Birkenhead

Economic and social profile:

In 1861 the Times remarked that ‘the rapid growth of Birkenhead almost eludes calculation’.3The Times, 15 Feb. 1861. In 1810 the population of Birkenhead township had numbered just 110, while in 1861 it stood at 51,649.4Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 48. Situated on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, the natural advantages possessed by Birkenhead, particularly Wallasey Pool, were first recognised by William Laird, a Liverpool shipowner, in 1824.5Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 56-68. However, his proposed dock plan was effectively blocked by the Liverpool corporation buying up land in the area.6PP 1835 (116), xxvi. 655-7; Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 69-77; W.R.S. McIntyre, ‘The first scheme for docks at Birkenhead and the proposed canal across the Wirral’, Trans. of the Historic Society of Lancs. & Ches. (1973), cxxiv. 108-27 (at 108-21). Laird did however establish a shipbuilding enterprise, soon taken over by his eldest son John Laird, which pioneered the construction of iron ships.7Illustrated London News, xxxix. 74 (27 July 1861); Cheshire Observer, 7 Nov. 1874; Liverpool Mercury, 30 Oct. 1874; Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 86-93. The town expanded thereafter, and Laird and others purchased land in the 1840s with a view to reactivating the dock scheme.8S. Bagshaw, History, gazetteer and directory of the county Palatine of Chester (1850), 675-6; Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 152-3; T. Webster, The ports and docks of Birkenhead (1848), 40-1, 51-3. But the obstruction of Liverpool, together with a commercial crisis which hit many of the town’s leading citizens and companies, prevented the completion of the docks and led to depopulation.9Bagshaw, History, 676; Illustrated London News, xxxix. 74 (27 July 1861); Liverpool Mercury, 30 Oct. 1874; Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 152-86, 198-201, 206, 219-28, 234-6; G.J. Milne, ‘Port politics: interest, faction and port management in mid-Victorian Liverpool’, in L.R. Fischer and A. Jarvis (eds.), Harbours and havens: essays in honour of Gordon Jackson (1999), 35-62. Eventually Laird’s perseverance as a member of the Mersey Harbour and Dock Board, established in 1858 by the government to control and manage docks on both sides of the Mersey, forced the completion of the scheme.10Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 267. Shipbuilding, shipping and ancillary trades provided the bulk of the town’s employment. A long-established ferry service and the Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway (opened 1844) provided good transport links with Liverpool.11Bagshaw, History of Birkenhead, 676.

Electoral history:

The only new borough to be enfranchised between the first and second Reform Acts, the seaport of Birkenhead has been described by John Vincent as one of the ‘industrial pocket boroughs’ which were ‘controlled by an industrial patron’, in this case the shipbuilder John Laird, who was the fulcrum for an urban Conservatism independent of the local landed elite.12J. Vincent, The formation of the British Liberal party, 1857-1868 (1966), 155. As well as being a major employer, benefactor, and chairman of the town’s street commission, 1855-61, Laird had played a formative role in the development of the town. He possessed formidable local credentials and popularity, but was challenged by local Liberals, although their choice of candidates lessened their chances. Sectarian tension was not absent from Birkenhead, as evidenced by the ‘Garibaldi’ riots of October 1862, when Irish inhabitants disrupted discussions on Italian unification held under the aegis of a local Evangelical Protestant minister.13Cheshire Observer, 18, 25 Oct. 1862. Like Liverpool the town contained Orange lodges.14F. Neal, ‘The Birkenhead Garibaldi riots of 1862’, Trans. of the Historic Society of Lancs. & Ches., (1982), cxxxi. 87-111. Unlike in Liverpool, however, local Conservatives, including Laird, appear to have made little or no attempt to exploit anti-Catholic and anti-Irish feeling for electoral purposes.

