Whitby

<p><strong>Social and economic profile</strong>:</p><p>Situated at the mouth of the river Esk, 47 miles north-east of York, Whitby was a ‘wealthy and substantial’ North Sea port, ranked eighth in the United Kingdom in 1828 for registered tonnage.<a class='fnlink' id='t1' href='#fn1'>1<span>PP 1831-2 (141), xl. 167; T. Whellan, <em>History and topography of the city of York, and the North Riding of Yorkshire </em>(1859), ii. 293.</span></a> Its main business was the import of timber from North America and the Baltic, and of wooden wares, hemp and flax from the latter, together with a ‘very extensive’ coasting trade, and in 1839 the port received the privilege of bonding.<a class='fnlink' id='t2' href='#fn2'>2<span>S. Lewis, <em>A topographical dictionary of England </em>(1844), iv. 535.</span></a> Shipbuilding was a key industry, together with allied trades such as sail and rope-making, and although this declined after the end of the French wars in 1815, it subsequently revived, with 25 vessels launched in 1838 and a similar number in 1839.<a class='fnlink' id='t3' href='#fn3'>3<span>W. Finden, <em>The ports, harbours, watering-places, and coast scenery of Great Britain: with descriptions </em>(1844), i. 74; Lewis, <em>Topographical dictionary</em>, iv. 535-6.</span></a> Whitby had been renowned for whaling, but this was in decline from 1823 and ceased entirely after 1837.<a class='fnlink' id='t4' href='#fn4'>4<span>Lewis, <em>Topographical dictionary</em>, iv. 535.</span></a> However, it remained an important fishing port.<a class='fnlink' id='t5' href='#fn5'>5<span>Ibid., 536.</span></a> It also possessed alum works, although this trade had ‘very much diminished’ by the 1840s, and stone quarries, and the discovery of iron-stone in the Cleveland Hills prompted the construction of several large ironworks nearby.<a class='fnlink' id='t6' href='#fn6'>6<span>Ibid., 535; Whellan, <em>History and topography of the city of York</em>, ii. 296.</span></a> Another staple trade was the manufacture of jet stone ornaments, boosted by the fashion for mourning jewellery in the later 19th century.<a class='fnlink' id='t7' href='#fn7'>7<span>Whellan, <em>History and topography of the city of York</em>, ii. 295; A. White, <em>A history of Whitby </em>(1993), 3.</span></a></p><p>The Whitby and Pickering railway, originally worked by horses, was completed in 1836, contributing ‘greatly to the prosperity of the internal trade of the town and neighbourhood’.<a class='fnlink' id='t8' href='#fn8'>8<span>Lewis, <em>Topographical dictionary</em>, iv. 536; White, <em>Whitby</em>, 2.</span></a> It was not, however, a remunerative enterprise for its shareholders, who were glad to be bought out by George Hudson and the York and North Midland railway in 1845.<a class='fnlink' id='t9' href='#fn9'>9<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 6 Sept. 1845.</span></a> By 1847 the line had been converted to steam, and connected via a branch line to the York and Scarborough railway, and thence to the national network. This, together with Hudson’s parallel project of building hotels and lodging-houses on the West Cliff, encouraged Whitby’s development ‘as a watering place’, and one observer in 1859 predicted that it would ‘rival Scarborough at no very distant period’.<a class='fnlink' id='t10' href='#fn10'>10<span>Whellan, <em>History and topography of the city of York</em>,<em> </em>ii. 285, 300; White, <em>Whitby</em>, 2.</span></a></p><p><strong>Electoral history</strong></p><p>Whitby did not feature in the original reform bill, but was one of several boroughs added to schedule D – which gave them a single member – on 18 April 1831, ‘to reinforce the interests of the shipping industry’.<a class='fnlink' id='t11' href='#fn11'>11<span><em>The Times</em>, 18 Apr. 1831; PP 1830-31 (0.36), ii. 259; N. Gash, <em>Politics in the age of Peel </em>(1953), 24.</span></a> There was a lively debate on its retention in the bill, 9 Mar. 1832, when it was suggested that the town was temporarily in decline and did not merit representation, but Lord Althorp urged that it deserved a seat because of ‘the amount of its shipping interests’, ‘the fact of its not being near any enfranchised place’, and the desirability of increasing the representation of that part of Yorkshire. It remained in schedule D, by 221 votes to 120. Whitby’s population grew little during this period, and although the electorate expanded, from 422 in 1832 to 667 in 1862, it contained one of the lowest proportions of working-class voters in the country, reckoned at 4.3% in 1866.<a class='fnlink' id='t12' href='#fn12'>12<span>PP 1866 (170), lvii. 51.</span></a> Given this, it is unsurprising that John Vincent’s analysis of popular Liberalism in the town concludes that the working-class shipwrights, fishermen and jet workers provided ‘only a latent source of conflict in this period’, and Chartism was also a negligible presence.<a class='fnlink' id='t13' href='#fn13'>13<span>J. Vincent, <em>The formation of the British Liberal party 1857-1868 </em>(1966), 155; R.P. Hastings, <em>Chartism in the North Riding of Yorkshire and south Durham, 1838-1848 </em>(2004), 13; M. Chase, ‘Watkins, John (1808-1858)’, in K. Gildart &amp;amp; D. Howell (ed.), <em>Dictionary of Labour Biography </em>(2005), xii. 297-8.</span></a> As lords of the manor the Cholmley family of Whitby Abbey and Howsham Hall were considered by Dod to possess influence, which continued to be wielded in support of the Tory party by his widow Hannah after the death of Colonel George Cholmley in 1857.<a class='fnlink' id='t14' href='#fn14'>14<span>H.J. Hanham (ed.), <em>Charles R. Dod. Electoral facts from 1832 to 1853 impartially stated </em>(1972); M. Bentley, ‘Gladstonian Liberals and provincial notables: Whitby politics, 1868-80’, <em>BIHR</em>, 64 (1991), 174.</span></a> The Phipps family (earls of Mulgrave and from 1838 marquesses of Normanby) who had their seat at Mulgrave Castle, near Whitby, occasionally fielded Liberal candidates, but were far less involved in politics here than in nearby Scarborough.