Wakefield

Social and economic profile:

Situated on the eastern edge of the Pennines 9 miles south of Leeds, Wakefield, a ‘large, opulent, and handsome market town’ on the north bank of the river Calder, was ‘in many civil matters’ the capital of the West Riding, with its register office for wills and deeds, prison, asylum and office of the clerk of the peace located there.5W. White, History, gazetteer and directory, of the West Riding of Yorkshire (1837), i. 323. It suffered disappointment when Leeds was given preference as the location for the West Riding assizes in 1864.6For an example of the prolonged lobbying which preceded this decision, see the letter from Wakefield’s town clerk, Leeds Mercury, 26 Mar. 1864. The town’s ‘superior appearance’ made it ‘a favourite residence of persons in the higher classes, unconnected with trade’, but contemporaries suggested that the presence of ‘a local and inert aristocracy’ hindered industrial growth.7White, History, gazetteer and directory, of the West Riding, i. 323; Marland, Medicine and society, 13. Woollen manufacture and worsted spinning had been Wakefield’s principal source of employment, but it was outstripped by other West Riding towns in the early nineteenth century.8S. Lewis, Topographical dictionary of England (1844), iv. 427. In 1838 its 10 woollen and 13 worsted mills employed only 1,184 hands, and its population grew far less than nearby manufacturing towns such as Leeds and Huddersfield.9Walker, Wakefield, 457; PP 1831-2 (141), xl. 353; Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), iv. 396; White, History, gazetteer and directory, of the West Riding, i. 323. However, Wakefield remained prosperous as a major trading centre in corn, malt, wool and cattle.10Marland, Medicine and society, 13; Lewis, Topographical dictionary, iv. 427. More corn was sold in Wakefield than in Mark Lane, London, and more malt produced than anywhere else except Hertfordshire: H. Schroder, The annals of Yorkshire from the earliest period to 1852 (1852), ii. 169-70. A new corn exchange was built in 1837, and enlarged in 1864.11Walker, Wakefield, 444-5. In addition to its weekly market, fortnightly livestock fairs were held, which despite competition from Manchester and Leeds still ranked as ‘the first in the north of England’.12White, History, gazetteer and directory, of the West Riding, i. 325. Other local industries included dyeing, iron founding, brewing, boatbuilding, and the manufacture of ropes, starch and copperas.13Lewis, Topographical dictionary, iv. 427. It was also a centre for market gardening, particularly the cultivation of rhubarb.14Marland, Medicine and society, 13; http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/CultureAndLeisure/HistoricWakefield/History/1800-1900.htm Coal-mining was significant: in 1872, the district’s 50 collieries produced over a million tons of coal.15Marland, Medicine and society, 13. Much of this was transported along the Calder, which had been made navigable in 1698, providing connections via the waterways to Lancashire and the port of Hull.16White, History, gazetteer and directory, of the West Riding, i. 326; Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), iv. 396; Lewis, Topographical dictionary of England, iv. 427. Wakefield gained good railway links with the opening of two stations in 1840, one on the Leeds to Derby line 3 miles away at Oakenshaw, and another (Kirkgate) on the Leeds to Manchester line in the town itself. A third local station (Westgate) opened in 1867.17Walker, Wakefield, 477-9; http://www.railwaystations.info/stations/WKK/Wakefield+Kirkgate.

Electoral history:

Omitted from the original reform bill of March 1831, Wakefield was added to schedule D (receiving one seat) as one of several amendments proposed by Russell, 18 Apr. 1831.18PP 1830-31 (0.36), ii. 259; HP Commons, 1820-32, i. 384. Although a Liberal, Daniel Gaskell, was returned unopposed in 1832, Conservatism was stronger here than in neighbouring West Riding boroughs, which may partly have been due to the town’s social and religious composition. While Wakefield had a sizeable Nonconformist presence (47.5% of sittings in 1851), the Anglican Church ‘fared especially well’ (49.6% of sittings).19Marland, Medicine and society, 26-7. With the parties fairly evenly balanced, Conservative organisational efforts contributed to their capture of the seat in 1837, and they retained it more or less continuously until 1865, as Liberal victories in 1841 and 1859 were overturned on petition. While Gaskell had displayed radical sympathies, most Liberal candidates subsequently endeavoured to appeal to the centre ground, although this political moderation risked alienating some of their own supporters. There was disunity in 1847 in particular. Not until 1865 did the Liberals gain the upper hand, fielding a prominent local against a Conservative outsider.