From little more than a village in the 1800s, Birkenhead had grown into a major port and shipbuilding centre by the 1850s, and the reform bills of 1852, 1854, 1859 and 1860 all proposed its enfranchisement as a single-member borough.15PP 1852 (48), iii. 379; 1854 (17), vol. 402; 1859 session 1 (49), ii. 715; 1860 (57), vol. 605; Hansard, 9 Feb. 1852, vol. 119, c. 260; 13 Feb. 1854, vol. 130, cc. 511-12; 1 Mar. 1860, vol. 156, c. 2062. The lack of consensus on parliamentary reform encouraged the Liberal government to adopt a piecemeal measure in 1861, bringing in the appropriation of seats bill to redistribute the four seats from the disenfranchised boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans. Introducing the measure, Sir George Cornewall Lewis justified Birkenhead’s enfranchisement as ‘it is now the most populous of the unrepresented towns’, whilst Palmerston described it as ‘a large and growing seaport’.16Ibid., 14 Feb. 1861, vol. 161, cc. 450-1 (first qu.), 460 (second qu.). Its enfranchisement was therefore justified on grounds of population, but also appealed to lingering Whig notions of representing different interests. Both parties had previously proposed its enfranchisement, so although Radicals criticised the bill as a poor substitute for a general reform bill, and Irish and Scottish MPs complained about their continuing underrepresentation, the allocation of a seat to Birkenhead was relatively uncontroversial.17PP 1861 (25), i. 43-8; 1861 (186), i. 49-54; 1861 (212), i. 55-60; 24 & 25 Vict., c. 112; Hansard, 17 June 1861, vol. 163, cc. 1196-1205; 1 July 1861, vol. 164, cc. 114-44. Neither was there any opposition in the Lords, where Lord Derby expressed his approval.18Hansard, 29 July 1861, vol. 164, c. 1719. The local importance of enfranchisement was noted by the Times, which commented that ‘while representation in Parliament is in most instances rather an honour than an advantage, Birkenhead, has, no doubt, sustained serious injury from the want of an efficient Parliamentary representative in her endless troubles with Liverpool’.19The Times, 7 June 1861.

During the debate on its enfranchisement, William Jackson, Liverpool-born Liberal MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who possessed interests in the town, suggested that Birkenhead would have ‘a very peculiar constituency. It would start with 5,500 voters, of whom the bulk would claim in respect of houses of £30 a year and upwards. It would represent a very varied interest, and would altogether be one of the most respectable constituencies in the kingdom.’20Hansard, 17 June 1861, vol. 163, c. 1204. In the event, however, the electorate, consisting solely of £10 householders, proved to be rather smaller than Jackson had prophesised, totalling 3,464 in 1862, although it rose to 4,563 by 1866, which according to a parliamentary return, included 2,065 (45.25%) working class electors, one of the highest proportions in any borough.21PP 1864 (149), xlviii. 387; 1866 (169), lvii. 748.

Birkenhead had developed its own distinctive parties in the late 1840s, when the consortium formed to purchase land for the construction of the docks, many of whom were also commissioners, split into rival camps: the ‘Reds’ led by Laird, and the ‘Blues’ associated with William Jackson.22Sulley, History of Birkenhead, 138, 190-1, 201-6, 230-2; Cheshire Observer, 27 May 1865. As soon as the appropriation of seats bill was introduced in February 1861, both parties in Birkenhead began to manoeuvre, although the general consensus was that Laird would be unbeatable. A ‘large section of the most influential inhabitants’ requisitioned Laird, a Liberal Conservative, whilst the ‘extreme Liberals’ planned to bring forward the well-connected Thomas Brassey, jun., son and namesake of the famous railway promoter, who as a ‘Blue’ himself possessed significant local influence.23The Times, 18 Feb. 1861. Shortly afterwards local Liberals met to introduce young Brassey as their prospective candidate, who offered support for the Liberal government. Laird’s address expressed support for a non-interventionist foreign policy, an efficient navy and national defences, the volunteer movement, non-denominational education and a compromise solution to the church rates issue. He thought the income tax should be modified to relieve ‘the trading, professional, and mercantile interests’ and promised that he would ‘not offer any factious opposition to the present Government’.24Ibid., 21 Feb. 1861. This caused one observer to comment that ‘there is little or no difference between the political opinions professed’ by the candidates.25Ibid., 5 Dec. 1861. However, another correspondent offered a more nuanced appraisal. Both men expressed similar opinions because Brassey was a ‘hearty Liberal, unwilling to pledge himself too deeply at the outset of his career’, whilst Laird was ‘an honest Conservative, afraid of risking his election by running foul of Lord Palmerston’s popularity’.26‘A Liberal’, ibid., 7 Dec. 1861. Even so, Laird’s personal and local standing was a significant advantage. As well as being a ‘very extensive employer’ and helping to develop the port, his membership of the Mersey Harbour and Dock Board and ‘intimate relations with Government business and official people’ were further credentials, and he was also ‘supported by the county influence’. By comparison, his young rival ‘resides at a distance from Birkenhead, in which, however, a large amount of property is possessed by his father’.27Ibid., 5 Dec. 1861.