</p><p>Instead it was the competing interests of shipping and the railway, and the elites who controlled them, which shaped the new borough’s electoral politics. The shipowners’ candidate, Aaron Chapman, triumphed at the poll in 1832, easily seeing off a Liberal challenge. Whitby was one of only two newly enfranchised towns which returned Conservatives as their first representatives, and remained a Conservative stronghold, with Chapman untroubled by any further contests until his retirement in 1847.<a class='fnlink' id='t15' href='#fn15'>15<span>R. Stewart, <em>The foundation of the Conservative party 1830-1867 </em>(1978), 85.</span></a> Thereafter the borough’s representation was dominated by the railway interest, which was initially Tory, under the popular and influential George Hudson, whose nominee Robert Stephenson was returned in 1847 and sat until his death in 1859. Hudson’s fall from grace after the exposure of his fraudulent railway dealings in 1849 did little to diminish his influence over Whitby’s politics, and his attempted candidatures had a crucial impact on the fiercely fought elections of November 1859 and 1865, resulting in a Liberal victory on the former occasion, but seeing Whitby revert to its traditional Toryism on the latter. As Vincent and Michael Bentley have outlined, by the end of this period the key fault-line in Whitby politics was between the generally Conservative shipping interest and the generally Liberal railway interest, and the partisan divide was as much about the direction of Whitby’s economic development as it was about any national political issues.<a class='fnlink' id='t16' href='#fn16'>16<span>Vincent, <em>Formation of the British Liberal party</em>, 155-9; Bentley, ‘Gladstonian Liberals and provincial notables’, 173-4.</span></a> The fact that Whitby was a single member seat, reducing the scope for electoral negotiation and compromise, added to the polarisation of politics in the borough.</p><p>The first candidate in the field after Whitby’s inclusion in the reform bill in April 1831 was Richard Moorsom, of Airy Hill, Whitby, who was said to have been instrumental in pressing Lord John Russell to grant representation to the borough, and who was invited to come forward ‘on the liberal interest’.<a class='fnlink' id='t17' href='#fn17'>17<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 3 May 1831; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 28 May 1831.</span></a> In contrast, his Conservative rival, Aaron Chapman, a prominent London shipowner, who offered shortly afterwards, had signed a declaration of London merchants against the bill.<a class='fnlink' id='t18' href='#fn18'>18<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 28 May 1831.</span></a> In his defence, Chapman claimed that once Whitby had been included, he had rallied behind reform, and both the ‘pinks’ (Conservatives) and the ‘blues’ (Liberals) held lavish festivities to celebrate the Act’s passage.<a class='fnlink' id='t19' href='#fn19'>19<span>A. Chapman, <em>A letter on the shipping industry: addressed to Thomas Fishburn, Esq. in answer to Mr. Moorsom’s letter to William Richmond, Esq. </em>(1832); <em>An account of the celebration of the enfranchisement of Whitby, including correct copies of the speeches delivered on that occasion </em>(1832).</span></a> However, Moorsom urged electors to support a man ‘who has <em>not at the eleventh hour become</em>, but who has <em>long </em>been an ADVOCATE OF REFORM’, and laid out an extensive programme of other reforms, promising support for civil and religious liberty; abolition of slavery; retrenchment; reductions in taxation; the opening up of the China and India trade; a moderate fixed duty on corn; the extension of the railway to Whitby; the repeal of duties on the raw materials of shipbuilding; and the relief of British shipping from heavy dues paid to municipal and other corporate bodies. The latter included Trinity House, of which Chapman was an elder brother, and which Moorsom attacked on several occasions.<a class='fnlink' id='t20' href='#fn20'>20<span>R. Moorsom, <em>An address to the inhabitants of Whitby and of adjoining townships </em>(1831); <em>York Herald</em>, 28 May 1831; R. Moorsom, <em>A letter to the electors and inhabitants of the borough of Whitby, containing some remarks on the “Pink” Jubilee, and on the speeches delivered on that occasion </em>(1832).</span></a></p><p>A member of ‘a very numerous and opulent family at Whitby’, who were involved in banking and shipowning, Chapman had captained one of his father’s vessels before assuming the management of his family’s maritime interests in London.<a class='fnlink' id='t21' href='#fn21'>21<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 28 May 1831; <em>The Standard</em>, 7 Jan. 1851.</span></a> His attempts to cultivate support through donations to Whitby charities were derided by opponents, who noted that his name had been absent from the subscription lists before beginning his canvass.<a class='fnlink' id='t22' href='#fn22'>22<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 21 July 1832.</span></a> However, while Moorsom possessed the advantage of local residence, he could not claim to identify with Whitby’s shipping interest in the same way as Chapman, for although the Moorsoms had made their money in shipping, they were no longer actively involved. Thus Chapman contrasted his opponent’s possession ‘of a fine portion of acres without any necessity for the exercise of his own industry’, with his own career, in which ‘exertion was obliged to be my portion’.<a class='fnlink' id='t23' href='#fn23'>23<span>Chapman, <em>Letter on the shipping industry</em>; R. Moorsom, <em>To the worthy and independent electors of the borough of Whitby </em>(1832).</span></a> Chapman’s detractors countered with claims that for the past six years he had had his ships built and repaired away from Whitby.<a class='fnlink' id='t24' href='#fn24'>24<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 21 July 1832.