As soon as it was known that Wakefield would be enfranchised local radicals invited Daniel Gaskell, of Lupset Hall, a wealthy Unitarian landowner and ‘staunch Reformer’ from a Manchester mercantile background, to stand.20The Times, 4 June 1832. He agreed, but subsequently withdrew, whereupon his nephew, James Milnes Gaskell, of Thornes House, canvassed as a Conservative. However, pressure from Daniel Gaskell’s wife and supporters meant that by August 1831 he was back in the field. After his committee declined a suggestion of arbitration, ‘open war’ ensued between the parties, in which neither uncle nor nephew participated. In March 1832 Milnes Gaskell withdrew, ‘partly because I cannot bear to see my Uncle’s name connected with the unworthy means which are used to drive me from the representation’, and partly to find ‘some less exacting constituency’.21J. Kolb (ed.), The letters of Arthur Henry Hallam (1981), 480-1. (He was subsequently returned at Wenlock.) Conservative attempts to replace him proved fruitless. Joseph Holdsworth, a prosperous local dyer, declined due to ‘his engagements in business’ (but perhaps also did not share their political views, for he was later Liberal MP).22Leeds Mercury, 16 June 1832. Other rumoured candidates included Benjamin Dealtry, of Lofthouse, ‘a decided liberal’, then abroad for the sake of his health, and an unnamed member of the Baring banking family: Leeds Mercury, 30 June 1832. Thomas Oliver Gascoigne, of Parlington Hall, Aberford, canvassed in June, but ‘his political character is not very well understood’.23Leeds Mercury, 30 June 1832. While Gascoigne promised to go to Parliament ‘without any tie, pledge, or connection of any sort or kind, with any party whatever’, Gaskell declared his support for economy and retrenchment, abolition of slavery and the East India and banking monopolies, revision of the corn laws, the ballot, reform of abuses in church and state, and the holding of the West Riding assizes at Wakefield.24Report of the proceedings before a committee of the House of Commons, on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842 (1842), 3-6. After Gascoigne withdrew, a last-ditch Conservative approach to Lord Mexborough of Methley Hall, formerly MP for Pontefract, failed ‘when a hint was dropped about expenses and the chance of ultimate success’.25Leeds Mercury, 8 Dec. 1832. Gaskell was returned unopposed and chaired in a colourful ceremony.26The ‘beautifully decorated chair’ was ‘composed of yellow silk and laurel, drawn by four grey horses, the postillions wearing yellow silk jackets and caps, preceded by three out-riders’: Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832.

Seeking re-election in 1835, Gaskell emphasised his independent voting record.27Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 7-8. While broadly Liberal in his sympathies, he had often divided in the minority with radical and Irish MPs, prompting dissatisfaction in some quarters, and a united committee of 6 Whigs and 7 Tories sought a candidate of ‘moderate conservative principles’. Those mooted included Milnes Gaskell; Charles Winn of Nostell Priory; George Banks of Leeds; and James Stuart Wortley, eldest son of Lord Wharncliffe, who possessed significant influence in Yorkshire.28Leeds Intelligencer, cited in Hull Packet, 28 Nov. 1834. After an abortive approach to Wortley, William Saunders Sebright Lascelles, a younger son of another Yorkshire aristocrat, the earl of Harewood, came forward.29Morning Chronicle, 24 Nov. 1834; Hull Packet, 12 Dec. 1834. Rumours that Lascelles had been invited to contest Wakefield in 1832 were said to be false: The Times, 4 June 1832. Promising to be ‘unshackled by the trammels of party’, Lascelles emphasised his ‘deep and conscientious attachment’ to the Church and established institutions, but supported reforms ‘which, by increasing their efficiency, may add to their stability’, including replacing church rates with some other form of funding.30Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 9-10; Ipswich Journal, 13 Dec. 1834. Wakefield’s vicar, Rev. Samuel Sharp, who had reportedly secured this valuable living due to the Harewood influence, backed him, as did ‘certain corn merchants’.31Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. However, Lascelles’ votes against the reform bill whilst MP for Northallerton proved a damaging weapon against him, and at the hustings, where Gaskell warned that the Conservative ministry would ‘check the progress of reform’, he was heckled with cries of ‘Down with the enemies of the Reform Bill’ and ‘Send him back to the Old Father of the Tribe at Harewood’. Gaskell, who advocated church reform, relief measures for Dissenters, and would support repeal of the poor law if it was found ‘to diminish the comforts of the poor’, decisively won the show of hands.32Manchester Times and Gazette, 10 Jan. 1835; Leeds Mercury, 10 Jan. 1835. Although Lascelles reportedly conceded at the close of the first day’s poll, when the totals stood at 267 for Gaskell and 212 for Lascelles, voting continued ‘for some time’ on the second day, when the final result was 277 to 220.33Morning Chronicle, 7 Jan. 1835. Thirty individuals who had signed Lascelles’ requisition allegedly voted for Gaskell, ‘apprehensive... of the exclusive dealing system adopted by the non-electors’.34The Times, 12 Jan. 1835. Gaskell’s majority was smaller than anticipated, for ‘the tories had strained every exertion, whilst the liberals had reposed in fancied security of an easy triumph’. Neglect of registration meant that despite population growth, the electorate had declined from 722 to 617.35Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849.

