Warwickshire South

<p><strong>Economic and social profile</strong>:</p><p>South Warwickshire contained ‘the most fertile portions of the county’ and the economy was ‘chiefly agricultural’.<a class='fnlink' id='t1' href='#fn1'>1<span><em>Dod’s electoral facts</em>, <em>1832-1853</em>, <em>impartially stated</em> (1853), 327-8.</span></a> Cereals, beans, peas, potatoes and turnips were the main crops, but Warwickshire was also ‘a noted grazing county’.<a class='fnlink' id='t2' href='#fn2'>2<span><em>Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales</em> (1844), iv. 441.</span></a> The constituency did, however, contain the county town of Warwick and Leamington Priors or Royal Leamington, a fashionable spa town, notable for the ‘spaciousness of its streets, … the elegance of its houses, and the beauty and interest of the surrounding countryside’ which meant that it was ‘not excelled by any watering place in the kingdom’.<a class='fnlink' id='t3' href='#fn3'>3<span>F. White, <em>History, gazetteer, and directory of Warwickshire</em> (1850), 611.</span></a> Other market towns included Alcester, Henley-in-Arden, Southam and Stratford-upon-Avon, the last being a municipal, but not a parliamentary, borough.<a class='fnlink' id='t4' href='#fn4'>4<span>Ibid., 405; <em>Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales</em> (1844), i. 19; ii. 314, 519-22; iv. 152, 230-1.</span></a> The constituency possessed decent transport links, largely because canals and railways passed through it from the west and south on the way to Birmingham.<a class='fnlink' id='t5' href='#fn5'>5<span>S. Lewis, <em>Topographical dictionary of England</em> (1844), iv. 473.</span></a> The river Avon provided an older connection to Bristol, Gloucester and south west England.<a class='fnlink' id='t6' href='#fn6'>6<span><em>Parliamentary gazetteer</em>, iv. 230-1.</span></a></p><p><strong>Electoral history</strong>:</p><p>The return of two Reformers for South Warwickshire at the 1832 general election proved to be a misleading portent of the constituency’s politics in this period as it was thereafter controlled by the Conservatives. Although they possessed an efficient machine in the 1830s, the Conservatives’ dominance arguably owed as much to traditional influences and the weakness of local Liberalism as to party organisation. Once Conservative control had been assured by victory in the 1836 by-election there was no further contest until the 1865 general election, and the representation was shared between the local nobility and gentry, notably the Finches of Packington Hall, earls of Aylesford; the Grevilles of Warwick Castle, earls of Warwick; the Mordaunts, baronets of Walton; and the Shirleys of Eatington Park.<a class='fnlink' id='t7' href='#fn7'>7<span>‘Warwickshire’, <em>HP Commons</em>, <em>1820-1832</em>, ii. 120-9 (at 120-1); <em>Daily News</em>, 28 Apr. 1847; <em>Dod’s electoral facts</em>, 328.</span></a> In the intervening period of almost thirty years between contests, neither party had any incentive to revise the register, which reportedly became one of the most inaccurate in England.<a class='fnlink' id='t8' href='#fn8'>8<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 29 Sept. 1865.</span></a></p><p>This was partly an indictment of local Liberalism, which, tellingly, had always been dependent upon on a handful of Whig families rather than any permanent party organisation. The stalwarts of the minority Liberal or Whig interest were the Dormers of Grove Park, barons Dormers; Edward Bolton King, of Umberslade; the Leighs of Stoneleigh Abbey, barons Leigh; the Philipses, baronets of Weston House; the Shuckburghs, baronets of Shuckburgh Park; the Skipwiths, baronets of Newton Pacey; and the Throckmortons, baronets of Coughton Court.<a class='fnlink' id='t9' href='#fn9'>9<span>‘Warwickshire’, <em>HP Commons</em>, <em>1820-32</em>, ii. 120-1; <em>The Times</em>, 28 Oct. 1841; <em>Daily News</em>, 28 Apr. 1847.</span></a> Even so, Liberal prospects were always slight given the constituency’s agricultural and rural bias. Urban freeholders were a negligible presence compared to the northern division, and with ‘no Birmingham or Coventry to swamp the independent agricultural interest’, or indeed counter the influence of Tory squires and lords, the constituency remained strongly protectionist and Conservative.<a class='fnlink' id='t10' href='#fn10'>10<span>PP 1866 (335), lv. 20; <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 24 May 1849.