</span></a> The key election issue, and the subject of lengthy pamphlets by both candidates, was free trade. While Moorsom defended the move towards free trade embodied in the reciprocity system, preferring it to ‘a strife of discriminating duties, leading, inevitably, to debt, and war’, Chapman lambasted reciprocity as ‘impolitic’, ‘vile’ and largely responsible for the depressed state of British shipping. He declared that ‘neither Whig nor Tory shall induce me to sacrifice my country to noxious Free Trade principles’.<a class='fnlink' id='t25' href='#fn25'>25<span>Moorsom, <em>Address to the inhabitants of Whitby</em>;<em> York Herald</em>, 28 May 1831, 22 Dec. 1832; Chapman, <em>Letter on the shipping industry</em>.</span></a></p><p>The nomination saw ‘an extraordinary degree of excitement’, and a large body of hired men, ‘strangers to Whitby, in evident country garbs’, reportedly paid 4<em>s</em>. each per day, attempted to monopolise the market-place for Chapman’s party. Although the returning officer confined them to their side of the square, there was much jostling during the speeches, and ‘in this warfare the females showed themselves no despicable combatants’. Moorsom’s ‘manly and eloquent’ speech, which lasted two hours and focused primarily on free trade, contrasted with Chapman’s ‘nervous, agitated, unstable carriage’, speaking ‘in so extremely low a tone, that the reporter could not catch any thing, save a few sentences’. Nonetheless, Chapman won the show of hands by a slight majority. On the first day of the poll, the Conservatives’ hired men blocked the approaches to the polling places, and voters were ‘annoyed and harassed by their drunken execrations’. Two Liberal voters asked the returning officer to adjourn the poll, and Moorsom threatened to read the Riot Act if the hired men were not dispersed. With Conservative victory evident, it was agreed to close the poll at noon on the second day.<a class='fnlink' id='t26' href='#fn26'>26<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 22 Dec. 1832.</span></a> Chapman was chaired ‘in a boatlike chair’, from which he ‘had hardly alighted when the crowd made a rush, smashed the boat into a thousand pieces’, and took fragments as souvenirs.<a class='fnlink' id='t27' href='#fn27'>27<span><em>York Herald</em>, 22 Dec. 1832; R.B. Holt, <em>Whitby</em><em> past and present </em>[1897], 20.</span></a> However, the Liberals hoped to be able to unseat him on the grounds that he was disqualified as a government contractor, and entered a formal protest with the returning officer.<a class='fnlink' id='t28' href='#fn28'>28<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 15 Dec. 1832.</span></a> Notwithstanding his defeat they chaired Moorsom in a chair inscribed ‘The Patriot’s Chair’, ‘The Man of the People’, ‘Moorsom and the Independence of Whitby’.<a class='fnlink' id='t29' href='#fn29'>29<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 22 Dec. 1832.</span></a></p><p>Overwhelming support from Whitby’s shipowners was central to Chapman’s success, with one of his supporters having warned that ‘if Mr. Moorsom was returned to parliament, to support the Free-trade system, grass would continue to grow in their shipyards, nay grass would grow down to the water’s edge’.<a class='fnlink' id='t30' href='#fn30'>30<span><em>An account of the celebration of the enfranchisement of Whitby</em>.</span></a> However, Chapman’s opponents claimed that this influence had been brought to bear by corrupt means. On the hustings Moorsom’s seconder had alleged that ‘a system of coercion has been employed by the pink candidate, inconsistent with free choice; recourse has been had to threats and promises, tampering and cajoling’. Voters who had pledged for Moorsom were said to have polled for Chapman, fearing the withdrawal of custom, and Conservative promises to bring the railway to Whitby apparently also swayed support. The Conservatives allegedly distributed liquor freely to anyone presenting a pink card, and ‘numbers were to be seen lying in the gutters in beastly and senseless drunkenness, too shocking for description, men, women and <em>even children of six and seven years of age</em>’.<a class='fnlink' id='t31' href='#fn31'>31<span><em>York Herald</em>, 22 Dec. 1832; <em>An account of the celebration of the enfranchisement of Whitby. </em>For further charges regarding withdrawal of custom, see <em>The Examiner</em>, 14 Aug. 1831; <em>York Herald</em>, 20 Aug. 1831; <em>The Times</em>, 19 Mar. 1832.</span></a> In contrast with the £6,000 or £7,000 spent by the Conservatives, Moorsom’s committee had resolved ‘to maintain purity of election, and repress bribery and inordinate expense’, and the Liberals claimed not to have distributed a single shilling’s worth of drink and to have used voluntary election workers, save for a few hired banner-bearers.<a class='fnlink' id='t32' href='#fn32'>32<span><em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 26 Dec. 1832; <em>The Times</em>, 1 Dec. 1832; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 22 Dec. 1832.</span></a> Despite the numerous charges against Chapman, however, no petition was forthcoming.</p><p>The ‘satisfactory manner’ in which Chapman performed his parliamentary duties was said to have bolstered his support<a class='fnlink' id='t33' href='#fn33'>33<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 28 Nov. 1834.</span></a>, and ‘such has been his urbanity, and willingness to render every service to all who needed it, whether supporters or not, that many of his most violent opponents have been disarmed of their hostility’.<a class='fnlink' id='t34' href='#fn34'>34<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 24 Oct. 1834.</span></a> However, the Liberals endeavoured to mount a challenge at the 1835 election. The Hon. Charles Beaumont Phipps, an army captain and younger brother of the earl of Mulgrave, whose seat was nearby, came forward, backed not only by his brother, but also the duke of Devonshire and the earl of Durham.