Both parties subsequently devoted considerable attention to registration, with 319 claims and objections being heard in 1835, when the Conservatives reportedly wrought ‘havoc’ on the Liberals.36Leeds Mercury, 17 Oct. 1835; Hull Packet, 30 Oct. 1835. They claimed further gains in 1836.37The Times, 7 Dec. 1836. Leading Conservatives endeavoured to win over lesser tradesmen ‘by dint of coaxing and expenditure’, and were said to have purchased houses to let to their workpeople and others under their influence, who were registered as £10 occupiers.38Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. In 1836 a Conservative newspaper, the Wakefield Herald, was established and the Wakefield Conservative Association was formed, with its newsroom opened the following year.39Hull Packet, 21 Oct. 1836, 27 Jan. 1837; The Times, 7 Dec. 1836. Social events were held, such as an ‘aquatic excursion’ along the Aire and Calder Navigation in August 1836, which the Liberals imitated.40Blackburn Standard, 17 Aug. 1836. At a grand Conservative entertainment that December Lascelles attacked the Whigs’ Irish church proposals, but, mindful of the attacks on him in 1835, emphasised his support for other reforms.41The Times, 7 Dec. 1836; Hampshire Advertiser, 10 Dec. 1836. This Conservative activity meant that a ‘severe struggle’ was predicted between Lascelles and Gaskell at the 1837 election, when Gaskell voiced his desire to see ‘salutary Reforms… peaceably effected’ in the interests of civil and religious liberty, while Lascelles advocated ‘progressive improvement’, including church reform.42Leeds Mercury, 1 July 1837; Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 13-14. Alongside their strengthened position on the register, the Conservatives undertook treating before the issue of the writ, with wealthier party members providing pipes and beer at public houses.43Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849; Leeds Mercury, 22 July 1837. They also hosted a ‘tea-drinking’ for ‘some 4,000 women and there was all kinds of drunkenness’.44A.K. Jacques (ed.), Merrie Wakefield (1971), 98 [extract from diary of Clara Clarkson, 24 July 1837]. Reportedly deserted by ‘a large party’ of his supporters on the morning of the poll45Jacques, Merrie Wakefield, 98 [extract from diary of Clara Clarkson, 26 July 1837]., Gaskell was ousted by Lascelles, a result which the Liberals ascribed to ‘the most extensive treachery’ and ‘a resort to the basest means’ by the Conservatives. Lascelles declined a chairing, apparently fearing ‘the exasperation of the inhabitants’,46Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. but despite widespread allegations of bribery – among them reports of unusually high prices paid for goods, with cherries £10 a pound47Caledonian Mercury, 29 July 1837. See also Leeds Mercury, 19 Aug. 1837. – a mooted petition was not pursued.48Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849.

Conservative prospects appeared propitious after they claimed a gain of 24 on the register in 1840.49Hull Packet, 25 Sept. 1840. However, Lascelles’ shifting views on free trade increasingly found disfavour among his supporters. Having divided against the corn laws in 1840, he backed reduction of the sugar duties, 18 May 1841, prompting some Conservatives to sign a memorial expressing dissatisfaction with him.50Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1841. Wakefield’s Liberals reportedly ‘hunt[ed] about the whole country’ for a candidate in 184151Northern Star, 3 July 1841., before settling on their townsman Joseph Holdsworth, ‘a firm and decided reformer’. Although a Nonconformist, Holdsworth affirmed that he would do nothing to damage the established Church or the constitution. He proposed a compromise on church rates, with the state maintaining church buildings, while congregations provided internal fittings. He supported free trade and the ballot, but opposed further franchise extension.52Leeds Mercury, 19 June 1841. Lascelles reiterated his commitment to the Church and the reform settlement, but favoured ‘complete revision of the Tariff, with a view to a temperate and judicious modification of restrictive duties’.53Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 15-16.

