Montrose

Economic and social profile:

The Angus or Forfar burghs (by which names the constituency was also known), comprised the ports of Arbroath and Montrose and the inland towns of Brechin and Forfar, which were all within 16 miles of each other.2PP 1866 (314), lvii. 792. Inverbervie, a little further away on the Kincardine coast, ‘never was a place of any consequence’ and owed its status as a royal burgh to the hospitable welcome given by locals to a shipwrecked Scottish king in the fourteenth century.3PP 1836 [32, 33, 34], xxiii. 191. Bervie, as it was often called, remained an ‘inconsiderable burgh’ in this period, its population hovering around a thousand.4Caledonian Mercury, 12 Mar. 1855; New statistical account of Scotland (1845), xi., pt. II, pp. 10-11; PP 1830-31 (353), x. 195; 1852 (8), xlii. 327. A fluctuating trade in coarse linens was carried on in the other towns, notably Arbroath, a centre of sailcloth manufacture, which also had a declining tanning trade.5Aberdeen Journal, 30 Apr. 1834; D. Black, History of Brechin, to 1864 (1867), 270-3; D. Bremner, The industries of Scotland, intro. J. Butt and I. Donnachie (1969 repr.; 1869), 233-37; G. Hay, History of Arbroath to the present time (1876), 404-9; D. Mitchell, History of Montrose (1866), 88-92; New statistical account, xi., pt. I, pp. 87-8, 136, 280, 697; A. Reid, The royal burgh of Forfar (1902), 235-7; W. Turner, The textile industry of Arbroath since the early 18th century (1954), 4-16. In addition, Forfar produced brogue shoes, whilst Brechin possessed tobacco and gas works.6Black, History of Brechin, 267; A. Jevise, Memorials of Angus and Mearns (1861), 18-19; Reid, Forfar, 383-4. Montrose was a commercial centre but also contained ship building, woodwork trades and iron foundries, as well as linen bleaching and manufacture.7Mitchell, History of Montrose, 83-7, 93-8, 162-3; New statistical account, xi., pt. I, 280-1. Its main export was grain, usually to other parts of Britain, but in the first half of the period, also cured pork, salted cod and smoked herrings.8Ibid.; Mitchell, History of Montrose, 132-6, 155. Unlike Arbroath, where attempts at harbour improvement were hampered by financial constraints during the period, Montrose’s port facilities were upgraded in 1839.9Ibid., 154; Hay, History of Arbroath, 319-28. The towns benefited from improved transport links in this period, as railways connected Arbroath to Forfar and Dundee in stages (1838-40), and to Montrose in 1848.10Hay, History of Arbroath, 391-2; New statistical account, xi., pt. I, pp. 697-700. In 1851 Arbroath’s population was 16,986, Montrose 15,238, Forfar 9,311 and Brechin 6,637.11PP 1852 (8), xlii. 327. Observers in 1845 noted that there were ‘very few’ who could neither read nor write in Brechin and Montrose.12New statistical account, xi., pt. I, pp. 139, 279.

Electoral history:

Montrose Burghs comprised the towns of Arbroath, Brechin, Forfar, Inverbervie and Montrose, all of which bar Forfar had been part of Aberdeen Burghs before 1832. In the unreformed Scottish electoral system, the representation of the burgh districts was determined by delegates chosen by each of the self-elected councils, and a majority of delegates was sufficient to return a candidate.13D.R. Fisher, ‘Scotland’, HP Commons, 1820-32, i. 107-09. In spite of this oligarchic system, and the opposition of Aberdeen and Inverbervie, the Radical Joseph Hume had been returned for the constituency in 1818 due to the support of Montrose, his native town, which had been granted a more popular sett or constitution in 1817, Arbroath, and Brechin, where he was aided by the influence of the Maule family of Brechin Castle, barons Panmure.14‘Aberdeen Burghs’, HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 567-71; Mitchell, History of Montrose, 122-6. When Hume relinquished his seat to successfully contest Middlesex in 1830, his place was taken by a Tory, who then gave way to the moderate reformer Horatio Ross the following year.15‘Aberdeen Burghs’, HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 571-2. After 1832, the oligarchic system was replaced by an aggregate electorate of £10 householders, which created one of the larger electorates among the burgh districts. As the Conservatives did not challenge during this period, contests reflected divisions within liberalism over religion, local interests, and the extent of reform, rather than between parties.