</span></a></p><p>As a result of this combination of factors there were only three contests in the period and the ease with the constituency was ‘<cite>handed from one junior branch of the Conservative family tree to another’ had </cite>significant implications for the quality of its parliamentary representation.<a class='fnlink' id='t11' href='#fn11'>11<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 20 Apr. 1859</span></a> In 1865 the radical <em>Birmingham Daily Post</em> complained that the lack of contests, scrutiny or local interest meant that it was no coincidence that Souuth Warwickshire’s MPs were renowned for their ‘entire uselessness’.<a class='fnlink' id='t12' href='#fn12'>12<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 14 Apr. 1865.</span></a> It was with pardonable exaggeration, then, that the <em>Post</em> said that, aside from adding two votes to the Conservative tally in the division lobby, the constituency might as well not have existed for thirty years.<a class='fnlink' id='t13' href='#fn13'>13<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 26 Apr. 1865.</span></a></p><p>A notable feature of Warwickshire politics in the unreformed period had been the rivalry between the manufacturing towns, Coventry and Birmingham, the latter of which had no parliamentary representation, in the north of the county, and the agricultural interest and Tory gentry and nobility, which was especially strong in the south and east.<a class='fnlink' id='t14' href='#fn14'>14<span>‘Warwickshire’, <em>HP Commons</em>, <em>1820-32</em>, ii. 120.</span></a> The Whigs had secured both seats when they ousted the long-serving Tory member in 1831.<a class='fnlink' id='t15' href='#fn15'>15<span>Ibid., 127.</span></a> The Reform Act divided the county horizontally, as, the commissioner argued, this ‘separates the Agricultural from the Manufacturing Population of the County’.<a class='fnlink' id='t16' href='#fn16'>16<span>PP 1831-2 (357), xli. 435-6.</span></a> As a result the southern division had a much smaller population and electorate than its northern counterpart and it was observed that ‘the fashionable town of Leamington is decidedly the most important district of the division, as regards numbers in any one locality’.<a class='fnlink' id='t17' href='#fn17'>17<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 1 Oct. 1845.</span></a> The electorate was 2,550 in 1833, rising to 4,304 in 1836-7, of which 2,793 qualified as freeholders and over 1,000 as occupying tenants.<a class='fnlink' id='t18' href='#fn18'>18<span>PP 1833 (189), xxvii. 99; 1837-38 (329), xliv. 571.</span></a> The electorate gradually declined thereafter, standing at 3,517 in 1864-5, but continued to consist mainly of freeholders (2,256) and occupying tenants (1,055).<a class='fnlink' id='t19' href='#fn19'>19<span>PP 1840 (579), xxxix. 190; 1844 (11), xxxviii. 430; 1847 (751), xlvi. 338; 1852 (8), xlii. 313; 1854 (69), liii. 221; 1854 (280), liii. 213; 1857 sess. 2 (4), xxxiv. 96; 1865 (448), xlvi. 551.</span></a></p><p>Before the 1832 general election, it was generally assumed that Sir Grey Skipwith, the Whig elected for the county in 1831 and the Tory Evelyn John Shirley, of Eatington Park, and MP for county Monaghan in the unreformed Parliament, would be returned. Another candidate, E.P. Dodd, a Reformer, was thought to have little chance.<a class='fnlink' id='t20' href='#fn20'>20<span><em>The Times</em>, 11 Dec. 1832.</span></a> However, Shirley’s nomination speech, in which he ‘abused all those who differed from him; in the most violent, &amp; unmeasured terms … raised such a spirit of hostility against himself, as could not be repressed’.<a class='fnlink' id='t21' href='#fn21'>21<span>Sir George Philips, ‘Memoirs’ MS., i. 310, Warwickshire Record Office, MI 247.</span></a> Local Reformers started Sir George Philips, Lancashire cotton magnate, local landowner and former MP.<a class='fnlink' id='t22' href='#fn22'>22<span><em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 20 Dec. 1832; <em>Warwick</em><em> Advertiser</em>, 15, 22 Dec. 1832.</span></a> Dodd retired in the new candidate’s favour, and Skipwith topped the poll, with Philips securing election in second place, thirteen votes ahead of Shirley.<a class='fnlink' id='t23' href='#fn23'>23<span><em>Berrow’s Worcester Journal</em>, 20 Dec. 1832; <em>The Times</em>, 20 Dec. 1832.