Political issues were, however, overshadowed by a legal problem. Holdsworth had served since 1832 as returning officer, and was therefore technically debarred from standing. He informed his deputy and the sheriff of his resignation, and Thomas Barff was appointed as returning officer in his place. Nonetheless the Conservatives warned that votes given for Holdsworth would be ‘thrown away’ due to his disqualification,54Ibid., 21. and he sought legal advice regarding his chances of retaining the seat if elected.55The Times, 29 June 1841. Another difficulty occurred when Barff gave insufficient notice of the nomination, initially fixing 29 June.56Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 17; Hull Packet, 2 July 1841. Lascelles and his supporters took the precautionary measure of holding their own proceedings on that day, at which Edward Sykes, a local solicitor, presided and declared Lascelles elected.57Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 20; Northern Star, 3 July 1841. However, when Barff conducted official proceedings two days later, Holdsworth won the show of hands and the ensuing poll.58Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 21. Richard Monckton Milnes, a local resident, ascribed Lascelles’ defeat to loss of support from his party ‘in consequence of the gossip of that political scullery, the Carlton Club, & the stupid violence of party newspapers’. As Wakefield’s Conservatives believed that Lascelles had ‘deserted’ his previous political opinions, they ‘would take no pains about his return’.59Cited in N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 400. Petitions were presented against Holdsworth, 30 Aug. and 7 Sept. 1841, the latter by Lascelles. His efforts to resign as returning officer were ruled invalid, not having occurred at the legally prescribed moment, and Lascelles was seated in his place, 21 Apr. 1842.60Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842, 24-5, 37-8; Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. Holdsworth could have resigned the position within a week of being appointed in March. Instead he did not attempt to resign until June.

In May 1842 a public meeting, chaired by William Henry Leatham, a Quaker banker who had seconded Holdsworth’s nomination, sent a memorial to Lascelles, calling upon him to resign rather than take advantage of the ‘legal subtlety’ which saw him seated without a majority. Lascelles demurred, arguing that he had given ample notice of Holdsworth’s disqualification, yet the Liberals had declined to find a substitute.61The Times, 25 May 1842. A later account suggested that the borough subsequently refused to recognise Lascelles as member, entrusting local business, including the presentation of petitions, to other MPs.62Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. A meeting of April 1843 against the factory bill snubbed him in this way, with cries of ‘He does not represent us’, but bodies such as the Wakefield Mechanics’ Institute had no apparent qualms about sending him petitions.63Leeds Mercury, 29 Apr. 1843; Bradford Observer, 25 May 1843. However, Lascelles’ continued support for free trade and for corn law repeal in 1846 left him facing the ‘deep wrath’ of many Conservative supporters, and with Wakefield’s Liberals also hostile, at the 1847 election he opted to stand as a Liberal at Knaresborough instead.64Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849.

The departure of the divisive Lascelles benefitted the Conservatives, who secured George Sandars, of Alverthorpe Hall, a corn merchant closely connected with Wakefield’s commercial interests, as their candidate in 1847.65Daily News, 19 May 1847. An Anglican, he wished to see church rates replaced with an alternative form of support. Having opposed corn law repeal, he now advocated the ‘absence of all restrictions’ on commerce, and favoured extending the franchise as people ‘became more enlightened’. Asserting that he would be ‘free from the trammels of a party’, he endorsed the Russell ministry’s education proposals, which were causing divisions among local Liberals, particularly over the thorny issue of state aid.66The Times, 22 May 1847; Bradford and Wakefield Observer, 27 May 1847. Several people were injured at a tumultuous meeting that March, when Sandars joined Leatham in supporting parliamentary grants for education.67The Times, 26 Mar. 1847. Liberal disunity hindered their search for a candidate, and although Gaskell had in December 1845 reluctantly agreed to stand ‘in the event of a speedy dissolution’ on free trade, he withdrew in April 1847, citing his age and health, and the fact that the corn law question was settled.68Leeds Mercury, 27 Dec. 1845; Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847. (Leatham believed that Liberal divisions on education also influenced his decision.69Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847. Russell’s increased state aid for education was opposed by many Dissenters who were strongly committed to voluntaryism.) Family considerations prevented Holdsworth, recently widowed and left with six children, from offering.70Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847. John Walbanke Childers, of Cantley Hall, near Doncaster, was among other names mentioned.71Leeds Mercury, 15 May 1847. Childers had taken the Chiltern Hundreds at Malton in 1846 to make room for Viscount Milton, son of the borough’s patron, but was re-elected there in 1847. The son of James Loch, MP for Wick Burghs, canvassed on Lord Morpeth’s recommendation, but withdrew when Leatham’s brother-in-law, Sir Edward North Buxton, entered the field.72Leeds Mercury, 15 May 1847; The Times, 22 May 1847. Loch was connected with Yorkshire through the Ramsden family. Despite agreement that ‘all shades of the liberal party should merge minor differences’, Liberals hostile to the government’s education proposals, led by George Harrison, a Wesleyan Methodist who had been Wakefield’s first mayor, deemed Buxton’s views ‘not sufficiently liberal and extended’, whereupon he withdrew.73Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847; Leeds Mercury, 30 Nov. 1850; http://www.wakefieldfhs.org.uk/Mayors.htm.

