own, but again expanded on defence, arguing that ‘If we were to have peace we must be well prepared for war’.91Birmingham Daily Post, 3 May 1859.

In 1863, the ailing Spooner announced he would retire at the next dissolution and local Conservatives sent a requisition to William Davenport Bromley, of Baginton Hall, near Coventry, (but from a Cheshire family), to replace him. Spooner’s death in November 1864 merely hastened Bromley’s return to Parliament.92The Times, 26 Nov. 1864. Although the organ of Birmingham Liberalism, the Birmingham Daily Post, described Bromley as a non-entity with poor local credentials, no opposition was forthcoming.93Birmingham Daily Post, 1 Dec. 1864. The North Warwickshire Liberal Registration Society had allegedly planned to contest the election, however, with mooted candidates including George Frederick Muntz, son of the late Radical MP for Birmingham, Chandos Leigh, and Wykeham Martin, MP for Rochester.94Daily News, 1 Dec. 1864. But the Post declared these reports to be erroneous and intimated that the Liberals were preserving their strength for the next general election.95Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Dec. 1864.

The nomination was only attended by a few hundred people, but was notable for some ambiguity over Bromley’s principles, being variously described as a ‘Liberal Conservative’ and a ‘Conservative’.96The Times, 14 Dec. 1864. On the hustings, he supported the construction of iron ships for the Royal Navy and opposed the abolition of church rates. However, he disowned Spooner’s anti-Maynooth campaign which he thought promoted ‘party strife and disunion’. Before the return, Bromley was questioned by the Birmingham manufacturer T.S. Wright, who asked whether he would propose a substitute for church rates. Bromley replied that ‘when I am Prime Minister I will entertain that question’, to laughter from the crowd. When asked how he would make up the deficiency in revenue caused by a repeal of malt duty, which he favoured, Bromley said ‘when I am Chancellor of the Exchequer I will also entertain that question’, to even greater laughter.97The Times, 14 Dec. 1864. The Post protested that the election was ‘a poor piece of business’.98Birmingham Daily Post, 14 Dec. 1864.

At the general election of July 1865, the incumbents were challenged by Muntz, who had accepted a requisition from Liberal electors to stand.99Birmingham Daily Post, 29 June 1865. The selection of Muntz, who had business and landed interests, was a departure from the tradition of putting up Whig country gentlemen or noblemen, but only came after Arthur Wellesley Peel had refused to stand and Skipwith, the 1852 candidate, had sold his Warwickshire estate.100Birmingham Daily Post, 4 July 1865. Newdegate’s increasing eccentricity prompted one local farmer to complain that his address ‘was so full of mystifying sentences as to cause people to wonder whether they are living in the feudal ages or the nineteenth century’.101‘A Farmer’, Birmingham Daily Post, 1 July 1865. Muntz’s campaign was organised by the Birmingham Liberal Association and its organ, the Post, which sought to frame the contest as one between Disraeli and Gladstone.102Birmingham Daily Post, 4 July 1865. At a Liberal meeting, 3 July 1865, Thomas Lloyd, an alderman, outlined an electoral strategy which was dependent upon winning big majorities in Birmingham, Coventry and Nuneaton, although it was hoped that Muntz’s agricultural connections might appeal to electors in country districts also.103Birmingham Daily Post, 4 July 1865. The Liberal candidate toured the constituency and his activity was in marked contrast to that of the incumbents.104Birmingham Daily Post, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 July 1865. However, all three candidates spoke at Coleshill, where Newdegate descended into the political antiquarianism of which he was increasingly fond, describing himself as ‘an old Tory … and a follower of Pitt’. Bromley was again decidedly vague, whilst Muntz emphasised his support for repeal of malt duty to his agricultural audience.105Birmingham Daily Post, 13 July 1865.

At the nomination, the crowd did not give Newdegate or Bromley’s proposers much of a hearing.106The Times, 18 July 1865. Newdegate was ‘solemnly mysterious’, his speech reflecting his view of himself as an ‘independent member’, citing his support for Palmerston’s Italian policy as evidence that he was ‘tied to no party leader’.107Birmingham Daily Post, 18 July 1865; The Times, 18 July 1865. Bromley expressed support for a non-interventionist foreign policy rather than that which ‘consisted of bullying and bragging, without any intention of fighting’. He confusingly referred to himself as a ‘Liberal Conservative and a Conservative’.108Birmingham Daily Post, 18 July 1865. Most of the rest of Bromley’s speech and Muntz’s oration was not recorded, as the bench upon which the press reporters stood collapsed, which the Liberals blamed on Conservative ‘blackguards’.109The Times, 18 July 1865. However, Muntz’s views, which had been made known through his earlier speeches, included support for a £6 borough franchise and substantial redistribution.110Birmingham Daily Post, 18 July 1865. The show of hands favoured Muntz and Newdegate, which prompted Bromley to demand a poll.111The Times, 18 July 1865.

Despite great excitement, the polling passed off without incident, although a few dead electors were impersonated.112Birmingham Daily Post, 21 July 1865. Despite winning Birmingham by over 600 votes, and an improved Liberal performance in other districts, Muntz was undone by adverse votes in Nuneaton and Coventry.113Daily News, 21 July 1865. As the Post noted, ‘everything depends upon the vote of these towns’.114Birmingham Daily Post, 20 July 1865. The overall result saw Newdegate elected in first and Bromley in second place, 500 votes ahead of Muntz, who promised that the constituency would be ‘fought and fought again until the Liberal party were successful’.115The Times, 25 July 1865.

True to their word, the Liberals made 662 new claims at the 1865 registration and 1,444 the following year, the overwhelming majority in Birmingham, Edgbaston and Aston.116Moore, Politics of deference, 269. The Conservatives responded, but could call on very few new claims from ‘urban districts’, which has led Moore to suggest that they were running out of potential voters to register.117Ibid., 269. As a result of their exertions, by January 1867 the Liberals could claim a slight majority on the register. However, at the 1868 election Newdegate and Bromley were elected by over a thousand votes over Muntz and another Liberal.118Ibid., 270; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 302. This gives some credence to Moore’s view that the 1867 Representation of the People Act, which expanded the electorate to 10,265 and was crucial in securing a Conservative victory.119Ibid.; Moore, Politics of deference, 270; PP 1868-69 (418), l. 115. Muntz was again unsuccessful in 1874 and the sitting Members were returned unopposed in 1880.120McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 302. In 1885 the constituency was divided into the North (or Tamworth) division and the North-East (or Nuneaton) division.121PP 1884-85 [C. 4287], xix. 249-54; 48 & 49 Vict. c. 23. From 1885-1910 Tamworth was controlled by the Conservatives, who also captured Nuneaton in 1886, and held it until 1906, when it fell to Labour.122McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, 246.