</span></a></p><p>Shirley declined to come forward at the 1835 general election and Philips retired. The new candidates were Edward Sheldon, a ‘decided reformer’, of Brailes House, and the Conservative Sir John Mordaunt, whose father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great grandfather had all represented the county.<a class='fnlink' id='t24' href='#fn24'>24<span><em>The Times</em>, 17, 20 Dec. 1834, 7, 13, 14 Jan. 1835; <em>The assembled Commons</em> (1837), 124.</span></a> However, Skipwith withdrew to avoid the expense of a contest, although his unpopularity with farmers was another factor, leaving Sheldon and Mordaunt to be returned unopposed.<a class='fnlink' id='t25' href='#fn25'>25<span><em>The Times</em>, 20 Dec. 1834, 13, 16 Jan. 1835; <em>The Standard</em>, 2 Dec. 1834.</span></a></p><p>On Sheldon’s death in June 1836, local Conservatives persuaded Shirley to offer for the vacancy.<a class='fnlink' id='t26' href='#fn26'>26<span><em>The Times</em>, 14 June 1836; <em>The Standard</em>, qu. in <em>The Times</em>, 15 June 1836.</span></a> Although the Reformers had held at least one seat since 1832, the most recent registration, which had added 1,590 electors, indicated ‘a very considerable majority’ for the Conservatives.<a class='fnlink' id='t27' href='#fn27'>27<span><em>Derby</em><em> Mercury</em>, 22 June 1836; <em>The Times</em>, 24 June 1836.</span></a> Due to the death of one of his sons, Shirley was unable to conduct a personal canvass, whilst his opponent Skipwith, a ‘kind and good hearted country gentlemen’, was in the rather incongruous company of Joseph Parkes, election agent, and other Warwick radicals.<a class='fnlink' id='t28' href='#fn28'>28<span><em>The Times</em>, 24 June 1836.</span></a> However, he also had the backing of the local Whig nobility and gentry, including Bolton King, MP for Warwick, Sir George Philips, Lord Dormer and Sir John Throckmorton.<a class='fnlink' id='t29' href='#fn29'>29<span><em>Manchester</em><em> Times</em>, 18 June 1836.</span></a></p><p>A second bereavement meant that Shirley was unable to attend the nomination, but his proposers argued that county voters owed nothing to the Whigs but should thank Lord Chandos for enfranchising the tenants-at-will. In his speech, Skipwith said that the contest was really between ‘Reform and Conservatism’, but admitted the superiority of his opponents’ organisation, which had demonstrated ‘a union of purpose, a state of preparation, and a degree of activity which he hoped the Reformers of the county would follow on future occasions’.<a class='fnlink' id='t30' href='#fn30'>30<span><em>The Times</em>, 27 June 1836.</span></a> Before the close of proceedings, the Warwick mayor William Collins alleged that a local clergyman had distributed bludgeons to Shirley’s supporters, a charge which was denied.<a class='fnlink' id='t31' href='#fn31'>31<span><em>The Times</em>, 27 June 1836.</span></a> (The issue of the bludgeons was raised in Parliament 29 July, 4 August 1836).<a class='fnlink' id='t32' href='#fn32'>32<span><em>Hansard</em>, 29 July, 4 Aug. 1836, vol. 35, cc. 671-2, 904-6.</span></a> Press reports suggested that Shirley won the show of hands, but the high sheriff declared it in favour of Skipwith, a move that caused much dissatisfaction.<a class='fnlink' id='t33' href='#fn33'>33<span><em>The Standard</em>, 27 June 1836.</span></a></p><p>The poll produced a decisive victory for Shirley, who won majorities in every district.<a class='fnlink' id='t34' href='#fn34'>34<span><em>The Times</em>, 29 June 1836.</span></a> The <em>Times </em>believed that the result was due to the large increase in the register since 1832, which allowed an absentee candidate to defeat a popular local Whig.<a class='fnlink' id='t35' href='#fn35'>35<span><em>The Times</em>, 29, 30 June 1836.</span></a> Parkes interpreted the result rather differently, complaining to Lord Durham, of the result and of the Reformers’ position in the counties generally:</p><p>You would see how we got beaten in [South] Warwickshire, an agricultural division, only one large town, Warwick, &amp; that only 10000 inhabitants. The Parsons however are playing the Devil in the County Elections &amp; will die hard for the Church. They are an organised and influential band of canvassers, ready in every parish to start at a minute’s notice; &amp; our great want is of opulent Landed Proprietors to find funds for Registration &amp; Contests.<a class='fnlink' id='t36' href='#fn36'>36<span>Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 19 July 1836, Lambton MSS.