Tamworth

Economic and social profile:

Situated ‘at the confluence of the rivers Tame and Anker’, which naturally split the borough into western and eastern halves, Tamworth was ‘an ancient borough and well-built market town’. The eastern part including the Castle and market place was in Warwickshire, but as the parish church was in the western half, the borough was classified as being in Staffordshire.1W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire (1834), 379. Tamworth was ‘highly cultivated’, located in ‘one of the first agricultural districts in the centre of the kingdom’ and renowned for ‘the excellence of its fruits and other vegetable productions’.2C. Palmer, History of the town and castle of Tamworth (1845), 2. Although a number of wealthy textile families, including the Peels, had established cotton manufactures in nearby Fazeley in the late eighteenth century, this industry had declined by this period.3Ibid., 149-50. Therefore, as Sir Robert Peel, 2nd baronet, observed in 1837, ‘the wealth of that great parish mainly depended on the prosperity of agriculture’.4The Times, 25 July 1837. The Peel family, of Drayton Manor, owned ‘a large block of business and residential property in the borough, including ten inns and the Peel Arms Hotel’.5N. Gash, Sir Robert Peel (1972), 171-2. Tamworth was on the road from London to Chester and Liverpool and from Birmingham to Nottingham, and was in close proximity to the Fazeley and Coventry canals.6White, History, 380. Railway links were provided by the Birmingham and Derby Junction line, opened in 1839, and the Trent Valley line, opened in 1847. The 1851 religious census recorded 37 places of worship and 8,833 attendees of religious services, or 63% of the population. Of the attendees, almost three quarters were Anglican, 10.4% Wesleyan Methodist, 3.8% Catholic and 8.6% were ‘Old Dissent’ (Baptist and Independent). Tamworth was unable to sustain its own newspaper in this period, but was served by two county papers, the Warwick and Warwickshire Advertiser (established 1806) and the Staffordshire Advertiser (established 1795), which were both moderately Liberal.

Electoral history:

As the constituency of the Conservative party leader Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850), 2nd baronet, Tamworth has been described as Norman Gash as ‘the most famous of all the small boroughs of this period’. Although he thought Tamworth was better termed a ‘family’ than a ‘pocket borough’, Gash observed that ‘the electorate invariably returned Peel and whatever second candidate he was thought to favour; but they did so from ties of property and residence and not because they were influenced or coerced’.7N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1949), 194. Indeed, Peel repeatedly refused to use his influence or to give any indication of his preferences regarding other candidates.8Ibid., 194-7. As he wrote in 1834:

I resolved long since never to interfere with regard to a second seat for Tamworth … no change of position in public life can induce me to alter that resolution – or to confess even a wish that could bias the vote of my warmest friend[,] much less could I make use of any influence of Property – or permit the use of it, for the purpose of affecting the election of a second member … I would … rather relinquish my own seat at Tamworth than involve the Borough in discord by an attempt on my part to establish an interest in a second side.9Sir Robert Peel to Rev. Francis Blick, 13 Dec. 1834, Add. 40405, f. 160.

So sensitive was Peel on this subject that when his defeated Whig opponent accused him of interfering at the 1837 general election, the baronet challenged him to a duel.10Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 194-5; N. Gash, Sir Robert Peel (1972), 188-90. Peel’s idiosyncratic attitude was not shared by his brothers. William Yates Peel sought to curry favour with all parties in the borough and non-electors, while the hard-headed Edmund thought the family should not be ashamed of exploiting their genuine popularity to return the second member, which he did not regard as undue influence. Gash has suggested that Peel’s neutrality created a vacuum, in which the electorate looked to ‘the secondary influence of the next greatest local magnate[s]’, the Whig Townshends.11Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 196-7. The Conservatives had ousted Lord Charles Townshend in 1835, but Peel’s high-minded indifference allowed the Townshends to recapture one seat in 1847, which they held until 1863. In the latter year, Peel’s wisdom in remaining aloof was underlined by a by-election at which the clumsy and counter-productive campaign of his son and successor Sir Robert Peel, 3rd baronet, on behalf of his preferred candidate, was met with a humiliating rebuff.