Harrison and his sympathisers settled upon George William Alexander, a London bill-broker and Quaker prominent in the anti-slavery and temperance campaigns, who shared their opposition to Russell’s education plans.74Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847; W.W. Bean, Parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 1101; G. Fletcher, ‘Alexander, George William’, Oxf. DNB [www.oxforddnb.com]. He also advocated disestablishment, abolition of church rates and capital punishment, poor law reform, triennial parliaments, franchise extension and the ballot.75Daily News, 27 May 1847; Leeds Mercury, 29 May 1847, 5 June 1847, 31 July 1847. Supported ‘almost to a man’ by the non-electors, he won the show of hands, but was heavily outpolled by Sandars, which he attributed to Conservative treating, bribery and intimidation: they allegedly hired 700 to 1,000 men to ‘make a show’ at the nomination, and on the eve of the poll 200 men ‘perambulat[ed] the streets with bludgeons’, seriously injuring several Liberals.76Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847. While Sandars reportedly spent up to £5,000, Alexander, a teetotaller, eschewed treating, and spent less than £400.77Bradford and Wakefield Observer, 5 Aug. 1847; Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. Although his opponents blamed the beer-barrel, the key reason for Sandars’ victory remained the Liberal divisions on the education question. As his views were ‘not very decided’ – he was billed as ‘a Liberal Tory or Conservative Whig’, and adopted white not blue as his colour78Bradford and Wakefield Observer, 27 May 1847; Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847. – he managed to ‘obtain support from men of various sides’, including some Liberals who had backed Buxton, while others remained neutral.79Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849.

Offering again in 1852, Sandars declared his continued support for free trade, despite having argued several times at Westminster for the re-imposition of a fixed duty on corn.80The Times, 8 Mar. 1852. Castigated as ‘a professing Free Trader in Wakefield – a Protectionist in Parliament’,81Leeds Mercury, 26 June 1852. he also had to rebut charges of lax attendance, and of failing to act in Wakefield’s interests regarding the borough market bill and the division of the West Riding constituency.82Leeds Mercury, 15 May 1852, 10 July 1852. Mindful of their disastrous divisions in 1847, the Liberals secured the agreement of two influential figures, Holdsworth and the former mayor James Micklethwaite, ‘to make a compromise with the more extreme section’ of the party, and it was decided to ‘unitedly support’ any candidate approved by the majority of Liberal electors who favoured free trade, franchise extension, the ballot, abolition of church rates and retrenchment. Leatham, now an Anglican, was duly selected, and Holdsworth, who had abstained in 1847, chaired his election committee.83Leeds Mercury, 13 Mar. 1852, 15 May 1852, 10 July 1852; http://www.wakefieldfhs.org.uk/Mayors.htm.

After ‘several severe skirmishes’ with bludgeons when Sandars addressed 2,500 people in the marketplace, and further rioting involving the Liberal and Tory bands,84The Times, 3 July 1852; Leeds Mercury, 3 July 1852. the authorities acted to ensure an orderly nomination, calling in the 6^th dragoons, and separating the parties with a six-foot barricade. Both candidates symbolised their commitment to free trade with ‘big loaves’, although Sandars outdid his opponent: ‘the one borne in his procession requiring four to six sturdy fellows to bear it upon poles... we should imagine that it had taken pretty nearly a sack of flour to make’. While he opposed Russell’s reform measure (which Leatham supported), Sandars was prepared to see equalisation of the borough and county franchises, redistribution of seats, and a 40s. taxpayer franchise. His moderate Conservatism left his opponents unsure which line of attack to take, and they veered between criticising his political inconsistency and efforts to court Liberals, and casting him as ‘a regular Derbyite’.85Leeds Mercury, 10 July 1852. In contrast with the heavy adverse majority in 1847, Leatham finished only 33 votes behind Sandars, a defeat which the Liberals blamed on corruption. However, subsequent efforts to reinvigorate the Reform and Registration Association suggested that organisational factors may also have played a part.86Leeds Mercury, 10 July 1852. There were counter-allegations of Liberal corruption: one voter who was ‘bottled’ by Leatham’s supporters and taken to a distant part of the Riding missed his own wedding as a result: Preston Guardian, 31 July 1852. Following the 1852 revision, the Liberals claimed to be 30 votes ahead on the register.87Leeds Mercury, 2 Oct. 1852.

