Rochdale

Social and economic profile

Situated in the foothills of the Pennines ten miles north-east of Manchester, Rochdale was a manufacturing town with a substantial number of collieries: by 1867, there were 50 in the district, and stone-quarrying provided another source of employment.2R. Taylor, Rochdale retrospect (1956), 92. Unusually for a Lancashire town, it was the woollen industry, especially baize and flannels, which predominated until the 1830s.3I. Inkster, ‘Cultural enterprise: science, steam intellect and social class in Rochdale circa 1833-1900’, Social Studies of Science, 18 (1988), 293; VCH Lancs, v. 187-201. However, cotton manufacture was expanding, and in 1848, cotton and woollen manufacture made up three-quarters of the town’s enterprises, divided evenly between the two; the remaining quarter of firms were largely devoted to supplying textile machinery.4Inkster, ‘Cultural enterprise’, 293. By 1856, cotton outstripped wool, with 138 manufacturers concerned with the former and 108 with the latter.5Taylor, Rochdale retrospect, 91. The Rochdale canal, running just outside the borough, provided links to Manchester and Yorkshire.6VCH Lancs, v. 187-201. By 1839, the Manchester and Leeds railway ran as far as nearby Littleborough, and two years later following the construction of the Summit tunnel – at 1.6 miles then the longest railway tunnel in existence – it reached Rochdale itself.7O. Ashmore, The industrial archaeology of north-west England (1982), 106. Rochdale’s population was largely Nonconformist (71.5% of sittings in 1851), which helps to explain why it experienced fierce resistance to the church rates, most notably during the 1840s.8J. Garrard, Leadership and power in Victorian industrial towns 1830-80 (1983), 10, 110; Taylor, Rochdale retrospect, 84.

Electoral history

Rochdale had not initially been earmarked for enfranchisement in 1832. Its omission from the original reform bill prompted a memorial from the town to the ministry in March 1831, pointing out that there had been no separate census of Rochdale’s population, as distinct from the townships of Castleton, Wardleworth and Spotland. Rochdale was added to schedule D (receiving one MP) as one of several amendments moved by Lord John Russell, 18 April 1831.9PP 1831 (64) (112), xvi. 49; PP 1830-31 (0.36), ii. 259; D. Fisher, HP Commons, 1820-32, i. 383. The proposal that the constituency should consist of ‘Rochdale, including the township of Spotland’ proved problematic, as Rochdale was not itself a separate township, falling within parts of four different townships, while Spotland extended to nine miles beyond the town. The boundary commissioners overcame these complications by recommending that Rochdale’s boundaries should be coterminous with those delineated by the 1825 Police Act under which it was administered: a circle of three-quarters of a mile radius from the town’s old market-place.10PP 1830-31 (0.37), ii. 249; PP 1831 (68), xvi. 125; PP 1831-32 (141), xl. (part III) 115-16. Rochdale thus had the distinction of being the only English constituency with a circular boundary.11R. D. Mattley, Annals of Rochdale: a chronological view from the earliest times to the end of the year 1898 (1899), 44.