</span></a></p><p>For their part, Conservatives claimed that Reformers had attempted to trick Shirley’s supporters by asking them to ‘pair off’ or split their vote for Skipwith (when, as only one seat was up for election, electors only had one vote).<a class='fnlink' id='t37' href='#fn37'>37<span><em>The Standard</em>, 29 June 1836; <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 29 June 1836.</span></a></p><p>By now the South Warwickshire Conservative Association (SWCA), the president of which was Lord Willoughby de Broke, had been meeting regularly, with defence of the tenants-at-will franchise being a common theme of party speeches, as well as support of the established Church in England and Ireland, the constitution and the House of Lords, and criticism of the Whigs’ Irish policy.<a class='fnlink' id='t38' href='#fn38'>38<span><em>The Times</em>, 28 Sept. 1836, 27, 28 Jan. 1837; <em>The Standard</em>, 28 Sept. 1836; <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 27 Jan. 1837.</span></a> The party strengthened their position at the 1836 registration, sustaining 230 of their objections against the Reformers’ 81, which no doubt contributed to the unopposed return of Shirley and Mordaunt at the 1837 general election.<a class='fnlink' id='t39' href='#fn39'>39<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 13 Dec. 1836.</span></a> Reports that Colonel Anson, late Whig MP for Stoke, was to stand proved to be erroneous.<a class='fnlink' id='t40' href='#fn40'>40<span><em>The Standard</em>, 30 June 1837, 22 July 1837.</span></a></p><p>That September the South Warwickshire Reform Association was founded at a public meeting in Warwick, attended by Bolton King, Skipwith, and Throckmorton amongst others. However, it was notable that its stated aims made no reference to registration but focused on achieving a national reform programme, including extension of the suffrage, the ballot, the abolition of the MPs’ property qualification, shorter parliaments, and ‘a decided change in the House of Lords’.<a class='fnlink' id='t41' href='#fn41'>41<span><em>Examiner</em>, 25 Sept. 1837.</span></a></p><p>The Reform Association appears to have made little impact on the constituency, especially when compared to its Conservative equivalent which continued to meet and vent anger against the Whigs, whom Mordaunt described as ‘the rash advocates of revolutionary measures’.<a class='fnlink' id='t42' href='#fn42'>42<span><em>The Times</em>, 13 Nov. 1837.</span></a> In autumn 1840 a correspondent, reporting on the annual meeting of the SWCA, attributed the party’s success to the coalition of noblemen, squires, clergy, yeomen and tradesmen who had rallied to the defence of the church. The most recent registration was once again said to have strengthened the Conservatives.<a class='fnlink' id='t43' href='#fn43'>43<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 29 Oct. 1840.</span></a><cite></cite></p><p>Although the Conservatives were by now ‘too strong’ to be defeated, there was a show of independence from the Reformers at the 1841 general election, which briefly descended into farce.<a class='fnlink' id='t44' href='#fn44'>44<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 29 June 1841.</span></a> Goaded by Colonel Miller’s ‘violent and intemperate speech’ proposing Mordaunt, Mr. Torre nominated Henry Bradley, a popular magistrate and sportsman of Leamington, in opposition.<a class='fnlink' id='t45' href='#fn45'>45<span>On Bradley see Morn. Post, 1 Oct. 1845</span></a> However, there was no-one to second the nomination, which Torre had been promised, ‘otherwise he would not have made himself the laughing-stock of all parties’. William Collins, MP for Warwick, interceded to second the absent Bradley and asked Mordaunt and Shirley whether they would support the alteration or abolition of the corn laws. The baronet replied that ‘he did not consider cheapness of provisions as any criterion of the prosperity of the country’.<a class='fnlink' id='t46' href='#fn46'>46<span><em>The Times</em>, 6 July 1841.</span></a> Bradley’s name was then withdrawn, ‘to the jeering of the immense crowd’, leaving the two Conservatives to be returned unopposed.<a class='fnlink' id='t47' href='#fn47'>47<span><em>Berrow’s Worcester Journal</em>, 8 July 1841.</span></a></p><p>Although supportive of Peel’s government, the annual general meeting of the SWCA in October 1842 registered some alarm at the revised corn law and the arguments used to justify it.