The first Scottish reform bill, introduced 9 Mar. 1831, made Aberdeen a separate single burgh constituency. The non-royal burgh of Peterhead was added to the remainder of the former grouping, now known as Montrose Burghs, whilst the second bill, published 1 July 1831, added the Kincardine town of Stonehaven.16PP 1830-31 (261), ii. 262-3; 1831 (66), iii. 233-4; Fisher, ‘Scotland’, HP Commons, 1820-32, i. 143; Hansard, 9 Mar. 1831, vol. 3, c. 320. However, the amended version of the second bill, 26 Sept. 1831, despatched Peterhead to Elgin Burghs, a loss compensated for by the addition of Forfar, and dropped Stonehaven altogether.17PP 1831 (269), iii. 261. The composition of the Montrose Burghs grouping remained unaltered in the third bill and Act, despite attempts in the Commons and Lords to re-insert Stonehaven, 15 May 1832, 12 July 1832.18Hansard, 15 June 1832, vol. 13, c.753; ibid., 12 July 1832, vol. 14, c.258; PP 1831-32 (55), iii. 467; 1831-32 (475), iii. 498; 2 & 3 Will. IV, c. 65.

Despite containing the insignificant Inverbervie, whose electorate peaked at 40 in 1837, Montrose Burghs had one of the largest electorates of the fifteen burgh districts.19M. Dyer, Men of property and intelligence: the Scottish electoral system prior to 1884 (1996), 44; PP 1837-38 (329), xliv. 698. In 1835 the electorate totalled 1,551, with Montrose accounting for 476, Arbroath for 426, Forfar for 364, Brechin for 287, and Inverbervie for 36.20Ibid. Montrose and Arbroath continued to account for the largest proportion, with the latter town increasingly outstripping the former from the 1850s, whilst Brechin and Forfar’s electorates remained relatively stable.21PP 1857 session 2 (4), xxxiv. 106-07. By 1851, according to the parliamentary returns, the electorate stood at 1,596, but this figure may be misleading, as until the passing of the 1856 Burgh Registration Act, Scottish electoral registers were subject to less thorough revision than in England.22PP 1852 (8), xlii. 327. The 1832 Scottish Reform Act made town clerks responsible for annual registration, but in practice they only published the names of new claimants and to consult the whole register one had to see the town clerk’s copy, which kept down the number of objections, but meant that dead and lapsed qualifications were not always speedily expunged: Dyer, Men of property and intelligence, 34-5. Thereafter the aggregate electorate steadily increased, rising to 1,806 in 1865-6, Arbroath accounting for 689, Montrose for 495, Forfar for 316, Brechin for 269, and Inverbervie for 37.23PP 1866 [3651], lvii. 821.

In early July 1832, Patrick Chalmers, of Auldbar, near Brechin, offered for the new constituency, objecting to the ‘political conduct’ of Ross, who had been elected for Aberdeen Burghs in 1831.24Caledonian Mercury, 12 July 1832; Aberdeen Journal, 15 Aug. 1832. The final register, drawn up in late September, consisted of 472 electors from Arbroath, 469 from Montrose, 228 from Brechin, 284 from Forfar and 36 from Inverbervie, constituting an aggregate electorate of 1,489.25Caledonian Mercury, 1 Oct. 1832. Chalmers achieved 56 successful objections compared to Ross’s 27, and also benefited from the support of the non-electors of Arbroath and Forfar, the latter waging an exclusive dealing campaign against tradesmen who supported Ross.26Caledonian Mercury, 1 Oct. 1832; Inverness Journal qu. in Examiner, 7 Oct. 1832; J. McBain, Bibliography of Arbroath periodical literature and political broadsides (1889), 75-6. Given that both candidates were vague Reformers, a good deal of the campaign was taken up with personal attacks. Ross’s supporters complained of the dubious canvassing methods of their opponent, whilst Chalmers’ party alleged that Ross had feigned illness to miss a crucial vote during the reform crisis.27Caledonian Mercury, 8 Dec. 1832; letters from ‘An Elector’ and ‘S.’ in ibid, 13, 15 Dec. 1832. Chalmers had the advantage in Brechin, but Ross secured leads in Arbroath and Forfar, and his overwhelming majority in Montrose proved decisive as he was elected with 796 votes to his opponent’s 534.28Caledonian Mercury, 24 Dec. 1832.