<a class='fnlink' id='t35' href='#fn35'>35<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 28 Nov. 1834.</span></a> Introduced to the electors by Moorsom, he described himself as ‘a sincere, unflinching, uncompromising Reformer’, and denied that he was an enemy to the shipping interest, or to Church and State. He attempted to make political capital out of Conservative opposition to Whitby’s enfranchisement in 1832, reading from Peel’s Commons speech.<a class='fnlink' id='t36' href='#fn36'>36<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 29 Nov. 1834.</span></a> However, despite his promise to go to the poll, Phipps subsequently withdrew, leaving Chapman to be re-elected unopposed.<a class='fnlink' id='t37' href='#fn37'>37<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 6 Dec. 1834; <em>The Standard</em>, 23 Dec. 1834.</span></a> Accounts of the nomination disagreed as to whether Chapman had made ‘a most excellent and Englishmanlike speech’<a class='fnlink' id='t38' href='#fn38'>38<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 9 Jan. 1835.</span></a>, or whether, ‘apparently much agitated’, he gave an undistinguished performance.<a class='fnlink' id='t39' href='#fn39'>39<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 Jan. 1835.</span></a> He again underwent an elaborate chairing in ‘a beautiful model of a ship, with figure head, quarter badges… lined with pink-coloured satin, with a canopy of the same materials, and christened the “Royal William”’, and was presented with a silk Union Jack on behalf of the ladies of Whitby.<a class='fnlink' id='t40' href='#fn40'>40<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 9 Jan. 1835.</span></a> The Conservatives subsequently held a celebratory ball for 600 people, but the Liberal <em>York Herald </em>protested that the result had been ‘Hobson’s Choice’, and that Whitby ‘may now be set down, in the annals of elections, as a regular, fixed, anti reforming borough’.<a class='fnlink' id='t41' href='#fn41'>41<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 3 Jan. 1835, 10 Jan. 1835.</span></a></p><p>This assessment proved correct, as Chapman did not face a contest in 1837, despite hopes that Moorsom might offer.<a class='fnlink' id='t42' href='#fn42'>42<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 8 July 1837.</span></a> Chapman had carefully cultivated the constituency, distributing 600 bags of coal to the poor that January, and as soon as the dissolution was announced his committee divided the town into districts for canvassing.<a class='fnlink' id='t43' href='#fn43'>43<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 14 Jan. 1837; <em>Morning Post</em>, 10 July 1837.</span></a> Another election ball, for over 800 people, followed his return.<a class='fnlink' id='t44' href='#fn44'>44<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 4 Aug. 1837.</span></a> Chapman again held sway at the 1841 general election as ‘the defender of “ships, colonies and commerce”’, opposed to the Whig ministry’s plans with regard to the corn, timber and sugar duties.<a class='fnlink' id='t45' href='#fn45'>45<span><em>Morning Post</em>, 1 July 1841.</span></a> With the continued support of Whitby’s shipowners, his canvass was ‘so successful that any attempt at opposition would be perfectly vain’, and a threatened challenge did not materialise.<a class='fnlink' id='t46' href='#fn46'>46<span><em>Morning Post</em>, 26 June 1841, 29 June 1841.</span></a> The election ‘passed off very quietly’, followed by the customary ball, for 1,200 supporters on this occasion.<a class='fnlink' id='t47' href='#fn47'>47<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 2 July 1841; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 July 1841.</span></a></p><p>In July 1845, at the age of 73, Chapman announced that he would retire at the next dissolution, and it was reported that George Hudson, the railway entrepreneur, would seek election in his place.<a class='fnlink' id='t48' href='#fn48'>48<span><em>Newcastle</em><em> Courant</em>, 11 July 1845.</span></a> Hudson had inherited property on Whitby’s West Cliff from his great-uncle, Matthew Bottrill, in 1827, and in 1843 had founded the Whitby Cliff Building Company in order to develop the town as a seaside resort.<a class='fnlink' id='t49' href='#fn49'>49<span>R.S. Lambert, <em>The railway king 1800-1871. A study of George Hudson and the business morals of his time </em>(1934), 31; R. Beaumont, <em>The railway king. A biography of George Hudson </em>(2002), 27-8, 168.</span></a> The York and North Midland company’s purchase of the Whitby and Pickering railway in 1845, and its plans to connect the line to the Stockton and Darlington railway, cemented his position in the town.<a class='fnlink' id='t50' href='#fn50'>50<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 15 Nov. 1845.</span></a> However that August, Hudson was returned for a vacancy at Sunderland, where he sat until 1859. The possibility of coming in for Whitby with Hudson’s backing, but on terms of ‘perfect independence’, was suggested to William Ewart Gladstone, who was without a seat following his appointment as colonial secretary in December 1845. However, he apparently dismissed it ‘rather coolly’, noting Hudson’s links to the protectionists.<a class='fnlink' id='t51' href='#fn51'>51<span>Gash, <em>Politics in the age of Peel</em>, 236.</span></a> At the 1847 general election Major William Beresford declined an invitation to stand as a Conservative, offering for North Essex instead.<a class='fnlink' id='t52' href='#fn52'>52<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 19 June 1847.</span></a> A requisition was got up to John Chapman, of Lower Stakesby, a banker and nephew to Aaron Chapman.<a class='fnlink' id='t53' href='#fn53'>53<span><em>Hull Packet</em>, 11 June 1847; M. Phillips, <em>A history of banks, bankers, &amp;amp; banking in Northumberland, Durham, and North Yorkshire </em>(1894), 376.</span></a> He likewise demurred, but endorsed Robert Stephenson, the railway engineer, whose father George had been a friend of Hudson’s since their first meeting at Whitby in 1834.