The nomination, 9 Dec. 1861, was notable for a ‘barricaded avenue … 10 or 12 feet wide’ separating the rival supporters. Laird was accompanied by a ‘large number of electors’ from his house to the hustings, whilst Brassey’s party assembled and left from the post office, with both processions containing many ‘highly respectable inhabitants’. The nomination was attended by 5,000 to 6,000. Liberals raised a large loaf on a pole inscribed ‘Brassey for ever’, whilst a ‘very tiny loaf’ was inscribed ‘Laird’. Not to be outdone, Laird’s supporters threw a fish at their enemies on the hustings and suspended on a pole ‘a plucked and very gaunt goose … inscribed “Young Brassey”’. Laird repeated the themes of his address, whilst Brassey expressed support for ‘freedom in religion’ and the abolition of church rates. In the show of hands, Laird received ‘an immense sea of upturned palms’, but Brassey received ‘a much larger number’. Despite the charged atmosphere, the nomination passed off with ‘good humour’.28Ibid., 10 Dec. 1861. Laird led throughout the poll and defeated his rival by over 300 votes.29Ibid., 11 Dec. 1861.

At the 1865 general election Laird stood his ground.30Cheshire Observer, 10 June 1865. With the backing of local Catholics, who thought that Laird had been insufficiently supportive of their claims, the Liberals brought forward Henry Mather Jackson, a barrister and son of William Jackson.31Dundee Courier, 13 June 1865. At a Liberal meeting, 12 June 1865, Laird was criticised for opposing reform and Jackson declared his motto that ‘out of the greatest freedom springs the best legislation – that is the best legislation which secures the greatest amount of freedom’. Offering support for an extension of the franchise, Jackson argued that a political system which represented only a fraction of the working classes was unlikely to be stable in the long term. He also expressed his opposition to church rates, although they were not levied in Birkenhead, and approved of Gladstone’s fiscal policy. Jackson generally approved of Palmerston’s foreign policy, especially keeping Britain out of various conflicts. In particular, he dreaded a war with the United States, and alluded to the Alabama, a cruiser secretly built by Laird’s yard in 1862, which was controversially allowed to enter service as a Confederate raider during the American Civil War. Other Liberals accused him of acting as a mercenary by constructing ships for the Confederacy.32Liverpool Mercury, 13 June 1865. Another feature of the election was the activity of the prohibitionist United Kingdom Alliance, which Jackson said he was not prepared to support but would back closing public houses on Sunday if local opinion demanded it.33D.A. Hamer, The politics of electoral pressure (1977), 167.

Laird’s counter-meeting was chaired by William Hind, chairman of the Birkenhead commissioners, who alleged that the opposition really emanated from William Jackson. Laird denied the allegation that he had excluded Catholics from the hospital he had founded, as he had nothing to do with the management of the hospital, which in any case included a well-known Catholic on its board of trustees. He added that ‘the great bulk of the patients were Catholics, and that Catholic priests had free access at all proper times to the people of their own denomination in the hospital’. He dismissed the claim that the commission, construction and sale of the Alabama was illegal as ‘old clap-trap’. He complained that Earl Russell, the foreign secretary, ‘had been too fond of bullying the smaller states, and then, when it came to the point, of backing out’. On parliamentary reform, Laird approved of Derby’s 1859 bill, which had only been opposed by Liberals so ‘that they might get into place’, adding that they had then had failed to carry a reform bill. He declared that he ‘was in favour of a large extension of the suffrage, but he did not think the mere lowering of it was the right way to do it. It must be extended’. Like Jackson he was opposed to the Alliance’s demand for the permissive bill or local option, which proposed holding holding local referenda, to be triggered by a petition of two-thirds of ratepayers, on whether to close all public houses and licensed premises in the area. Laird, however, supported Sunday closing and complained that ‘nothing … could be worse that the present licensing system, which led to jobbery and traffic in houses’. In response to a series of questions, Laird indicated that he would not support the removal of the Maynooth grant.34Ibid., 20 June 1865.

A close contest was predicted, although local Conservatives were confident that Laird would win by a majority of 200 or 300 votes.35The Times, 10 July 1865. Undeterred by the unwillingness of both candidates to support the permissive bill, the local branch of the Alliance met to consider their tactics, but contented themselves with proclaiming themselves above ‘party politics’ and decided that the best way to exert electoral pressure was to hold back their votes until a late stage.36Liverpool Mercury, 21 June 1865. However, given the consensus between both candidates, the Alliance had little leverage, and they also had to contend with the influence of the local Licensed Victuallers’ Association, whom Jackson sought to placate.37Ibid., 23 June 1865.