The representation of Tamworth had long been shared between the Castle interest of the Townshend family, marquesses Townshend, and the Drayton Manor interest, which had been purchased by the immensely rich cotton manufacturer Robert Peel, later 1st baronet, in 1790.12HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 365. Although much of the Townshend property was sold in the 1810s, apart from 1818-20, the representation continued to be shared between the two families. Sir Robert Peel, 2nd baronet, transferred to the borough from Westbury in 1830.13HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 26-8. The 1832 Reform Act increased the electorate from around 470 to 586.14Ibid., 28; PP 1833 (189), xxviii. 224. The accompanying Boundary Act enlarged the size of the constituency from 0.3 to 17.9 square miles, which ‘weakened the Townshend interest’.15HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 28; Gash, Sir Robert Peel, 102. Indeed the Morning Chronicle later complained that ‘instead of … disfranchisement, a little enlarged rural circle was added to the ancient parliamentary boundary, which, in fact, rendered that close which was already close enough for the borough-mongering purposes of the Tamworth baronet’.16Morning Chronicle, 3 July 1837. The electorate had declined to 531 by 1836, when it comprised 226 £10 householders and 305 qualifying under the old scot and lot franchise.17PP 1836 (248), xliii. 446. In 1852 the electorate fell further to 382, over 80% of whom were householders.18PP 1852 (8), xlii. 315. It grew to 560 in 1865, but only 31 scot and lot electors survived.19PP 1866 (81), lvii. 561. The following year, a parliamentary return classified 200 electors (37.5%) as working class, significantly above the average of 26.8% across English boroughs.20PP 1866 (169), lvii. 749, 751.

The incumbents, Sir Robert Peel and Lord Charles Townshend, were returned unopposed at the 1832 general election. Peel’s brother Edmund had declined a requisition to stand as he had already promised to offer for Newcastle-under-Lyme.21Staffordshire Advertiser, 8 Dec. 1832. At the nomination, where Peel spoke for an hour, he promised to give the Reform Act ‘his just support’, and endorsed the abolition of slavery, which Townshend had given qualified support.22Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. The nobleman had earlier reaffirmed his support for Grey’s ministry.23Ibid.

Prior to the 1835 general election, Peel, now prime minister, published his famous Tamworth manifesto, which declared his acceptance of the Reform Act as ‘a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question’, and his support for the reform of proved abuses in the church and state.24The Times, 18 Dec. 1832. Townshend retired and attempts to solicit Sir George Chetwynd, of Grendon Hall, Warwickshire, to stand in his place came to nothing.25Thomas Hill to Sir Robert Peel, 16 Dec. 1834, Add. 40405, f. 302; Charles Harding to Sir Robert Peel, 13 Dec. 1834, ibid., f. 129; Thomas Brook Bridges Stevens to Sir Robert Peel, 19 Dec. 1834, Add. 40406, ff. 148-9. Peel’s agent, Thomas Hill, correctly predicted that Townshend’s ‘party are so weak that I do not expect they have a shadow of a chance of success’.26Thomas Hill to Sir Robert Peel, 16 Dec. 1834, Add. 40405, f. 302. Local Reformers made no attempt to resist the return of Peel’s brother William Yates Peel, who had represented the borough in the unreformed Commons, although the baronet declined to interfere.27Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835. The pressure of government business meant that the prime minister was absent from the nomination, after which his gouty brother was chaired while reclining on a coach.28Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835.