The Daily News described Rochdale in 1865 as ‘one of the most important constituencies in the kingdom’, on account of its international renown as the capital of the co-operative movement – the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society was established in 184412The Equitable Pioneers was not actually the first co-operative society, but Rochdale is celebrated worldwide as the birthplace of the co-operative movement: http://archive.co-op.ac.uk/pioneers.htm. – and its strong connections with Liberalism – John Bright was a townsman, and Richard Cobden served as MP, 1859-65.13Daily News, 13 Apr. 1865. The Rochdale Reform Association, established in 1834, was a pioneer of popular party organisation, and its activities have been explored by John Vincent in his study of the formation of the Liberal party, while Rochdale’s municipal politics have been analysed by John Garrard.14H.J. Hanham, ‘The first constituency party?’, Political Studies, 9:2 (1961), 188-9; J. Vincent, The formation of the British Liberal party 1857-68 (1966), 131-53; Garrard, Leadership and power, passim. Vincent’s material on Rochdale was first published in 1963: J. Vincent, ‘The electoral sociology of Rochdale’, Economic History Review, 16:1 (1963), 76-90. In 1852 Bright observed that ‘they had no very large landed proprietor here who carried their votes about in his rent-book; and no millowners who had influence enough to disturb the representation’.15Manchester Times, 27 Mar. 1852. The relatively small size of Rochdale’s textile firms provides one reason why employer influence was limited16Garrard, Leadership and power, 10; D. Gadian, ‘Class consciousness in Oldham and other north-west industrial towns 1830-1850’, HJ, 21:1 (1978), 168-70.; more significant was the fact that ‘the great majority of electors… had no direct concern with factory production’.17Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 76. Rochdale’s Liberal Nonconformist manufacturing elite did, however, wield influence through party organisation and local government, although they had to take account of Rochdale’s ‘relatively autonomous and politicised working class’, whose political weight exceeded the 5% of the electorate they comprised in 1866.18Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 84; Garrard, Leadership and power, 112, 127-9; PP 1866 (170), lvii. 51. The latter were led by figures such as Thomas Livsey (variously a blacksmith, ironfounder, cotton spinner and railway company agent), who served as a ‘crucial intermediary’ between the two groups.19Garrard, Leadership and power, 127-9. This Whig-Radical alliance pushed Rochdale Liberalism to the left, and the Whig MP John Fenton was succeeded after 1841 by prominent Radical MPs.20Ibid., 112. Yet the Liberals did not entirely dominate Rochdale’s politics: ‘a skeletal Tory party survived throughout sixty years of eclipse, thanks to being solidly based on family tradition, social prestige, beer, corruption, and the Church’.21Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 77. The two occasions (1835 and 1857) on which Rochdale returned Conservative MPs (both from the Entwisle family) were marred by allegations of corruption.

John Fenton, a Nonconformist Whig from a local banking and textile manufacturing family, was first in the field in 1832. He declared his support for ‘cheap and equitable government’ and the removal of abuses in church and state, including reduction of taxation on the industrious classes, a property tax and amendment of the Corn Laws.22Leeds Mercury, 9 June 1832; Manchester Times and Gazette, 23 June 1832. His Conservative opponent, John Entwisle, came from the local landed gentry. Although Fenton had offered to withdraw should a more eligible reform candidate appear, he stood firm when challenged by a Radical, James Taylor, a hat manufacturer and Methodist Unitarian preacher who later became a leading local Chartist.23Manchester Times and Gazette, 23 June 1832; http://www.link4life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=c.showPage&pageID=313. Taylor, who had received a requisition from 77 townsmen, was backed by the Political Unions of Rochdale, Bury and Tottington, who resolved to use exclusive dealing on his behalf.24The Examiner, 7 Oct. 1832. He advocated universal or household suffrage and repeal of the Corn Laws, and both Henry Hunt and William Cobbett spoke at Rochdale to endorse his Radical credentials.25H. McLachlan, The Methodist Unitarian Movement (1919), 123. Taylor won the show of hands at the nomination, attended by a crowd of 8,000.26http://www.link4life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=c.showPage&pageID=313. However, anxious to avoid a Conservative victory, he retired at the close of the first day’s poll.27The Operative, 24 Mar. 1839. This, together with Entwisle’s unpopularity due to his opposition to Reform, resulted in Fenton’s victory.28Manchester Times and Gazette, 13 Aug. 1836. After the declaration, Taylor’s supporters carried black flags lamenting ‘Mourn, Rochdale, mourn, for the voice of the people has been disregarded’.29http://www.link4life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=c.showPage&pageID=922.