Sandars retired in 1857 on health grounds, although ‘the great expense to which the borough had put him’ – his decade as MP allegedly cost him £30,000 – was also rumoured as a factor.88The Times, 18 Oct. 1859. A ‘smart contest’ was predicted between the local Conservative colliery proprietor, John Charlesworth Dodgson Charlesworth, and Leatham, who offered again for the Liberals.89Bradford Observer, 19 Mar. 1857. However, Leatham was disadvantaged by entering the field late due to illness, and was in Torquay when a local solicitor, Mr. Marsden, issued his address. The fact that Marsden had previously acted for the Conservatives, together with ‘the very modified tone of his opinions’ compared with 1852, raised fears that Leatham ‘was no longer a true Liberal’.90Daily News, 20 Mar. 1857; PP 1860 [2601], xxviii. 160. It was alleged that when canvassing he refused to pledge on the ballot and franchise extension, and ‘in one or two quarters’ ‘emphatically expressed no sympathy with these views’. This attempt to capture Conservative votes meant that he ‘received but languid support from the more moderate men of his own party, and passive, if not decided opposition from those in favour of a bolder policy’, and he withdrew following an unpropitious canvass.91Daily News, 20 Mar. 1857. According to Marsden, the results of the canvass were 337 promises for Leatham and 343 for Charlesworth, and taking the remaining voters into account, it was believed the totals would be 376 for Leatham and 411 for Charlesworth, with 64 neutrals: The Times, 18 Oct. 1859. The Liberals then approached Somerset Beaumont, of London, brother of Wentworth Beaumont MP, of Bretton Hall, near Wakefield, but concerns that Charlesworth had secured pledges from some Leathamites led them to abandon this candidature, leaving Charlesworth to be returned unopposed.92Leeds Mercury, 24 Mar. 1857.

With the 1859 contest approaching, Leatham, whose long-standing identification with Wakefield Liberalism was said to give him a ‘prescriptive right’ to be considered, was invited to expound his views. In contrast with the moderation which had undermined his support in 1857, he proclaimed himself as ‘one of the “soldiers of progress”, whose watchword is “civil and religious liberty”’, and gave his ‘most unqualified condemnation’ to Derby’s reform bill. Although more cautious than his brother-in-law, John Bright, he favoured a £10 county and a £6 borough franchise, endorsed Sir Eardley Wilmott’s redistribution scheme, which proposed 5 extra Yorkshire seats, and supported the ballot, albeit somewhat unenthusiastically. Those previously concerned about his moderation felt that although Leatham ‘did not go quite so far as they could wish... he was evidently travelling in the right direction’, and his party united behind him.93Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1859. Leatham’s address also advocated quadrennial parliaments, ‘total and unconditional abolition’ of church rates, and reform of inequalities in taxation: Leeds Mercury, 9 Apr. 1859. Reform was the principal hustings issue. Charlesworth explained that he had voted for the Conservative bill, believing it might be improved in committee, but would have opposed the third reading. Leatham, meanwhile, repeated his condemnation of Derby’s ‘half measures’ and his belief that Bright’s scheme was impracticable.94Bradford Observer, 5 May 1859. Although Leatham won the show of hands, the poll was closely fought. Both parties initially believed they had won, and Charlesworth made a victory speech after the Liberals concurred that he was narrowly ahead.95Bradford Observer, 5 May 1859; Wakefield poll book 1862, 29; Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 8 May 1859. Many press reports showed Charlesworth as the victor. See, for example, Daily News, 2 May 1859. However, the declaration, from which Charlesworth ‘excused himself on the ground of headache’, gave Leatham a majority of 3 votes. After being returned, he acknowledged the importance of Liberal unity, observing that ‘some of our friends have made great concessions in their views to support me’.96Leeds Mercury, 3 May 1859; Bradford Observer, 5 May 1859.

The Liberal triumph was short-lived, as a successful petition was presented against Leatham, 9 June 1859. A counter-petition alleging bribery by Charlesworth was lodged, 21 June 1859. Leatham’s counsel conceded after the first day’s evidence, but the committee examined further witnesses before unseating Leatham on grounds of bribery by his agents, 27 July 1859. Ironically none of the four men proved to have been bribed actually voted for Leatham.97The Times, 28 July 1859. Three of them voted for Charlesworth, while the fourth abstained because he only received £25 rather than the £50 he wanted: Leeds Mercury, 28 July 1859. Anticipating a by-election, the Liberals selected John Walbanke Childers, and the Conservatives brought out James Stuart Wortley, who received a head wound when ‘some ruffian threw a heavy piece of lead’ at him after a meeting.98Wakefield poll book 1862, 30; The Times, 4 Aug. 1859. However, following the appointment of a royal commission to investigate concerns that corruption had been extensive, both men withdrew. The commissioners spent 19 days between October and December interviewing 432 witnesses in Wakefield. Proceedings were protracted because several key witnesses conveniently absented themselves: at one point summonses were out for witnesses in Scotland, Paris, Jersey, Brussels, Naples and Hamburg.99Wakefield poll book 1862, 30; The Times, 18 Oct. 1859. The commission unearthed extensive corruption, involving 142 of the 866 electors, some of whom were bribed by both parties. Both candidates had supplied funds anticipating they would be used in bribery, with up to £1,900 spent in bribes for Leatham and £1,600 for Charlesworth. Large sums were paid to publicans and to non-electors ostensibly employed as watchers and messengers, and Charlesworth also recruited 1,000 colliers at 3s. 6d. each to support him at the nomination.100PP 1860 [2601] xxviii. 5-8.