Prior to the 1837 general election, Peel’s lengthy address, which was again intended for national as well as local consumption, promised to ‘defend the constitution from schemes of dangerous innovation, to protect the just privileges and authority of each branch of the legislature, and to maintain the Protestant reformed religion as the established and national church’.29Staffordshire Advertiser, 1 July 1837. Peel’s sickly brother William retired, prompting two new candidates to compete for the vacant seat. The Conservative candidate was Edward Henry A’Court, heir to the Repington family’s nearby estate at Amington, while the Whig contender was John Townshend, a naval captain and grandson of 1st marquess Townshend.30Morning Chronicle, 27 June 1837; The Times, 27 June 1837; Derby Mercury, 28 June 1837. At the nomination, Peel reaffirmed his support for the established church and constitution and resistance to the ‘democratic principle’. He also denied any interference on behalf of A’Court, who he insisted must look for support from the electors rather than him. Townshend, however, complained that he had not had ‘fair play’, questioning why A’Court had been proposed despite Peel’s pledge not to intervene, alluding to the traditional compromise between the Castle and Manor interests. In response, A’Court denied that he was the ‘nominee’ of Peel and pointed out that he had accepted a requisition to stand. The Conservatives won the show of hands and the poll, after Townshend retired, with Peel elected in first place and A’Court in second.31Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837. The result prompted the Morning Chronicle to declare that Tamworth was ‘a remnant of the old nomination system’ and that Peel’s protestations of neutrality were bogus.32Morning Chronicle, 3 July 1837. Peel later published an address, declaring that although he would ‘not conceal my satisfaction’ at the election of two Conservatives, his tenants had acted freely and independently without any threats or influence on his part.33Sir R. Peel, Address to the electors of Tamworth, on the close of the poll, July 25, 1837, in Add. 40424, ff. 149-53 (at 152). At a dinner, 20 Aug. 1837, Townshend alleged that Peel ‘under the mask of secrecy had exerted his utmost influence’ behind A’Court, acting ‘in utter contempt of reiterated declarations and promises solemnly and publicly made’.34Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 194. Peel was so incensed that he challenged Townshend to a duel, which their friends were only able to avert after the Whig issued a retraction.35Ibid., 194-5; Gash, Sir Robert Peel, 189-90. A petition against A’Court’s return on the grounds of his property qualification was mooted, but not pursued as the Liberal election agent Joseph Parkes thought it ‘hopeless’, given that no objection had been made at the nomination.36Joseph Parkes to Edward John Stanley, [2 Nov. 1837], MS Kingsland.

The incumbents stood their ground at the 1841 general election, but Townshend, although absent, was again brought forward to challenge A’Court.37Staffordshire Advertiser, 19, 26 June 1841. At the nomination Townshend’s proposers reprised the themes of Peel’s undue influence, as well as endorsing the Whig government’s proposed low fixed duty on corn. Peel made a lengthy defence of his public conduct, explaining his position on a number of issues and expressing satisfaction that the Conservatives were on the verge of a great victory. Although Peel criticised the Whigs’ proposed alteration of the corn laws and sugar and timber duties, he was notably reticent on his own thinking on these issues. A’Court declared that he had no confidence in the government, whose trade policies would bring ‘common ruin’ to all classes. The show of hands favoured the sitting members, who were comfortably re-elected, with Peel topping the poll.38The Times, 29 June 1841.

Peel’s accession to the premiership quickly followed the Conservative triumph at the general election. His formal appointment as first lord of the treasury required his re-election in September 1841, when he absented himself from the nomination, again pleading the pressure of government business. Although he was returned unopposed, a token opposition was provided at the nomination by the Anti-Corn Law League’s rabble-rousing lecturer James Acland, who spoke but did not force a poll.39The Times, 11, 14 Sept. 1841. On Acland see J.L. Martin, ‘Oratory, itinerant lecturing and Victorian popular politics: a case study of James Acland (1799-1876)’, Historical Research (forthcoming). Peel’s agent and the mayor agreed to treat Acland like a respectable candidate to avoid any complaint about the proceedings.40Hill to Sir Robert Peel, 12 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, f. 261. William Yates Peel, who handled the election for his brother, thought the outcome satisfactory ‘considering how great a blackguard we had to deal with’.41William Yates Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 13 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, f. 341.