<a class='fnlink' id='t48' href='#fn48'>48<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 29 Oct. 1842.</span></a> In response to the activity of the Anti-Corn Law League, the Warwickshire Association for the Protection of Agriculture (WAPA) was formed in January 1844 after a meeting in the county town. The meeting was chaired by Guy George Greville, Lord Brooke, heir to the earldom of Warwick and attended by Conservative members for the southern and northern divisions as well as the borough and the Whig Bolton King.<a class='fnlink' id='t49' href='#fn49'>49<span><em>The Times</em>, 25 Jan. 1844. The resolutions were published in an advertisement in the <em>Times</em>, 27 Jan. 1844.</span></a></p><p>Mordaunt’s accidental death in September 1845 occasioned a by-election, for which both parties were unprepared. Although a number of names were suggested the real contenders were Lord Brooke, the earl of Warwick’s heir, and Bolton King. Brooke was ‘highly esteemed as an amiable and accomplished young nobleman’, whilst Bolton King’s ‘extensive influence as a landed proprietor, and his excellent character as a landlord’ made him ‘extremely popular’.<a class='fnlink' id='t50' href='#fn50'>50<span><em>The Times</em>, 30 Sept. 1845.</span></a> Bolton King’s address, published as soon as Mordaunt was in the ground, emphasised his protectionism, but was ambiguous as to whether he would support Peel’s government. It was carefully crafted to appeal to disgruntled Conservatives as well as Whigs and Liberals, but the indecent haste with which it was published was poorly received. In any case he had promised to withdraw in favour of Brooke if the nobleman came forward, as both held the same position on agricultural protection. Privately it was thought that Bolton King’s candidature was a ‘ruse’, and that he was staking his claim for a seat at the next general election when, it had been rumoured, Shirley intended to retire in favour of Brooke.<a class='fnlink' id='t51' href='#fn51'>51<span><em>The Times</em>, 6 Oct. 1845.</span></a> This interpretation was given some credence by Bolton King’s withdrawal the following day after Conservatives published an address on behalf of the absent Brooke.<a class='fnlink' id='t52' href='#fn52'>52<span><em>The Times</em>, 7, 20 Oct. 1845.</span></a> The annual general meeting of the SWCA endorsed Brooke’s candidature and expressed satisfaction that an attempt by the League to challenge the party’s supremacy on the register had been rebuffed.<a class='fnlink' id='t53' href='#fn53'>53<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 31 Oct. 1845.</span></a></p><p>The ‘youthful scion of the House of Warwick’ was returned unopposed in his absence on the continent, and probably in ignorance of his nomination, which led some Conservatives to worry whether the division was ‘entirely destitute of any resident gentlemen of station, influence and abilities to match the family influence’ of the earl of Warwick.<a class='fnlink' id='t54' href='#fn54'>54<span><em>The Times</em>, 27 Oct. 1845.</span></a> Brooke was nominated by William Dickens, of Cherrington, the chairman of the county quarter sessions, whose speech was notable for its lavish praise of Bolton King. Although Brooke’s return was a formality, his protectionist credentials were carefully scrutinised by local agriculturalists. Mr. Lucy, a Stratford miller, demanded reassurance that the nobleman would not act as ‘merely one of Sir Robert’s tail’ and was suspicious of Brooke’s position on the malt duty. Unimpressed by Dickens’s answers, Lucy reserved the right of agriculturalists to challenge Brooke at the next election should he disappoint their expectations. A Leamington tradesman then asked whether Brooke would seek the abolition of the ‘inquisitorial … and unjust’ income tax. Dickens refused to give any assurances on this issue, contenting himself with blaming the Whigs for the necessity of imposing the income tax.<a class='fnlink' id='t55' href='#fn55'>55<span><em>The Times</em>, 6 Nov. 1845.</span></a></p><p>Brooke’s political opinions did not disappoint protectionists, however, as shown by his speech at a WAPA meeting, 29 Dec. 1845, which argued that ‘Old England … had never crouched to a foreign foe, [and] would not fall before the machinations of a malicious and artful party of interested cotton spinners’.