The 1835 election was a two-way contest between Fenton and Entwisle. In December 1834, Rochdale’s Liberals and Radicals had joined together to form the Rochdale Reform Association, and decided to counter Conservative exclusive dealing by following suit.30Liverpool Mercury, 12 Dec. 1834. Yet while Taylor endorsed his former opponent, seconding Fenton at the nomination, other Radicals were prepared to vote for Entwisle, described by The Times as ‘very popular, and… much respected by the working class’.31Manchester Times and Gazette, 10 Jan. 1835; Inkster, ‘Cultural enterprise’, 300; The Times, 17 Dec. 1834. Entwisle’s weak voice and the noisy crowd meant that little of his speech was heard at the nomination, although he pledged to resist the abolition of church rates.32Manchester Times and Gazette, 10 Jan. 1835; Leeds Mercury, 10 Jan. 1835. Newspaper reports suggested that Fenton won the show of hands, but the returning officer declared for Entwisle, who topped the subsequent poll.33Liverpool Mercury, 9 Jan. 1835; Manchester Times and Gazette, 10 Jan. 1835. This victory was ascribed by his opponents to ‘Tory corruption, intimidation, and cunning’, in particular, extensive use of treating, with supporters of the ‘blues’ plied with drink for several weeks beforehand.34Leeds Mercury, 10 Jan. 1835. See Liverpool Mercury, 19 Dec. 1834 for allegations of Tory ‘guzzling’ long before the poll. One attack on a Liberal meeting saw the Manchester Times’s editor hit by a stone when he went to summon a magistrate.35Manchester Times and Gazette, 17 Jan. 1835. Six men allegedly died from the effects of intoxication during and after the contest, and ‘every stomach-pump in Rochdale was employed to remove the effects of beastly drunkenness’.36Ibid.; Leeds Mercury, 17 Jan. 1835. Of the 98 licensed victuallers and beersellers who polled, 74 reportedly backed Entwisle, mindful of his powers as a magistrate.37Manchester Times and Gazette, 10 Jan. 1835. Yet drunkenness and venality alone did not explain the result. Fenton’s support in Parliament for the new Poor Law had proved unpopular.38D.W. Bebbington, Congregational Members of Parliament in the nineteenth century (2007), 40. In addition, Conservative organisational activity had led to registration gains, which were assisted by ‘the supineness of the Reformers at the time of registration’.39P. Salmon, Electoral reform at work: local politics and national parties, 1832-1841 (2002), 58n.; Leeds Mercury, 10 Jan. 1835.

Renewed Liberal efforts meant that in August 1836, the registers reportedly gave Fenton a majority of over 150 votes.40Manchester Times and Gazette, 13 Aug. 1836. That same month, he addressed a meeting of the Rochdale Radical Association (established in 1835 following a visit from Feargus O’Connor), expressing his support for household suffrage, and it was hoped that this gathering would ‘cement more firmly the union now happily existing among the reformers in Rochdale’.41Manchester Times and Gazette, 27 Aug. 1836; http://www.link4life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=c.showPage&pageID=313. The Liberals thus appeared to be in a favourable position when Entwisle’s death in April 1837 necessitated a by-election. Two locals were named as potential Conservative candidates, but John Holland of Heybrook was reluctant to stand, while Clement Royds of Mount Falinge, a banker (but formerly a woollen manufacturer), was felt unlikely to succeed.42Manchester Times and Gazette, 8 Apr. 1837; A. Howe, The cotton masters, 1830-1860 (1984), 259. Royds did, however, go to the poll, although his nomination day procession was allegedly bolstered by operative Conservatives from other towns, who preferred to consume the ‘free breakfasts’ on offer rather than march all the way to the hustings.43Manchester Times and Gazette, 22 Apr. 1837; Leeds Mercury, 22 Apr. 1837.

The new Poor Law was again a significant issue, with hecklers at the nomination asking ‘Which on ’em is it as wants to build bastiles for poor folk?’ Fenton defended his votes on the measure, claiming that he had not voted for the third reading, and had opposed the more obnoxious clauses in committee. He also affirmed his support for abolition of church rates, the ballot, franchise extension, removal of disabilities for Dissenters, and amendment of the Corn Laws. Royds denounced the Poor Law as ‘worse than slavery’, and declared his support for the established church and retention of church rates. He opposed franchise extension and the ballot, and was evasive on the Corn Laws.44The Times, 20 Apr. 1837. Although Wesleyan Methodists formed only a small section of Rochdale’s electorate, both parties published appeals to them.45Rochdale poll book, 1837 (1837), 19-21, 23-4. These efforts continued at the 1837 general election: Manchester Times and Gazette, 2 Sept. 1837. While many leading members of the Baillie Street Wesleyan chapel were Liberals – including George Ashworth, the textile manufacturer who nominated Fenton – others were prepared to vote Tory.46D.A. Gowland, Methodist secessions. The origins of Free Methodism in three Lancashire towns: Manchester, Rochdale, Liverpool (1979), 73, 132-3. On polling day, Royds withdrew from the contest at half-past one after some anticipated supporters declined to vote, and it was reported that he was unpopular because as a banker, he was ‘exceedingly cautious in transacting business with the manufacturers’.47The Times, 20 Apr. 1837. The Conservatives allegedly outspent the Liberals six-fold, with over £1,000 (largely in public house bills) still owing when the general election took place that July.48Manchester Times and Gazette, 8 July 1837; Liverpool Mercury, 14 July 1837.