Peel’s conversion to the repeal of the corn laws in late 1845 occasioned considerable discontent among the agriculturalists in and around the borough. At a public meeting in February 1846, local farmers and erstwhile supporters resolved to replace Peel with a staunch protectionist.42Morning Post, 2 Feb. 1846. As there was no realistic prospect of ousting Peel, local agriculturalists targeted A’Court after he had voted for the repeal of the corn laws. To this end, without Peel’s knowledge or sanction, local protectionists brought forward William Yates Peel at the 1847 general election.43See the letters and addresses in Peel’s papers, Add. 40598, ff. 300-46. William’s address dwelt on his past record and was vague on future policy.44W.Y. Peel, ‘To the electors of the borough of Tamworth’, 2 June 1847, Add. 40598, f. 303, He was perhaps the unwitting dupe of local protectionists, for as Edmund noted, he possessed an ‘unfortunate propensity of wishing to be popular with all parties’, including Townshend’s and A’Court’s supporters.45Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, f. 472. A’Court eventually withdrew to avoid the expense of a contest, leaving the Peel brothers to be returned unopposed as Townshend declined to stand.46Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 195-6; Gash, Sir Robert Peel, 626; Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1847. At the nomination, Sir Robert Peel provided a lengthy defence of his conversion to free trade and even sought to explain how his policy would benefit agriculture. He also declared that he would not offer ‘any factious opposition’ to Lord John Russell’s Whig government.47The Times, 29 July 1847. Edmund Peel later noted of his brother William’s election: ‘there was great soreness felt by the Tamworth Electors, from the idea that he had been brought forward by a few individuals out[side] of the town, who were considered Protectionists.’48Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 27 Nov. 1847, Add. 40599, f. 406. The division between local Conservatives over the repeal of the corn laws was compounded by the ill-feeling between A’Court and William Peel’s supporters.49Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, f. 472. William later suggested that to compensate for the ‘disappointment’ caused by the lack of a post-election dinner, the newly-elected members give a sum of money to the chairmen of their election committees to ‘be employed in any way those two gent[leme]n would be most beneficial to the inhabitants of the borough’.50William Yates Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 1 Aug. 1847, Add. 40599, ff. 118-19. Sir Robert described the proposal as not ‘safe’, telling his brother that ‘I am confident a Committee would unseat upon it’.51Sir Robert Peel to William Yates Peel, 2 Aug. 1847, Add. 40599, f. 120.

The death of William Yates Peel’s wife led him to resign as soon as Parliament met, prompting a by-election in December 1847. He did so without informing his brothers, much to the annoyance of Edmund who feared that the protectionists would put up a new candidate.52Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 27 Nov. 1847, Add. 40599, f. 406. Edmund thought that ‘if the matter is well managed, I expect we shall be able to elect a successor to William without a contest’, but Sir Robert took no interest in the matter.53Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 29 Nov. 1847, Add. 40599, f. 412. Edmund drew up a long list of potential candidates, but his preferred choice, Sir Francis Lawley, 7th baronet, of Middleton Hall, former Whig MP for Warwickshire, declined to come forward, even though he was reassured that he would face no opposition.54Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 29 Nov. 1847, Add. 40599, ff. 411-13. This left Edmund Peel’s second choice, Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke, 1st baronet, of Dunham Lodge, Norfolk, but he proved to be a disappointment during his brief appearance in the borough. Not only was he seen with William’s unpopular associates, but Edmund complained that ‘you really never saw such an old woman as Sir Charles’.55Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, f. 466. Despite Edmund’s efforts to secure a suitable candidate, Townshend was returned unopposed. Edmund lamented the outcome, particularly as once returned Townshend ‘will not very easily be removed’, blaming William and the electors, although Sir Robert’s indifference was equally culpable.56Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, f. 429; Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 196. Townshend, not unduly, praised the baronet’s ‘straightforward conduct’ at the nomination.57Daily News, 20 Dec. 1847.