<a class='fnlink' id='t54' href='#fn54'>54<span><em>York Herald</em>, 19 June 1847; Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 27-8.</span></a> Although Stephenson declared himself ‘a Conservative in principle’, ‘a determined supporter of the Protestant constitution in Church and State’, and opposed to the Maynooth grant, he was said to have secured cross-party support. He also affirmed that he would resist all attempts to interfere with the navigation laws.<a class='fnlink' id='t55' href='#fn55'>55<span><em>The Times</em>, 31 July 1847; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 31 July 1847.</span></a> He met with a reception ‘of the most triumphant and gratifying description’ when he was chaired following his unopposed return.<a class='fnlink' id='t56' href='#fn56'>56<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 31 July 1847.</span></a> Over 500 people attended the Conservative election ball.<a class='fnlink' id='t57' href='#fn57'>57<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 6 Aug. 1847.</span></a></p><p>Stephenson sought re-election in 1852, when he promised ‘ardent support’ for Derby’s ministry as long as its principles remained unchanged. He reiterated his commitment to the established Church and his hostility to ‘the aggressions of Rome’.<a class='fnlink' id='t58' href='#fn58'>58<span><em>Bradford</em><em> Observer</em>, 24 June 1852.</span></a> While Stephenson’s views continued to find favour with his supporters, there was concern that ‘his professional engagements abroad prevent his giving that constant attention to his parliamentary duties, which the state of the shipping interest requires’, and it was mooted that John Chapman, or failing him, Thomas Chapman, another of Aaron Chapman’s nephews, who was chairman of Lloyd’s shipping register in London, should be invited instead.<a class='fnlink' id='t59' href='#fn59'>59<span><em>The Standard</em>, 21 June 1852.</span></a> However, Stephenson promised that he would gradually withdraw from his engineering practice, freeing up more time for politics.<a class='fnlink' id='t60' href='#fn60'>60<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 2 July 1852.</span></a> Various names were mentioned as possible Liberal opponents to Stephenson, including George James Watson Farsyde, a barrister, of Thorpe Hall, Fylingthorpe,<a class='fnlink' id='t61' href='#fn61'>61<span><em>The Times</em>, 6 July 1852; Whellan, <em>History and topography of the city of York</em>, ii. 832.</span></a> and William Schaw Lindsay, a London shipowner, who offered ‘on broad Liberal principles’, but decided to contest Dartmouth instead.<a class='fnlink' id='t62' href='#fn62'>62<span><em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 21 June 1852, 5 July 1852.</span></a> The Liberal committee therefore settled on the Hon. Edmund Phipps, the recorder of Scarborough, then absent on the Continent.<a class='fnlink' id='t63' href='#fn63'>63<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 July 1852.</span></a> Brother to the marquess of Normanby, he ‘came forward under the auspices of the Mulgrave interest’, and his nephew, the earl of Mulgrave, paid a flying visit to Whitby in his support following his own return for Scarborough.<a class='fnlink' id='t64' href='#fn64'>64<span><em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 9 July 1852; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 July 1852.</span></a></p><p>At the nomination Stephenson spoke briefly, repeating his pledge to be more attentive to his parliamentary duties. He emphasised the benefits he had conferred on the ‘poor man’ through the building of railways. He believed that protection had been abandoned too quickly, although he would not vote for its re-enactment, but promised to do all he could to support the shipping interest. Phipps, in contrast, spoke ‘at considerable length’, refuting claims that he was ‘merely a nominee’. He voiced his distrust of the Derby administration and his support for free trade and franchise extension. He wished to reform the Church to make it ‘beloved of the people’, and condemned the clause in the militia bill permitting the continuation of flogging.<a class='fnlink' id='t65' href='#fn65'>65<span><em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 9 July 1852; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 July 1852; <em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 10 July 1852.</span></a> Phipps won the show of hands, which an opposition account ascribed to the presence of ‘a very clamorous rabble’ at the hustings. <a class='fnlink' id='t66' href='#fn66'>66<span><em>Hull</em><em> Packet</em>, 16 July 1852.</span></a> In contrast, the <em>Leeds Mercury </em>blamed the ‘very serious breach of the peace’ which occurred after the nomination on the fact that the Tories had hired around 300 railwaymen and colliers to parade around the town with staves in their hands, accompanied by a band, provoking ‘a regular affray’ with their Liberal rivals. The Conservative committee-room at the Angel Inn was attacked, pink flags were burnt on the pier, and a policeman was among several individuals seriously injured. Stephenson, who polled exactly double Phipps’s total, stayed away from the declaration, fearing further violence, and there was no chairing. Phipps promised to offer again when not facing the disadvantage of being an eleventh hour candidate.<a class='fnlink' id='t67' href='#fn67'>67<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 17 July 1852.</span></a></p><p>Stephenson did not keep his promise of greater assiduity, and indeed voted in only four divisions in the 1856 session.<a class='fnlink' id='t68' href='#fn68'>68<span>J.P. Gassiot, <em>Third letter to J.A. Roebuck: with a full analysis of the divisions in the House of Commons during the last session of Parliament</em> (1857), 23.</span></a> Nonetheless, at a meeting chaired by John Chapman in March 1857 it was unanimously resolved to support his re-election, and he addressed Whitby’s electors following his return from a trip to Egypt.