Having spent £1,000 or £1,500 on the by-election, Royds declined to offer again at the 1837 general election. Holland also demurred, and the Manchester Times and Gazette suggested that ‘the tories have no chance in Rochdale, they have used stimulants so long, that being now withdrawn, the spirit of their supporters has vanished’.49Manchester Times and Gazette, 8 July 1837. However, at the eleventh hour the Conservatives brought out the late Entwisle’s son-in-law, Alexander Ramsay, for whom they had been canvassing support privately for three weeks.50Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. At the nomination, Fenton pledged to continue his present line of conduct as MP, while Ramsay positioned himself as an opponent of the Poor Law and a defender of the national church.51Preston Chronicle, 29 July 1837. However, the ‘Church and King’ party were attacked for their ‘desecration of the Sabbath’ when opponents got hold of a Conservative placard printed on a Sunday.52Manchester Times, 8 July 1882. Unlike the two previous contests, it was reported that as Conservative funds were low, ‘free drink would be comparatively scarce’, and neither side felt it necessary to swear in special constables.53Leeds Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837.

Fenton repeated his by-election victory, but by May 1839 it was clear that he would not offer again. This stemmed in part from ‘infirm health’ and his desire to retire into ‘domestic enjoyment’, but also reflected growing Radical discontent with his Whig views.54Gent. Mag. (1863), ii. 382; Manchester Times and Gazette, 27 May 1843. Following Fenton’s refusal to pledge to any particular course of action on the rural police, the Rochdale Radical Association (now affiliated with the Chartists) declared in March 1839 that he had ‘forfeited their esteem’, and that it would support an alternative candidate.55The Champion and Weekly Herald, 24 Mar. 1839. The following February, disappointed with ‘paltry proceedings’ in the last two or three sessions of Parliament, many former Liberals ‘hoisted the banner of Radicalism’ and formed a new Radical Electors’ Association.56Southern Star and London and Brighton Patriot, 23 Feb. 1840; The Champion and Weekly Herald, 23 Feb. 1840. The Radical ascendancy was confirmed at the 1840 Board of Guardians elections, with two Tories and fifteen Chartists returned.57Champion and Weekly Herald, 5 Apr. 1840. With John Fenton’s brother, James, already in the field as a Conservative candidate – Ramsay having declined – Rochdale’s middle-class Liberal leaders needed to find a candidate who would be acceptable to all sections of the party.58The Times, 30 May 1839. As Bright reflected shortly before the 1841 contest, ‘no mere Whig will enable you to fight a Tory – You must have a man who can really offer something in his opinions, rather than be content to be the supporter of either of the two great parties.’59J. Bright to G. Crosfield, 20 June 1841, cited in H.J. Hanham (ed.), The nineteenth-century constitution (1969), 242-3.

Bright played a leading part in persuading Rochdale’s Liberals to adopt William Sharman Crawford, former Radical MP for Dundalk.60K. Robbins, John Bright (1979), 31. Following a requisition from nearly 400 electors, Crawford addressed a public meeting in November 1840, at which he explained that it was his refusal to vote for the Irish church bill without an appropriation clause which had forced him to quit Dundalk, and denied reports that he would support the Whigs if returned to Parliament: ‘I will not go there as a party man in any shape whatever’. (He also emphasised that he must be allowed to ‘act consistently with the rights of the Irish people’.) In contrast with Fenton, Crawford did not hesitate to condemn the rural police as a ‘dangerous innovation upon the constitution’. He advocated abolition of church rates, Poor Law reform, the ‘entire demolition’ of the corn laws, and radical electoral reform, winning him the endorsement of Rochdale’s Chartists.61Manchester Times and Gazette, 28 Nov. 1840; Northern Star, 28 Nov. 1840. Others were less keen to see him returned: ‘Dan[iel O’Connell] and the Whigs would rather see the Devil and his tail walking into the House than see Sharman Crawford’, noted the Northern Star.62Northern Star, 20 Feb. 1841. Crawford’s fractious relationship with O’Connell, who had used his influence against him at Dundalk, explains why O’Connell was burned in effigy during the Rochdale contest.63S. Lee, rev. A. O’Day, ‘Crawford, William Sharman’, Oxford DNB [www.oxforddnb.com]; Northern Star, 19 June 1841.