After Sir Robert’s untimely death after a riding accident in July 1850, his seat was taken by his son Sir Robert Peel, 3rd baronet, who did not attend the nomination as he was in mourning.58The Times, 16, 20 July 1850. His address declared his principles were those of his father, and only forty people attended the nomination at which he was returned unopposed.59Freemen’s Journal, 17 July 1850; Daily News, 20 July 1850. Townshend and Peel stood their ground at the 1852 general election, as a Liberal and Liberal Conservative respectively, with both declaring their opposition to any reintroduction of agricultural protection.60Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Mar. 1852, 5 June 1852. An attempt was made to bring forward Clarke in the Conservative interest, but his professions of support for free trade did not correlate well with being ‘brought forward and supported mainly by protectionists’. ‘Disappointed with his reception’, he withdrew.61Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 May 1852. At the nomination, the sitting members, who were returned unopposed, expressed free trade principles and endorsed the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. Townshend backed a £5 borough franchise and Peel declared support for the Maynooth grant.62Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1852. Peel’s appointment as a lord of the admiralty in Palmerston’s new administration occasioned his re-election in March 1855. By now a strong supporter of the new premier, the baronet firmly backed the Crimean War and was unopposed.63Daily News, 15 Mar. 1855. Townshend’s succession to the peerage the following year prompted another by-election, with his son and heir John Villiers Stuart Townshend, viscount Raynham, replacing him unopposed. On the hustings, he avowed his father’s opinions, endorsing Palmerston’s government and economy in public expenditure, but also addressing social conditions, in which he had a strong interest.64Manchester Times, 19 Jan. 1856. The proceedings ‘excited but little interest’.65The Standard, 8 Feb. 1856.

Raynham and Peel were returned unopposed at the 1857 general election, with both strongly endorsing Palmerston’s China policy. Raynham also spoke in favour of Italian unity, reform of the marriage laws, the abolition of church rates and the Maynooth grant, the last being a point of disagreement with Peel.66Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857. An unexpected challenge occurred at the 1859 general election, when William Thomas Shave Daniel, a Liberal Conservative barrister and campaigner for law reform came forward.67Morning Chronicle, 12 Apr. 1859. Another candidate, John King, of Park Hall, was invited to offer by a requisition, largely because he had ‘with great spirit, endeavoured to maintain “Tenant Right”’ in a recent law suit with Peel.68Ibid. Although King declined to stand and the canvass indicated that Daniel had little chance of success, the prospect of a contest aroused considerable interest.69Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 23 Apr. 1859; Birmingham Daily Post, 15 Apr. 1859; The Times, 15 Apr. 1859. There was a feeling that Raynham did not ‘fairly represent the views of the borough on two or three important questions’, including the abolition of church rates and the ballot, which the nobleman supported.70Morning Chronicle, 16 Apr. 1859. Local Conservatives perhaps had the most to complain about, for as the Morning Chronicle observed:

The great statesman has been dead but nine years, but Tamworth seems tacitly and almost unconsciously to have forgotten his political creed. The two Members belong to the school of extreme Whigs, and have been returned time after time without opposition.71Morning Chronicle, 20 Apr. 1859.

Daniel countered a smear campaign claiming that ‘he was a Protectionist in disguise and a nominee of the Carlton’ by publishing a special address disclaiming any support for dear bread or membership of any club or party.72Morning Chronicle, 26 Apr. 1859. Despite his spirited campaign, the show of hands went against Daniel, who only received 80 votes in the poll, which returned Peel in first place and Raynham in second, by comfortable margins.73Daily News, 30 Apr. 1859. Peel was re-elected in July 1861 after being appointed Irish chief secretary. His return was a formality, and in his speech he declared that he had ‘as a general rule, given his support’ to Palmerston’s government, which was based ‘upon the broad and solid foundation of popular sympathies’. He endorsed non-intervention in the American Civil War, and, with a view to Ireland, said that he had always been ‘an advocate of toleration and thorough emancipation on the score of religious opinion’.74The Times, 1 Aug. 1861.