At a later meeting, Jackson argued that Conservatives viewed the working classes as ‘dependents’, whereas Liberals considered the ‘sober, intelligent, and industrious working man, not as a dependent, but as a fellow citizen’. Conservatives aimed at ‘contentment’ whilst the Liberals ‘aimed at ... independence and self-respect’. At a rival meeting on the same night, Laird drew attention to his parliamentary record, including lobbying for Tranmere to be a site for government dockyards.38Ibid., 4 July 1865. At a meeting of Welsh electors, Jackson emphasised his support for religious liberty, Dissenters’ claims and support for temperance if not prohibition.39Ibid., 5 July 1865. Commenting on the election, the Liverpool Mercury noted that Laird was underplaying ‘the political and party aspect of the pending contest’, when in fact ‘he has shown himself a tolerably steady member of a party which has uniformly opposed the men and measures which Birkenhead and the country are now unanimous in approving’.40Ibid., 6 July 1865.

The nomination was disrupted by 200 young roughs, reportedly rivet lads from Laird Brothers’ Birkenhead Ironworks, carrying a flag inscribed ‘Laird forever’ and displaying orange lilies. To heckles about the Alabama, Laird noted that Palmerston himself had cleared Laird Brothers of any impropriety. He promised to continue to ‘encourage in every possible way the establishment of manufactures here to encourage the completion of the docks, to bring trade here, which will employ numerous mechanics, and which will raise Birkenhead to the position she ought to occupy amongst the towns of this country’. Jackson praised the government for keeping the country out of the numerous wars of the time, and claimed that Birkenhead was ‘really a Liberal town’. The show of hands favoured Laird, prompting Jackson to demand a poll. The nomination was notable for Laird’s supporters holding a placard depicting Jackson as a donkey, whilst Liberals held a pole with a red herring atop labelled ‘Laird’. The display of orange lilies, a sectarian symbol, however, was more contentious, and even Conservatives ‘appeared to be ashamed of this emblem of their party’, with Laird’s party on the platform condemning their use. Conservatives also displayed a model of a ship, inscribed ‘The Trade and Commerce’ and ‘Laird for ever’. Despite the colourful aspect of the nomination, it passed off with good humour.41Ibid., 12 July 1865. However, the Liverpool Mercury bemoaned ‘local, personal and business influences have again prevailed’ to secure Laird’s return.42Ibid., 13 July 1865. In retrospect, given Laird’s ‘immense local influence’ the attempt to depose him was perhaps always hopeless, but Jackson’s supporters fought an energetic campaign. Even so, the margin of Laird’s victory, by over a thousand votes, came as a surprise. Jackson retired as soon as it became apparent, in the words of his campaign manager Ravenscroft, ‘that they had no chance of winning the election’, and Jackson confessed ‘I have been most soundly beaten’. At the declaration, Laird crowed that the ‘verdict of the working men of Birkenhead was in favour of the Alabama’.43Ibid. Although local Liberals complained of Laird’s overpowering influence, others thought that the party had erred in selecting a ‘mere youth’. To have had any chance against the ‘multiplied local influences in favour of Mr. Laird’ they required ‘a candidate of much superior standing and position in the country’. The Liberals’ failure was rubbed home by the broad support for Laird, who was not dependent solely on Tory votes, but also secured backing from some Liberals, Dissenters and Catholics.44‘A voter’, letter, ibid., 19 July 1865.

There was a half-hearted attempt to agitate for a second member in 1866, but the town remained a single-member borough following the passage of the 1867 Representation of the People Act.45Cheshire Observer, 2 June 1866. The year before, some Liberals had denied that Birkenhead was ‘essentially Tory’, and claimed that Laird ‘is not popular here’, arguing that the unenfranchised population, as opposed to the unrepresentative, small electorate, was solidly Liberal.46‘A Reformer’, letters, ibid., 10 Feb. 1866 (first qu.), 23 Mar. 1866 (second qu.). This was exposed as wishful thinking by Laird’s re-election in 1868 and 1874, by when the electorate stood at 7,826 out of a population of over 60,000.47McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 23. Following Laird’s death in October 1874, with the exception of a Lib-Lab who held the seat between 1906 and 1910, the constituency remained a Conservative stronghold until 1918, when it was split into eastern and western divisions.48Ibid., pt. II, 17.