A requisition to James Fenton in January 1841 reportedly received a disappointing response, but The Times suggested in June that Conservative strength was growing, as evidenced by the recent voting of a church rate.64Manchester Times and Gazette, 30 Jan. 1841; The Times, 1 June 1841. The Liberals, however, claimed registration gains in 1839 and 1840, aided by the exertions of the Rochdale Reform Association’s ‘zealous and active’ secretary. Bright believed that this organisational activity had ‘now nearly disabled the Tories from doing us any mischief’.65Morning Chronicle, 21 Nov. 1839; Northern Star, 17 Oct. 1840; J. Bright to G. Crosfield, 20 June 1841, cited in Hanham, Nineteenth century constitution, 242-3. The secretary was a local shopkeeper, who had undertaken the work for several years without a regular salary, but as of 1841 was receiving £25 a year. He encouraged defaulters to pay their rates and get on the register, lending them money for this purpose if necessary. Despite his wife’s illness, Bright campaigned for Crawford at the 1841 contest, telling his sister that ‘we must not lose or we dare not look Crawford in the face’.66Robbins, John Bright, 31. While Fenton visited nearly every elector during an ‘unostentatious but very successful canvass’, Crawford, in keeping with his Radical professions, did not canvass personally.67Northern Star, 19 June 1841. Nor was he asked to contribute towards his election expenses, something true of all subsequent Liberal candidates.68The Times, 11 Apr. 1865. The contest was closely fought on polling day, with the parties equal in number more than once before Crawford prevailed.69Preston Chronicle, 3 July 1841.

At the 1847 general election, Crawford offered again, after receiving a requisition from over 500 of Rochdale’s 927 voters.70Liverpool Mercury, 23 July 1847. There was a last-minute attempt at a Conservative candidate when James Dearden, lord of the manor of Rochdale, brought forward a relative, George Fyler, a barrister and close associate of David Urquhart, who had polled a distant third at South Shields in 1841.71G. Robinson, David Urquhart: some chapters in the life of a Victorian knight-errant of justice and liberty (1920), 86; W. W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 166. However, as ‘all the respectable Tories stood aloof’, he withdrew before the nomination, leaving Crawford, who declared his support for disestablishment, to be returned unopposed.72Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847.

In February 1851 Crawford advised Rochdale’s Liberals that he would not offer again. Although he had recovered from a bout of ill-health the previous year – during which John Fenton’s son Roger had canvassed in anticipation of a vacancy73Morning Chronicle, 7 Aug. 1850. Fenton issued a placard announcing his withdrawal once it was clear that Crawford’s health had improved. – Crawford, separated from his constituents by ‘that impediment to personal communication, a sea voyage’, was ‘desirous to retire from the fatigues of parliamentary duty’, and recommended that Bright succeed him.74Manchester Times, 5 Apr. 1851. Crawford did in fact seek re-election in 1852, for County Down, where he was defeated. Samuel Peto, Liberal MP for Norwich, was mentioned in the press as another possible candidate: his wife was a native of Rochdale, and he had recently acquired the nearby manor of Middleton.75The Times, 18 Mar. 1851. In April 1851 Bright declined to stand, not wishing to abandon his Manchester constituents, and the Liberal managing committee instead approached Edward Miall, editor of the Nonconformist and founder of the Anti-State Church Association (later the Liberation Society).76Manchester Times, 12 Apr. 1851, 19 Apr. 1851. Miall addressed a meeting at Rochdale the following month, where he was warmly endorsed by Bright, who had been ‘intimately acquainted’ with him since 1840. Miall declared his opinions to be in accordance with Crawford’s, favouring radical electoral reform, free trade and retrenchment. Bright proposed organising a requisition to test support for him, but this was postponed, partly so that a formal farewell for Crawford could be held first, but also due to some discontent with the selection process. Thomas Livsey, leader of Rochdale’s working-class Radicals, suggested that a delay would allow other potential candidates to emerge, and complained that the forty-strong committee contained only one Chartist and no non-electors.77Manchester Times, 24 May 1851.