When the home secretary, Cornewall Lewis, successfully moved that no motion for a new writ for Wakefield (or Gloucester, which was likewise scrutinised by a commission) could be made without seven days’ notice, 20 Jan. 1860, some MPs took the opportunity to argue for action against those involved in bribery, while John Bright suggested that the writs be suspended for as much as 10 years. Thomas Duncombe’s proposal that Wakefield and Gloucester’s elections be conducted by ballot was defeated, 9 Feb. 1860. Under pressure, the attorney-general filed bribery charges against Leatham, Charlesworth and six others.101PP 1860 (385), lv. 19-36 provides full details of the charges. Members rallied to their defence, urging that the prosecutions be dropped, 25 May 1860 and 7 June 1860, with Bright asserting his brother-in-law’s innocence in the former debate. However, the trials proceeded at York assizes that July, when Leatham was found guilty of supplying £2,000 to Thomas Field Gilbert for bribery, and of several lesser charges.102The Times, 20 July 1860. Three others were also convicted of bribery.103Edward Hinchliffe pleaded guilty, William Marsland was found guilty on one charge and not guilty on a second, and Godfrey Noble was found guilty: Daily News, 21 July 1860. The trials of Charlesworth, his cousin, John Barff Charlesworth, and two others were delayed by the illness of a key witness, who subsequently died.104The Times, 19 Mar. 1861. The other cases postponed were those of John Jubb and Archibald Crowther: Daily News, 21 July 1860. They were tried in March 1861 when Crowther’s case was discharged because the jury could not agree on a verdict, while Jubb was found not guilty: The Times, 20 Mar. 1861. Crowther was tried again in July and found not guilty: The Times, 23 July 1861. Their trials again collapsed in March 1861 when another crucial witness, Jose Luis Fernandez, an alderman to whom Charlesworth’s cousin had paid £3,600 for bribery, refused to testify. Fernandez was fined £500 for contempt of court and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.105The Times, 19 Mar. 1861. Wakefield’s inhabitants petitioned against any further proceedings against Leatham and Charlesworth, 27 May 1861, and the Charlesworths pursued the same end through legal objections.106Leeds Mercury, 13 June 1861; W.M. Best & G.J.P. Smith, Reports of cases argued and determined in the court of Queen’s bench, and the court of exchequer chamber of appeal from the court of Queen’s bench (1862), 533. However, Charlesworth was convicted that July of supplying £4,750 for bribery, with Fernandez brought from prison to testify against him, as did Charlesworth’s cousin, who received a pardon.107The Times, 22 July 1861; Hull Packet, 26 July 1861. Fernandez was freed thereafter, having served five months.108The Times, 6 Aug. 1861. He was, in fact, the only one punished, for Charlesworth successfully appealed on grounds of misdirection of the jury.109Leeds Mercury, 6 Nov. 1861; Newcastle Courant, 8 Nov. 1861. The disputed point which Charlesworth successfully raised was whether payments in order to win the show of hands constituted bribery, as the judge had directed. Leatham likewise appealed, and all charges against both men were finally dropped in March 1862.110Leeds Mercury, 8 Nov. 1860, 14 Feb. 1861, 17 Mar. 1862; The Times, 13 Feb. 1861; Derby Mercury, 20 Feb. 1861; Leeds Mercury. For further details of proceedings regarding Leatham, see HP Commons, 1832-68: ‘Leatham, William Henry’.