<a class='fnlink' id='t56' href='#fn56'>56<span><em>The Times</em>, 30 Dec. 1845; <em>The Standard</em>, 30 Dec. 1845.</span></a> The Conservatives were strengthened by the 1846 registration, and the party, disillusioned with Peel, declared that its supporters would only back those ‘they can thoroughly trust as loyal and firm supporters of our ancient institutions in our Church and State and anxious to protect both the agricultural and commercial interests’.<a class='fnlink' id='t57' href='#fn57'>57<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 30 Oct. 1846.</span></a><cite></cite></p><p>There was no evidence of an arrangement between Bolton King and the Conservatives at the 1847 general election, when Brooke and Shirley were returned unopposed.<a class='fnlink' id='t58' href='#fn58'>58<span><em>The Times</em>, 4 June 1847; <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 4 June 1847; <em>Morn</em>. <em>Chro</em>., 19, 24 July 1847.</span></a> When Shirley did eventually resign two years later, his place was taken by Heneage Finch, known as Lord Guernsey, the heir to the earldom of Aylesford, who professed support for Church and State, and promised to ‘fight the battle of the English farmers’.<a class='fnlink' id='t59' href='#fn59'>59<span><em>The Times</em>, 8 June 1849; <em>Daily News</em>, 19 June 1849.</span></a> (The free trader William Henry Leigh, heir to the barony of Leigh, who had almost been elected for the northern division at the previous general election, had been mooted a candidature but declined to stand.<a class='fnlink' id='t60' href='#fn60'>60<span><em>The Times</em>, 24 May 1849.</span></a> Sir John Eardley Wilmot, son and namesake of the former MP for the northern division had also planned to come forward as a protectionist, but stood aside for Guernsey, whose father’s ‘high character and position in the county give him a commanding influence in favour of his son’.<a class='fnlink' id='t61' href='#fn61'>61<span><em>The Times</em>, 28 May 1849; <em>The Standard</em>, 28 May 1849. Qu. at <em>The Standard</em>, 22 May 1849.</span></a>) No opposition was forthcoming to the two noblemen at the 1852 general election, nor to Evelyn Philip Shirley, son of the late member, after Brooke’s succession to the peerage in November 1853.<a class='fnlink' id='t62' href='#fn62'>62<span><em>The Times</em>, 19 July 1852, 5 Dec. 1853. See also <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 5 Dec. 1853.</span></a> The by-election ‘did not appear to excite the slightest interest’, but the nomination was notable for Dickens, who proposed Shirley, abandoning agricultural protection.<a class='fnlink' id='t63' href='#fn63'>63<span><em>The Times</em>, 5 Dec. 1853. See also <em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 5 Dec. 1853.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>Guernsey retired at the 1857 general election, and was replaced by Bolton King, who was returned unopposed with Shirley.<a class='fnlink' id='t64' href='#fn64'>64<span><em>The Times</em>, 19 Mar. 1857.</span></a> At the nomination, Shirley said that although he was a Conservative he had ‘endeavoured to give an independent support to the present government’, but could not support Palmerston on Cobden’s Canton motion as he did not believe that something which was ‘morally wrong’ could be ‘politically right’. He also defended his vote against the endowment of the Catholic seminary at Maynooth. Bolton King praised Palmerston, not least for his handling of the Crimean War, and recited the government’s other achievements, including a reduction of the income tax. He concluded by saying that ‘England never stood higher in the estimation of foreign powers’.<a class='fnlink' id='t65' href='#fn65'>65<span><em>The Times</em>, 2 Apr. 1857.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>Bolton King retired at the 1859 general election in favour of Sir Charles Mordaunt, a Conservative, and son of the former member. This roused Liberals in Leamington to protest at the ‘anomalous position of the constituency’ and the way it had been passed around the local Conservative nobility and gentry. They passed a motion reproving Shirley for his parliamentary inactivity, resolved to form a Liberal Registration Society and send a requisition to Chandos Wren Hoskyns, of Wroxhall Abbey, to stand.<a class='fnlink' id='t66' href='#fn66'>66<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 20 Apr. 1859; White, <em>History</em>, 438.