Crawford’s retirement dinner having taken place, an electors’ meeting in March 1852 resolved to proceed with the requisition to Miall. In the meantime, another potential Liberal candidate had emerged, Henry Kelsall, a local manufacturer, allegedly as an attempt at a Whig-Tory coalition.78Leeds Mercury, 27 Mar. 1852; Manchester Times, 17 Apr. 1852. The retirement dinner took place in December 1851: Manchester Times, 10 Dec. 1851. It was suggested that had Kelsall offered first, he would have been adopted, but he agreed to abide by the committee’s decision and avoid anything which might allow the return of a protectionist candidate.79Leeds Mercury, 27 Mar. 1852. Miall again expounded his views at the end of March, declaring his opposition to the Poor Law, the income tax and the ecclesiastical titles bill. Although he had not supported the Ten Hours Act, he considered the question closed. Livsey, urging unity, now endorsed Miall, dismissing the charge that he was Bright’s nominee: ‘not all this platform put together could dictate to this constituency’.80Manchester Times, 27 Mar. 1852, 31 Mar. 1852. Miall was duly adopted, and within two days of canvassing he allegedly secured more pledges than the total number of registered Tory voters, at which point the canvass was suspended.81Manchester Times, 3 Apr. 1852, 3 July 1852. At the end of June, a Conservative meeting called by Abraham Brierley, a local cotton spinner, suggested that Ramsay – who had previously declined an informal approach – be requested to stand. While Brierley and others had been reluctant to support Ramsay due to the free trade views he now espoused, they approved of his soundness on the Church. John Holt, of Stubby Lee, near Bacup, was named as a potential second choice, but Ramsay accepted, and it was anticipated that he would secure ‘a very respectable minority’.82Manchester Times, 3 July 1852; Daily News, 3 July 1852. Holt was the father of James Maden Holt, Conservative MP for North-East Lancashire, 1868-80: M. Stenton, Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament (1976), i. 197. After the nomination, which was less well attended than in previous years, with 4,000 present, Miall triumphed over Ramsay by over 150 votes.83The Times, 9 July 1852.

Their positions were reversed in 1857, when Miall ascribed his defeat to a delay (caused by a train breaking down) in the receipt of the writ, which afforded his opponents – whose decision to field Ramsay again was a last-minute one – time to put money and beer into circulation. He claimed that 55 of his voters were abducted, and 22 were ‘in some secret mysterious manner’ persuaded to vote Conservative.84Daily News, 25 Apr. 1857. The Conservatives’ Central Committee, after analysing the register, had initially declined a contest, but the belief that it was Ramsay’s unpopular evangelical views, rather than the state of the register, which had led to this decision prompted Hamlet Nicholson, a former shoemaker and organiser of the Conservative Sick and Burial Society, to call a meeting which persuaded Ramsay to offer again.85H. Nicholson, An autobiographical and full historical account of the persecution of Hamlet Nicholson in his opposition to Ritualism at the Rochdale parish church: also an account of his work in the conservative interest from 1832 to 1892 together with other personal narratives (1892), 82-3, 87.

On 11 May, a petition was presented against Ramsay’s return, alleging bribery, treating, abduction of voters and the disruption of a public meeting by a body of colliers headed by one of Ramsay’s agents.86The Times, 26 June 1857. Before it could be heard, John Newall, agent to the petitioners, presented another to the Commons, 19 June, alleging that Peter Johnson, beerseller and secretary to the Conservative registration society, had offered a key witness £50 to go to New Orleans to prevent him testifying. Evidence was heard at the bar of the House and by a select committee, but Johnson’s attendance could not be secured, despite a warrant for his arrest.87Hansard, 19 June 1857, vol. 146, cc.27-35; The Times, 24 June 1857. (A later account revealed that he had gone to ground in Hitchin and then went sea-fishing.88J. Higson, The remarkable career of Peter Johnson, Conservative agent [unpublished pamphlet held in Rochdale Local Studies Library].) The committee determined that although the charge against Johnson was apparently true, the evidence was ‘so inconclusive, and the manner of the witnesses in giving their testimony so unsatisfactory’ that this could not be clearly inferred, and it was unconnected with Ramsay.89Hansard, 24 June 1857, vol. 146, cc.323-4. The election petition was duly heard, and while three voters were proved to have been bribed or offered bribes, the Tory-dominated committee found insufficient proof of agency to link this to Ramsay, who retained his seat, 1 July.90Rochdale Observer, 11 July 1857. In a later case (on an assault charge) against one of the chief alleged bribers, it was suggested that bribery was extensive, and that over 300 individuals were still owed money from the contest.91Liverpool Mercury, 23 Aug. 1858.