Meanwhile, anticipating the issue of the writ, rival candidates began canvassing in June 1861. Sir John Charles Dalrymple Hay, a naval officer who had recently inherited his father’s Scottish estates, offered for the Conservatives after ascertaining that they had no local man, and ‘having had the start, his canvass is highly favourable’.111Leeds Mercury, 22 June 1861; Hull Packet, 28 June 1861. Hay wished to see ‘conscientious Dissenters’ relieved of church rates, opposed the ballot, believed that reform ‘should take the direction of intelligence’, and promised support for Palmerston.112Leeds Mercury, 22 June 1861. Holdsworth’s son-in-law, Richard Smethurst, a cotton manufacturer from Chorley, Lancashire came forward for the Liberals,113Bean, Parliamentary representation, 1103; Wakefield poll book 1862, vi; Morning Chronicle, 24 Feb. 1862. citing his support for parliamentary reform, the ballot and abolition of compulsory church rates.114Preston Guardian, 26 June 1861. Smethurst later retracted the word compulsory after it prompted concern that he would not go far enough on this question: Leeds Mercury, 27 June 1861, 26 Feb. 1862. William Ward, a poor law guardian for Horbury, issued placards promising to explain his principles at the nomination, stating that if voters wanted retrenchment, they should not elect a baronet, but someone who knew the value of money.115Bradford Observer, 4 July 1861. However, the motion for a new writ was defeated, 6 July 1861. Hay and Smethurst again courted the constituency that autumn, and offered when the writ was eventually sent down the following February.116Daily News, 2 Nov. 1861.

Despite ‘some filth and light missiles’ being thrown, the nomination was generally orderly.117The Times, 27 Feb. 1862. The Liberals attempted to make political capital out of the petition, with Smethurst blaming the Conservatives for Wakefield’s prolonged disfranchisement. Efforts to attack Hay as an outsider fell flat, given that Smethurst was a Lancashire man. Both candidates supported Palmerston’s foreign policy, but differed on reform, with Hay wishing to see education extended before the franchise ‘might be safely given to the people’, while Smethurst favoured a measure similar to Russell’s in 1860.118The Times, 27 Feb. 1862; Leeds Mercury, 27 Feb. 1862. Smethurst won the show of hands, but lost the poll.119Leeds Mercury, 27 Feb. 1862. The fact that the new writ had been secured by a Conservative, Major Edwards, MP for Beverley, who then supported Hay on the hustings, reportedly ‘had considerable influence upon the waverers’.120The Times, 28 Feb. 1862; Leeds Mercury, 27 Feb. 1862. While the Liberals claimed to have conducted the contest ‘with strict and almost fastidious purity’, there were allegations that their opponents had not done likewise, and a petition was presented against Hay, 14 Mar. 1862.121Wakefield poll book 1862, iv; The Times, 28 Feb. 1862. However, it was discharged, 5 May 1862, with the petitioners reported to have spent £1,500 in vain.122Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 21 May 1862. Fears of disfranchisement and Smethurst’s refusal to contribute to the expenses were cited as reasons why proceedings were dropped.123Wakefield Express, 10 May 1862.

Leatham agreed to stand against Hay in 1865, but would not canvass or take an active part in the election, nor pay any election expenses.124Leeds Mercury, 28 Apr. 1866. Other than his election address, his participation in the contest was confined to two appearances at his committee-room125Wakefield poll book 1865 (1866), vi., and his hustings speech, when he declared his support for ‘all sound Liberal principles’ and for Palmerston. (He protested, however, at the ministry’s decision to locate the West Riding assizes at Leeds and its ‘bad treatment’ of him and others following the 1859 contest.) Opposed to church rates and university tests, he backed a £6 borough and a £10 county franchise, but suggested as an alternative that non-electors might select one person for every 25 of their number to vote on their behalf. He refused to answer allegations that he had sought a deal with the Conservatives to return Charlesworth at this contest and himself at the next.126The Times, 12 July 1865. Rather more critical of Palmerston’s foreign policy than he had been in 1862, Hay was forced to deny that he had spoken disrespectfully of the premier. Unlike Leatham, he opposed a £6 borough franchise and did not favour abolition of church rates, but rather relief for Dissenters. In contrast with Leatham’s local credentials, Hay was attacked for being more interested in naval matters than in Wakefield.127Leeds Mercury, 12 July 1865; The Times, 12 July 1865. He was defeated by Leatham, who believed that former opponents had been swayed by his moderation.128Leeds Mercury, 14 July 1865. Leatham again faced a petition, 16 Feb. 1866, but although six cases of bribery were proved in the ensuing inquiry, none were connected with Leatham or his agents, and he retained his seat, 30 Apr. 1866.129Daily News, 30 Apr. 1866. One of the bribers, Henry Barrett, who had absconded, had apparently bribed in an effort to win bets on the election outcome.130Leeds Mercury, 28 Apr. 1866; Manchester Times, 28 Apr. 1866.

The Conservatives renewed their organisational efforts thereafter, holding an inaugural banquet in 1867 for the Wakefield Working Men’s Conservative Association, which had over 500 members.131Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 27 Apr. 1867. Although the Second Reform Act tripled Wakefield’s electorate, it remained a marginal seat, won by the Liberals in 1868 and 1880, but captured by the Conservatives in 1874 and 1885. However, after 1885, when its boundaries were extended, the seat was held continuously by Conservative or Liberal Unionist MPs.