Raynham’s accession to the peerage sparked a by-election in October 1863, and prompted Sir Robert to lament that there was ‘not another Townshend’ to step into the breach.75The Times, 25 Sept. 1863. The candidates were Henry Cowper, step-son of Lord Palmerston, and John Peel, of Middleton Hall, a kinsman of the Drayton Manor family, who accepted a requisition to stand.76The Times, 18 Sept. 1863. John Peel associated himself with the principles of the late Sir Robert Peel, styling himself a Liberal Conservative, while Cowper stood as a Palmerstonian Liberal, but in reality there was little difference in their opinions.77Birmingham Daily Post, 13 Oct. 1863. In such a situation, the clumsy intervention of Sir Robert on behalf of Cowper proved counter-productive. Although he denied intimidating his tenants, the baronet actively campaigned for Cowper, and caused ‘tremendous uproar’ at one public meeting by declaring that ‘I have no doubt that in the end he will finish with a triumphant majority’.78The Times, 25 Sept. 1863. However, John Peel won the show of hands at the nomination, where both candidates expressed vague views. This prompted Sir Robert, addressing a crowd from the Peel Arms Hotel, to dismiss his kinsman as a ‘double character’ and blame his victory on the hustings on non-electors seeking to ‘create a disturbance’.79Birmingham Daily Post, 12 Oct. 1863. During the ensuing poll Sir Robert also became embroiled in a fracas, during which he felled an elector with his ‘powerful arm’, after being hit with a stick. Responding to boos from the crowd, Sir Robert theatrically pointed his cane at the bronze statue of his father. After John Peel’s victory by 57 votes, Sir Robert complained that it was ‘most objectionable’ that the family should hold both seats, as well as blaming broken promises and intimidation.80The Times, 13 Oct. 1863. As the Times commented, the baronet’s antics during the by-election had been ‘a source of entertainment to the whole country’.81The Times, 15 Oct. 1863. Entertaining or not, the Birmingham Daily Post thought that a ‘minister, holding an important post … should not bring himself down to the level of an election agent’.82Birmingham Daily Post, 13 Oct. 1863. His father would not have made the same error.

Daniel stood again at the 1865 general election, when Sir Robert sought to differentiate himself from his colleague and namesake. At the nomination, the baronet, who praised Palmerston as ‘one of the most honest, the most English, and the most loyal statesman that had ever commanded or directed’, noted that unlike John Peel, he had opposed the repeal of malt duty, the censure of former lord chancellor, Baron Westbury, and supported the partnership law amendment bill. When Sir Robert insisted that his colleague supported the ‘unconditional abolition’ of church rates, John Peel interjected ‘it is totally untrue’. Sir Robert opposed a £6 borough franchise. In such a scheme of reform, he feared that although Tamworth may retain its representation, in practice its voice would be drowned out at Westminster by those of the larger towns with expanded electorates. He was not against a ‘partial reduction’ of the franchise however. John Peel defended his voting record in the last Parliament and declared ‘he should give a general, but not slavish support to the Government of Lord Palmerston’. Daniel described a £6 borough franchise as ‘the thin end of the wedge’, but on the other issues mentioned, he was closer to Sir Robert than John Peel. He too pledged to support Palmerston.83The Times, 13 July 1865. The Peels won the show of hands, with Sir Robert topping the subsequent poll, and John Peel easily beating Daniel.

Tamworth retained two MPs under the 1867 Representation of the People Act, which trebled the electorate to 1,748.84PP 1868-69 (419), l. 111. The borough’s politics in the succeeding period were complicated by the changing party affiliation of Sir Robert, who styled himself a Liberal Conservative after 1874. The baronet had been returned alongside another Liberal at the 1868 general election, but a Conservative was returned at the 1872 by-election and re-elected with Sir Robert against two Liberals in 1874. The Liberals captured a seat in 1878 and both seats at the 1880 general election, when Sir Robert retired, ending his family’s political connection with the borough.85McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 288-9. In 1885 Tamworth was amalgamated with part of the former North Warwickshire constituency to form the new single-member seat of Tamworth, also known as the northern division of Warwickshire, which was thereafter dominated by the Conservatives.86Ibid., pt. II, p. 246.