However, Tory corrupt practices were by no means the only factor in Miall’s defeat. At the nomination, he had warned against making Palmerston ‘a perpetual dictator’, in contrast with Ramsay’s support for ‘that able Minister who had conducted them safely and with honour to the conclusion of a great war’.92The Times, 21 Mar. 1857, 30 Mar. 1857. Yet although there had been some dissatisfaction with Miall’s vote against the government on Canton, Livsey believed that ‘very few’ deserted him over this issue.93PP 1857 sess. 2 (185), viii. 406 (evidence of T. Livsey). More significant were religious questions, notably Miall’s ‘rather unexpected attack on the Irish Church’ in 1856, which deterred Anglican voters.94Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 86. Miall moved, 27 May 1856, that the House consider ‘the Temporalities of the Irish Church, and other pecuniary provisions made by Law for Religious Teaching and Worship in Ireland’. (In contrast, Miall’s successor as Liberal candidate, Cobden, was ‘an Anglican who was very guarded in his support of Dissenting demands’.95Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 86.) There was a shift in the voting patterns of the drink interest, with the beersellers (previously divided between the parties) joining the publicans to vote Tory, apparently because they were disappointed with Miall for leaving the House when Henry Berkeley’s 1855 sale of beer bill came under discussion.96Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 77-8. The support of some leading manufacturers for Miall also appeared to be waning, with Cobden suggesting that ‘Miall is not rich enough for the Rochdale flannel lords’.97R. Cobden to H. Richard, 23 June 1857, cited in Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 85. In addition, the 1857 result was affected by Liberal divisions over incorporation in 1856, with the Radicals – in combination with radical Tories led by Johnson – campaigning (successfully) for the borough’s division into three wards rather than the five or eight wards preferred by the Whig-Tory majority.98Garrard, Leadership and power, 125, 154-6.

Believing that party divisions and ‘confident apathy’ had been largely responsible for the 1857 defeat, the Liberals now endeavoured to reinvigorate their organisation.99Daily News, 23 Mar. 1858; Leeds Mercury, 12 Apr. 1859. A Liberal Electors’ Association was formed in March 1858, when Cobden – whose connection with Rochdale via Bright dated back to 1837 when he addressed a meeting on education100D. Read, Cobden and Bright. A Victorian Political Partnership (1967), 75. – was invited to become candidate, an offer he accepted in July, before coming to speak on parliamentary reform in January 1859.101Manchester Times, 27 Mar. 1858, 18 Dec. 1858; The Times, 29 Jan. 1859. In contrast, Ramsay angered the Non-Electors’ Reform Association by his failure to address his constituents on this issue.102Manchester Times, 5 Feb. 1859. He did, however, expound his views at a Conservative meeting in April 1859, declaring his support for Derby’s reform bill, although desiring amendments on issues such as the disfranchisement of borough freeholders.103Leeds Mercury, 14 Apr. 1859. A vote of confidence in him was passed, and the Manchester Times suggested that Rochdale’s Liberals had ‘a tough battle to fight, for the Conservative party in the town is strong, and can apply the “screw” in a variety of ways, without actually violating the letter of the law’.104Manchester Times, 16 Apr. 1859. One placard, signed ‘a shopkeeper’, urged fellow tradesmen to oppose the Liberals due to their support for the ‘iniquitous’ co-operative stores: ‘There is but one sane course open to them, and that is to vote for Ramsay, liberty, and justice! and not for Cobden and Livsey’s pet bastile!!’105Cited in G. Holyoake, The history of the Rochdale pioneers, 1844-1892 (10th edn., 1893), 91. Ramsay did not, however, stand, withdrawing three days before the nomination in April 1859.106Daily News, 27 Apr. 1859. Cobden, elected unopposed in his absence while visiting the United States, made his first speech in Rochdale as MP that August, thanking his opponents for having ‘sheathed their swords, and granted me an armistice’.107The Times, 18 Aug. 1859.

The Conservatives did not intend to let Cobden go unopposed at the next dissolution, but they had to look outside Rochdale for a candidate, adopting William Balliol Brett, a Q.C. on the Northern circuit, following his address to them in June 1864.108Leeds Mercury, 13 May 1864.Brett, a warm supporter of Derby, supported the established Church, but wished to see Dissenters relieved from the church rates. He was opposed to lowering the franchise on a uniform basis.109Leeds Mercury, 9 June 1864, 10 June 1864; The Times, 8 Apr. 1865. Reports in July that he had withdrawn, following a discouraging attempt at a requisition, proved false, and this Conservative activity stimulated Liberal efforts.110Daily News, 11 July 1864. However, Cobden’s address to a large meeting in November 1864 ‘proved to be one public speech too many’, exacerbating his health problems.111The Times, 24 Nov. 1864; M. Taylor, ‘Cobden, Richard’, Oxford DNB [www.oxforddnb.com]. At the by-election which followed Cobden’s death in April 1865, the Reform Association’s sixty-five strong Council unanimously agreed to ask Bright to stand, an invitation he declined, as in 1841, not wishing to abandon his Birmingham constituents.112The Times, 11 Apr. 1865. It also voted on a list of five other candidates, including John Fenton’s son, William, and Bright’s brother-in-law, William Leatham (MP for Wakefield).113Vincent, ‘Electoral sociology’, 85. However, it was the Radical Thomas Bayley Potter who garnered most support, and was duly selected, strongly endorsed by Bright.114The Times, 11 Apr. 1865. Potter played up his long-standing connection with Cobden – ‘I am but a humble follower in [his] footsteps’ – and declared his support for the ballot, redistribution of seats and a large extension of the franchise.115Daily News, 12 Apr. 1865. Party spirit was said to be running high, and Brett found it impossible to get a hearing at a meeting held for the residents of Castleton and Spotland.116Leeds Mercury, 13 Apr. 1865.