</span></a> However, in the event there was no challenge to the two Conservatives and the absence of both of them from the nomination – Mordaunt was resting in Paris after becoming ill in Egypt, whilst Shirley cried off citing a sick relative – probably did little to improve the humour of local Liberals.<a class='fnlink' id='t67' href='#fn67'>67<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 4 May 1859; <em>Daily News</em>, 4 May 1859.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>Shirley announced in May 1863 that he would retire at the next general election, and the Conservative Association named Henry Christopher Wise, of Woodcote, as their prospective candidate.<a class='fnlink' id='t68' href='#fn68'>68<span><em>Berrow’s Worcester Journal</em>, 16 May 1863.</span></a> The following year the Liberals made a concerted effort to purge the register. As there had not been a contest for over twenty years ‘it has consequently been in no one’s interest to attend to the state of the register, [and] there was, probably, no district in England which possessed a register so incorrect as that of South Warwickshire before the recent revision’. It included people who had been dead five, ten, and in some cases fifteen and eighteen years, many addresses were incorrect and qualifications dubious or lapsed. The objections, made by C.E. Mathews, secretary of the North Warwickshire Liberal Registration Association, resulted in over 400 names being struck off. The revision probably favoured the Liberals, but given the long time since the last contested election and the inaccuracy of the register, the impact on party strength remained impossible to assess.<a class='fnlink' id='t69' href='#fn69'>69<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 29 Sept. 1864.</span></a><cite></cite></p><p>The purge of the register was the prelude to a Liberal challenge at the next general election. Lord Duncan, heir to the earldom of Camperdown, and grandson of Sir George Philips, was announced as that party’s prospective candidate in April 1865, and began campaigning immediately.<a class='fnlink' id='t70' href='#fn70'>70<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 1, 5 May 1865</span></a> This was welcomed by the radical <em>Birmingham Daily Post</em>, which complained that the easy dominance of the Conservative party had led to the constituency being badly represented by a succession of indolent and ineffective MPs.<a class='fnlink' id='t71' href='#fn71'>71<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 14 Apr. 1865. See also ibid., 26 Apr. 1865.</span></a> It noted that the Conservative MPs for the keenly-contested northern division were much more active and prominent figures.<a class='fnlink' id='t72' href='#fn72'>72<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 26 Apr. 1865.</span></a> Local Conservatives were generally unimpressed with the challenger, who was a ‘complete stranger’ and thought that his reluctance to support repeal of the malt duty, which had lately been the subject of an agitation in the Midland counties, would prove fatal to his chances.<a class='fnlink' id='t73' href='#fn73'>73<span>Letters from ‘Cantab’, ‘An Elector’, <em>The Standard</em>, 21, 15 Apr. 1865.</span></a> However, others observed the ‘very considerable and influential support’ Duncan received from Leamington in particular.<a class='fnlink' id='t74' href='#fn74'>74<span>‘Oxon.’, <em>The Standard</em>, 26 Apr. 1865.</span></a> The Liberal campaign also had the support of local Whigs, indicated by the presence of Sir Francis Shuckburgh, Sir George Richard Philips, Edward Chandos Leigh and Sir Robert North Collie Hamilton of Alveston, on Duncan’s committee.<a class='fnlink' id='t75' href='#fn75'>75<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 9 May 1865.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>At the nomination Conservatives sought to highlight Duncan’s poor local connections and emphasised their commitment to repealing the malt tax. Mordaunt defended his parliamentary inattentiveness by saying that ‘more of my time during the last session has been spent looking after your interests in Warwickshire than in the House of Commons’, before invoking his family’s tradition of service. The duty of the Conservative party, he argued, was not to pass legislation but to maintain ‘a bold front and a strong opposition, which have prevented measures from passing into law which, if passed, would long ago have undermined the time-honoured institutions of our country’. Wise opposed the abolition of church rates, and promised to ‘give his best consideration to any well-considered measure of reform’, although he would oppose any ‘meddlesome meddling policy’ which would unsettle the fabric of the constitution.