<a class='fnlink' id='t69' href='#fn69'>69<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 14 Mar. 1857; <em>Blackburn</em><em> Standard</em>, 18 Mar. 1857.</span></a> Although he had been absent from the division on Cobden’s motion of censure over Canton, he declared that he would have supported Palmerston had he been present.<a class='fnlink' id='t70' href='#fn70'>70<span><em>Morning Post</em>, 23 Mar. 1857.</span></a> He was returned without a contest, which was again the case in 1859, when he cited his ‘independent support’ for Derby’s government, whose reform bill ‘might have been moulded into committee into a good and useful measure’. Given the situation in Europe, he considered it vital that the army and navy be put ‘in a state of the greatest efficiency’, so that the government could maintain peace.<a class='fnlink' id='t71' href='#fn71'>71<span><em>The Times</em>, 13 Apr. 1859.</span></a> Prior to his return, he received a local deputation regarding the permissive bill, for which he promised his ‘hearty support’, extolling the virtues of sobriety among working men, although he was not himself a teetotaller, as ‘his health would not admit of it’.<a class='fnlink' id='t72' href='#fn72'>72<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 30 Apr. 1859.</span></a></p><p>Stephenson’s death less than six months later prompted a fiercely contested by-election at which the Liberals finally captured the seat. First in the field for the Liberals was Alfred Seymour of London, younger brother of Henry Danby Seymour, MP for Poole, followed by Harry Stephen Thompson, of Kirby Hall, Bedale, a leading member of the Royal Agricultural Society and chairman of the North Eastern railway (NER).<a class='fnlink' id='t73' href='#fn73'>73<span><em>The Standard</em>, 17 Oct. 1859; <em>Morning Chronicle</em>, 18 Oct. 1859.</span></a> Seymour declined Thompson’s suggestion of a meeting to decide between them, but subsequently withdrew.<a class='fnlink' id='t74' href='#fn74'>74<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 22 Oct. 1859.</span></a> For the Conservatives, Thomas Chapman, chairman of Lloyd’s, was backed by his family influence and the Whitby shipping interest, while George Hudson, who had lost his Sunderland seat at the general election and fled to France to avoid his creditors, offered <em>in absentia</em>.<a class='fnlink' id='t75' href='#fn75'>75<span><em>The Standard</em>, 21 Oct. 1859; <em>Sheffield &amp;amp; Rotherham Independent</em>, 22 Oct. 1859; Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 166.</span></a> Thompson had been instrumental in exposing Hudson’s mismanagement of his railway companies in 1849, and had replaced him as chairman of the York and North Midland railway (later subsumed into the NER).<a class='fnlink' id='t76' href='#fn76'>76<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 21 Apr. 1849; <em>Pall Mall</em><em> Gazette</em>, 18 May 1874.</span></a> As NER chairman, he was involved in lengthy legal proceedings to recoup some of the money Hudson had defrauded, and Hudson’s West Cliff property had consequently come under the NER’s control.<a class='fnlink' id='t77' href='#fn77'>77<span>M.A. Robertson, <em>English reports annotated, 1866-1900: 1867 </em>(1914), i. 435-52.</span></a> This, together with the NER’s plans for improved railway links to Whitby, gave the company and its chairman considerable local influence, and Thompson also campaigned energetically. While the Liberals had quickly focused their energies behind one candidate, it was only a few days before the poll that Hudson, who had not appeared in the constituency, withdrew, citing insufficient support, but pledging to offer again.<a class='fnlink' id='t78' href='#fn78'>78<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 19 Nov. 1859. A later account suggested that ‘the support promised him scarcely extended beyond the precincts of the smoke-room of the Royal Hotel’, where his brother Charles was manager: <em>Leeds Mercury</em>, 15 Aug. 1865.</span></a></p><p>The November 1859 contest therefore became a straight fight between Thompson and Chapman. The latter promised ‘to uphold the throne and the church’, and was supported at a public meeting by George Young of the General Shipowners’ Society.<a class='fnlink' id='t79' href='#fn79'>79<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 29 Oct. 1859.</span></a> Thompson, meanwhile, was keen that the contest should not degenerate into a struggle between the railway interest and the shipping interest, arguing that the ‘railways brought more to shipping than they carried away’, and citing the NER’s investment in dock facilities on the Tyne and branch lines to Northern ports, including Whitby. He also noted that the company had spent £70,000 to free up Hudson’s West Cliff property for development. He described his politics as ‘of that happy medium which was generally considered the safest and best’, advocating a £6 franchise and the abolition of church rates, but opposing the ballot.<a class='fnlink' id='t80' href='#fn80'>80<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 22 Oct. 1859.</span></a> Thompson expounded his views at several meetings, highlighting the NER’s economic might, and arguing that Whitby ‘required a Liberal policy to develop the riches of the district and to make their town a first-rate watering-place’. While he did not pretend to be an expert on shipping questions, he contended that ‘his vote would go as far as Mr. Chapman’s in support of the shipping interest’.<a class='fnlink' id='t81' href='#fn81'>81<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 5 Nov. 1859.</span></a></p><p>The location of the hustings near Whitby’s railway station gave Thompson a golden opportunity to assert the railway’s benefits yet again.<a class='fnlink' id='t82' href='#fn82'>82<span><em>The Times</em>, 23 Nov. 1859.</span></a> Estimates of the numbers present ranged from 3,000 to 7,000, a notable attendee being Maharajah Duleep Singh, who was renting Mulgrave Castle.