The nomination at the April 1865 by-election was well-attended by a 15,000 strong crowd, whose patience Brett tried with a lengthy speech, in which he emphasised his opposition to a £6 borough franchise which would enfranchise ‘an unfair and preponderating number of the working classes’, and declared the permissive bill to be ‘an unnecessary encroachment upon personal liberty’. He also attacked Potter’s support for the abolition of the laws of succession and entail. Judging the mood well, Potter mocked Brett’s verbosity, confining himself to a ten minute speech in which he declared that ‘he was prepared to follow the great leaders of public opinion, and to tread in the path in which they might go’ and that, unlike Brett, he would not ‘uphold the rotten remnants of Feudalism’.117The Times, 14 Apr. 1865; Leeds Mercury, 14 Apr. 1865. Potter was returned with a majority of 150, and Brett did not attend the declaration, having left Rochdale before the close of the poll.118Daily News, 17 Apr. 1865; The Times, 22 Apr. 1865.

Although it deemed Potter’s Liberalism ‘too robust’ for some, The Times voiced its approval that ‘Rochdale has done its duty and elected a man after Mr. Cobden’s own heart’, rather ‘a stranger of Ultra-Conservative views’.119The Times, 18 Apr. 1865. Potter’s strong Lancashire connections – his father, Sir Thomas Potter, had been first mayor of Manchester120A. Howe, ‘Potter, Thomas Bayley’, Oxford DNB [www.oxforddnb.com]. Less pleasing for Rochdale’s Liberals was the fact that Potter’s brother, Sir John, had ousted Bright at Manchester in 1857. – won support, but ‘even this could not rouse a large body of voters from their apathy’, with a substantial number of abstentions.121The Times, 18 Apr. 1865. Eighty voters pledged for Brett were said to have deserted him.122Leeds Mercury, 22 Apr. 1865. One key group which backed Potter were the small shopkeepers, despite the fact that both candidates shared their opposition to the County Courts Bill.123Leeds Mercury, 13 Apr. 1865. This bill proposed to abolish imprisonment for debt (Hansard, 9 Mar. 1865, vol. 177, cc.1365). The election was not entirely free of electoral malpractice: five Liberal voters were allegedly ‘bottled’ by their opponents, and an omnibus of Potter’s supporters sent to rescue them was beaten off.124Daily News, 17 Apr. 1865. Refused beer at the Conservative committee room, a gang went to the Liberal committee room and offered to ‘change their politics’, but were repelled with broom handles.125Leeds Mercury, 22 Apr. 1865. Yet beer was apparently in good supply: the vicar of Rochdale claimed that ‘he was not able to take twenty steps without meeting a man in a state of beastly intoxication’.126Leeds Mercury, 20 Apr. 1865.

Potter was re-elected unopposed at the 1865 general election, after the Conservatives, having faced a ‘very expensive’ fight at the by-election, decided to focus on the county seat instead.127Leeds Mercury, 22 Apr. 1865, 6 July 1865; The Times, 11 July 1865. Although Bright’s 1859 Reform Bill had proposed to give his native town an additional member, the Second Reform Act left Rochdale’s representation unaltered.128The Times, 18 Jan. 1859. Potter was re-elected in 1868 and at subsequent elections until his retirement in 1895, when Rochdale returned its first Conservative MP since 1857, Clement Molyneux Royds (grandson to the candidate of 1837). After 1895, Rochdale experienced three-way contests, with socialist or labour candidates coming forward, but Royds held on as MP until ousted by a Liberal in 1906.