<a class='fnlink' id='t76' href='#fn76'>76<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 19 July 1865.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>Greeted by ‘prolonged and vociferous cheering’, Duncan spoke in favour of reform, criticising his opponents for ‘profess[ing] liberal principles; but when you return them to Parliament their votes are still the same’. To the charge that he was a stranger to the county he said that electors had told him: ‘ “It is very true that you are unknown in the county, but so are the others. We have never seen our county members”.’ Duncan and Mordaunt won the show of hands, prompting Wise to demand a poll.<a class='fnlink' id='t77' href='#fn77'>77<span>Ibid.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>On polling day, an effigy which bore a placard ‘Sir C.M., the member that wouldn’t work’ was seized by police before a crowd smashed windows at the Conservative headquarters.<a class='fnlink' id='t78' href='#fn78'>78<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 22 July 1865.</span></a> There was a ‘good deal of fighting’, much of it initiated by colliers from Coventry, who wore the traditional orange colours of Warwickshire Toryism.<a class='fnlink' id='t79' href='#fn79'>79<span><em>Morn</em>. <em>Post</em>, 22 July 1865; <em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 22 July 1865.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>Wise led throughout the polling and was returned in first place, less than a hundred votes ahead of Mordaunt who was elected in second. Although beaten, Duncan polled a creditable 200 votes behind the baronet.<a class='fnlink' id='t80' href='#fn80'>80<span><em>The Times</em>, 22 July 1865.</span></a> The big leads Mordaunt held in Kineton and Stratford, and to a lesser degree Southam, proved to be the nobleman’s undoing.<a class='fnlink' id='t81' href='#fn81'>81<span><em>Birmingham</em><em> Daily Post</em>, 22 July 1865.</span></a> Although the election was hard fought it passed off with good humour between the candidates, as evidenced by Duncan’s ‘friendly bet’ with Mordaunt on the result.<a class='fnlink' id='t82' href='#fn82'>82<span><em>The Times</em>, 25 July 1865.</span></a><cite> </cite></p><p>At the declaration Mordaunt complained of the overlong campaign that had been a consequence of Duncan’s early start and accused his opponent of having spread disparaging rumours about him, namely that he was ‘a destroyer of foxes’ and an arbitrary landlord. He urged supporters to follow Peel’s dictum of ‘Register! Register! Register!’ as Bolton King had promised that the Liberals would challenge at every occasion in the future.<a class='fnlink' id='t83' href='#fn83'>83<span><em>The Times</em>, 25 July 1865.</span></a><cite></cite></p><p>The 1867 Representation of the People Act expanded South Warwickshire’s electorate to 6,205.<a class='fnlink' id='t84' href='#fn84'>84<span><em>McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book</em>, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 303.</span></a> The Conservatives retained control of the constituency, although, as Bolton King had promised, they were now opposed at every occasion. The Liberals captured a seat at the 1880 general election, but this reverted to their opponents on the death of the member.<a class='fnlink' id='t85' href='#fn85'>85<span>Ibid.</span></a> In 1885 the county was re-divided into four single-member constituencies (excluding the boroughs). The former southern constituency was separated into the South West or Stratford-upon-Avon division and the South-East or Rugby Division.<a class='fnlink' id='t86' href='#fn86'>86<span>PP 1884-85 [C. 4287], 249-54; 48 &amp;amp; 49 Vict. c.23.</span></a> The Liberals held control of Rugby until the January 1910 election, whilst Stratford-upon-Avon, with two brief exceptions, was retained by the Conservatives. Leamington, part of the old southern division, was amalgamated with Warwick, which was Unionist after 1886 with the exception of 1906-10.<a class='fnlink' id='t87' href='#fn87'>87<span><em>McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book</em>, pt. II, pp. 246-7.</span></a></p>