<a class='fnlink' id='t83' href='#fn83'>83<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 26 Nov. 1859; <em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 24 Nov. 1859.</span></a> Thompson’s proposer reminded voters of Aaron Chapman’s opposition to the reform bill. He also dismissed claims ‘that rails and shipping are thoroughly antagonistic’, noting that Chapman’s supporters had been happy to send Stephenson to Parliament, and that Chapman himself had railway investments.<a class='fnlink' id='t84' href='#fn84'>84<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 26 Nov. 1859.</span></a> Thompson developed this theme, reiterating that the NER’s prosperity and that of the Northern ports were intertwined. While free trade could not be reversed, he would support reciprocity and other measures for the relief of the shipping interest. Chapman, who received a ‘cool reception’ in contrast with cheers for Thompson, emphasised the need for Whitby’s representative to have shipping connections. He did not commit to any particular electoral reform, but condemned the ballot as unEnglish.<a class='fnlink' id='t85' href='#fn85'>85<span><em>The Times</em>, 23 Nov. 1859; <em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 26 Nov. 1859.</span></a> Thompson won the show of hands by an overwhelming majority and triumphed at the poll.<a class='fnlink' id='t86' href='#fn86'>86<span><em>The Times</em>, 23 Nov. 1859. The <em>Leeds Mercury</em> reported that 9 out of 10 of those present raised their hands for Thompson: <em>Leeds Mercury</em>, 24 Nov. 1859.</span></a> His victory became apparent before the official declaration, and he came to ‘let off steam at the railway station’, where he was ‘carried... about like a Guy Fawkes on the 5th of November’. He then went home ‘to smoke an extra cigar’ and write an election rhyme for his children, which he read at the declaration the next day.<a class='fnlink' id='t87' href='#fn87'>87<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 26 Nov. 1859. Thompson’s poem was a pastiche of ‘The house that Jack built’.</span></a></p><p>Several factors contributed to the Liberal victory. Hudson’s withdrawal apparently redounded to Thompson’s benefit rather than Chapman’s, as, feeling that Hudson had been ‘unfairly used’, many of his supporters ‘declined to vote, a few joined Mr. Chapman, and a considerably larger number went over to the Liberal camp’.<a class='fnlink' id='t88' href='#fn88'>88<span><em>The Standard</em>, 30 Nov. 1859.</span></a> These defections were probably aided by Thompson’s political moderation.<a class='fnlink' id='t89' href='#fn89'>89<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 26 Nov. 1859.</span></a> Economic self-interest also played an important part, as encapsulated in a Liberal squib which declared ‘Let us have Thompson and Railways for the future Prosperity of Whitby’.<a class='fnlink' id='t90' href='#fn90'>90<span>Vincent, <em>Formation of the British Liberal party</em>,<em> </em>159.</span></a> The Liberal government’s decision to use North Country coals for the navy also appealed to local economic interests.<a class='fnlink' id='t91' href='#fn91'>91<span>Ibid.</span></a></p><p>In June 1864, with Hudson’s financial situation apparently set to improve, it was rumoured that he would offer again for Whitby, prompting the <em>Whitby Gazette </em>to praise his past services to the borough through the development of the railway and the West Cliff.<a class='fnlink' id='t92' href='#fn92'>92<span><em>Newcastle Journal</em>, cited in <em>Daily News</em>, 3 June 1864; Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 175.</span></a> There were, however, several other names in the frame when the Conservatives met to select a candidate in June 1865. Mr. Gibbs, a London merchant, was considered, as was Robert Barry, of Fylingdales, but the latter declined and backed Arthur Duncombe, son of the Conservative MP for the East Riding. However, Duncombe lost out, by 27 votes to 11, to Hudson, to whom a requisition was started.<a class='fnlink' id='t93' href='#fn93'>93<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 10 June 1865. <em>The Times</em> recorded the votes at this selection meeting as 30 for Hudson and 11 for Duncombe: <em>The Times</em>, 8 June 1865.</span></a> Barry and another of Duncombe’s supporters declined to sign this, but promised to vote for Hudson.<a class='fnlink' id='t94' href='#fn94'>94<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 7 June 1865.</span></a> According to one report, ‘the Duncombeites are so much dissatisfied that the Conservatives will not be unanimous’, and it was thought that some would either vote for Thompson, or abstain.<a class='fnlink' id='t95' href='#fn95'>95<span><em>The Times</em>, 8 June 1865.</span></a> Leading Conservatives were reportedly ‘conspicuous by their absence’ at Hudson’s meetings.<a class='fnlink' id='t96' href='#fn96'>96<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 10 June 1865.</span></a> His campaign was largely personal rather than political, and ‘when [he] did launch out upon the sea of politics his language was so vague and misty that it was utterly impossible to get at his meaning’, which he excused by saying that he had not addressed a public meeting for six years and that his views were in any case similar to Thompson’s.<a class='fnlink' id='t97' href='#fn97'>97<span>Ibid.</span></a> His central theme was the defence of his tarnished reputation. At one meeting ‘he attempted a justification of the whole of his railway career, condemning in bellicose terms every party who had taken any share in his dismissal and downfall’, including Thompson.<a class='fnlink' id='t98' href='#fn98'>98<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 23 June 1865.</span></a> He emphasised his past services to Whitby, claiming to have spent £100,000 on its development, and promising further benefits to the town once he recovered control of the West Cliff property from the NER in the Chancery suit then underway.<a class='fnlink' id='t99' href='#fn99'>99<span>Ibid.; <em>Morning Post</em>, 24 June 1865.</span></a></p><p>Offering again as a supporter of Palmerston’s ‘wise, just, and beneficial’ government, Thompson, meanwhile, had lost some of his popularity.<a class='fnlink' id='t100' href='#fn100'>100<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 10 June 1865.</span></a> Although he had voted for a £6 franchise, he declared that he would not support it in future because it ‘would swamp many classes for the sake of enfranchising one’, ‘remarks which seemed to startle his Liberal friends, who looked quite uncomfortable during their delivery’.<a class='fnlink' id='t101' href='#fn101'>101<span><em>Yorkshire Gazette</em>, cited in Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 178.</span></a> Alongside this apparent unsoundness on electoral reform, it was felt that the railway developments which Thompson had overseen as NER chairman had conferred greater benefits on Scarborough than on Whitby.<a class='fnlink' id='t102' href='#fn102'>102<span>Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 178; B. Bailey, <em>George Hudson: the rise and fall of the railway king </em>(1995), 141-2; Vincent, <em>Formation of the British Liberal party</em>, 155-6.</span></a> One election placard urged voters to</p><p>‘Bundle Thompson off to Scarboro’ by train;</p><p>That’s where all his cheap trips went, and where brass was spent</p><p>And he’ll do the same again.</p><p>Whitby lads, he’ll cut you again’.<a class='fnlink' id='t103' href='#fn103'>103<span>Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 186.</span></a></p><p>In response, Thompson and his supporters, who found it difficult to get a hearing at one ‘stormy meeting’, where three cheers for Hudson were ‘given most uproariously’, countered by outlining the developments Thompson had undertaken in the town, securing an alternative railway route and completing the Royal Crescent, as well as planning the waterworks and cliff garden.<a class='fnlink' id='t104' href='#fn104'>104<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 29 June 1865.</span></a> George Leeman, deputy chairman of the NER, dismissed as ‘Bosh!’ the idea that Hudson would regain control of the West Cliff and ‘warmly repelled’ the charge that the NER had persecuted Hudson.<a class='fnlink' id='t105' href='#fn105'>105<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 10 June 1865.</span></a></p><p>Popular feeling against Thompson was heightened by Hudson’s dramatic arrest just two days before the nomination at the suit of one of his creditors, W.H.F. Sandeman.<a class='fnlink' id='t106' href='#fn106'>106<span><em>Berrow’s Worcester Journal</em>, 15 July 1865; <em>Morning Post</em>, 18 Sept. 1865.</span></a> When it became apparent that he would not be released from York Castle in time to contest the seat,<a class='fnlink' id='t107' href='#fn107'>107<span>Hudson remained in prison for 3 months before his release: Bailey, <em>George Hudson</em>, 144.</span></a> the Conservatives fielded a last-minute substitute, Charles Bagnall, of Sneaton Castle, a Staffordshire iron-master who had been in business at Whitby since 1861, whose wife was a member of the Chapman family, a connection which boosted his support.<a class='fnlink' id='t108' href='#fn108'>108<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 15 Aug. 1865. Harriet Curtis Chapman’s great-grandfather William (1761-1840) was one of Aaron Chapman’s older brothers: <em>Burke’s landed gentry </em>(1855), 194.</span></a> Bagnall won the show of hands and defeated Thompson by a narrow margin at the poll.<a class='fnlink' id='t109' href='#fn109'>109<span><em>Liverpool</em><em> Mercury</em>, 12 July 1865.</span></a> While in 1859 Hudson’s withdrawal had been to Thompson’s advantage, it now had the reverse effect, as Bagnall garnered the support of Conservatives who had been reluctant to support Hudson.<a class='fnlink' id='t110' href='#fn110'>110<span><em>Leeds</em><em> Mercury</em>, 12 July 1865.</span></a> Moreover, despite Thompson’s vehement denials – considered to be false by a recent biography of Hudson<a class='fnlink' id='t111' href='#fn111'>111<span>Beaumont, <em>Railway king</em>, 187-90.</span></a> – that he had been instrumental in Hudson’s arrest, it ‘caused such an uproar and so increased the personal ill-feeling against Mr. Thompson... that it was resolved, if possible, to oust Mr. Thompson, and by so doing “avenge Hudson’s wrongs”’.<a class='fnlink' id='t112' href='#fn112'>112<span><em>The Times</em>, 15 July 1865. For a written denial by Thompson, see <em>The Times</em>, 29 July 1865.</span></a> Although Vincent suggests that Hudson would ‘almost certainly’ have been victorious if he had stood,<a class='fnlink' id='t113' href='#fn113'>113<span>Vincent, <em>Formation of the British Liberal party</em>, 156.</span></a> Thompson’s supporters contended that it was only the ‘union and intenseness’ provoked by Hudson’s arrest which enabled the Conservatives to oust him.<a class='fnlink' id='t114' href='#fn114'>114<span><em>York</em><em> Herald</em>, 23 Sept. 1865.</span></a></p><p>The tripling of the electorate in 1868 contributed to Liberal dominance of the Whitby seat thereafter, and William Henry Gladstone, son of the premier, was returned in 1868 when he comfortably defeated a local Tory landowner, despite some attempt to criticise him as the NER’s nominee.<a class='fnlink' id='t115' href='#fn115'>115<span>Bentley, ‘Gladstonian Liberals and provincial notables’, 174; Vincent, <em>Formation of the British Liberal party</em>, 156.</span></a> He held the seat against a renewed attempt from Bagnall in 1874, before handing over to another Liberal in 1880. Gladstone’s tenure of the seat has been analysed by Michael Bentley.<a class='fnlink' id='t116' href='#fn116'>116<span>Bentley, ‘Gladstonian Liberals and provincial notables’, 172-85.</span></a> Whitby ceased to be a borough in 1885, when it was incorporated into one of the divisions of the North Riding, which became a Conservative stronghold thereafter.</p>