In February 1834 Ross addressed a meeting of electors at Arbroath for over two and a half hours, providing an exhaustive account of his parliamentary conduct. However, his increasing dread of the Radicals and his opposition to a fixed duty on corn, which he argued ‘would be no protection to the landed interest, and ought never to be mentioned by way of protection’, reflected his increasing Conservatism.29Caledonian Mercury, 17 Feb. 1834. The speech was badly received, one broadside accusing Ross of ‘hateful Toryism’, while the Dundee Advertiser called on electors to eject ‘this humbug’.30‘To the free and independent electors of Arbroath’, broadside, 1 Feb. 1834; Dundee Advertiser, both qu. by McBain, Arbroath periodical literature, 83-5. On the king’s dismissal of the Whigs in November of the same year, public meetings in the Angus burghs passed resolutions against the new Conservative administration, which were then converted into addresses, that from Brechin signed by 700 people.31The Times, 6 Dec. 1834; Caledonian Mercury, 18 Dec. 1834; McBain, Arbroath periodical literature, 87-91. Fox Maule, of Brechin Castle, and heir to the barony of Panmure, was approached by Arbroath electors, but he promised to stand aside in favour of Chalmers, who received a warm reception in Arbroath and Montrose, prompting Ross to retire, but not before angering his constituents with a farewell address that defended the king’s use of the royal prerogative.32Ibid., 92-3; Caledonian Mercury, 1, 6 Dec. 1834; Examiner, 7 Dec. 1834; Morn. Chro., 10 Dec. 1834.

However, Chalmers’ return was complicated by the intervention of another candidate, the ‘decidedly liberal’ John Temple Leader, of London, who had manufacturing interests in Montrose.33Caledonian Mercury, 8 Dec. 1834; Aberdeen Journal, 10 Dec. 1834; Morn. Chro., 10 Dec. 1834. Perhaps because he was competing with another radical reformer, Chalmers’ address, in which ecclesiastical issues were to the fore, was far more detailed than his 1832 effort. He advocated the reform of the Irish and English Church, and the replacement of tithes in both countries with an alternative form of revenue, the abolition of lay patronage in the Scottish Kirk, and relief for dissenters. In addition, Chalmers advocated revision of the corn laws, and the general extension of free trade, ‘a sweeping Reform of Corporation and Municipal Abuses’, an alteration of the law of entail and general legal reform. Although ‘not altogether convinced’ of the efficiency of the ballot, Chalmers believed that the measure deserved a trial, and also favoured shorter parliaments.34Caledonian Mercury, 13 Dec. 1834. Leader, unaware of the groundswell of support for Chalmers, initially offered on the assumption that ‘no real Reformer in the field was likely to succeed’, but he soon realised that a contest between two Radicals would be to no good end, and withdrew.35In 1837, when Leader successfully contested Westminster, his conduct at Montrose was brought up by critics, prompting the Morn. Chro., 18 May 1837 to reprint his address, published 2 Dec. 1834, and explain his reasons for entering and then retiring from the election. Rumours that the Hon. Charles Augustus Murray, son of the earl of Dunmore, would stand in the ‘Liberal interest’, came to nothing.36Morn. Chro., 1 Jan. 1835.

The constituency now had a representative whose opinions corresponded to their radicalism, which was frequently expressed in petitions to Parliament. In 1835, the inhabitants of Arbroath prayed for the abolition of the House of Lords and Brechin and Montrose for the passing of English municipal reform.37McBain, Arbroath periodical literature, 98-9; The Times, 28 June 1835, 29 Aug. 1835. The corn laws, which the burghs had long complained of, continued to generate petitions, whilst Montrose inhabitants prayed for equal electoral districts to end Scotland’s under-representation in 1838.38Select Committee on Public Petitions (SCPP), Appendices, (1837-8), 297, appendix 541; SCPP, Reports (1837), 161-2, 446; ibid., Reports (1837-8), 179, 421. For earlier petitions against the corn laws from Arbroath, Brechin, Forfar, and Montrose see CJ, lxx. 282; lxxxi. 75, 111, 152; lxxxii. 33, 40, 44, 74, 134, 174. However, local issues were also important, as shown in 1837 when the bill to enable the much needed improvement of Montrose harbour ran into unexpected opposition, initially of a rather ‘trivial character’, but later bolstered by landowners and farmers from Kincardine and Forfar, Glasgow merchants, and Ross.39Caledonian Mercury, 15, 22, 25, 27 May 1837. Concessions eventually placated the bill’s opponents, allowing it to pass before Parliament was dissolved on the king’s death.40Caledonian Mercury, 29 May 1837, 3 June 1837. At the subsequent general election Chalmers was again returned unopposed.41Caledonian Mercury, 6 July 1837, 12 Aug. 1837; Examiner, 9 July 1837.

Although the Conservatives made overall gains in Scotland at the 1841 general election, their campaign in the burghs was again disappointing, and Montrose was one of many urban constituencies written off as ‘hopeless’ by Tory party organisers.42Caledonian Mercury, 17 July 1841; ‘Donald Horne’s election surveys, 1834-40’, in Papers on Scottish electoral politics, 1832-1854, ed. J.I. Brash, Scottish History Society, 4th series, XI (1974), 276. Chalmers, who was suffering from a debilitating spinal disorder, was returned unchallenged, but shortly afterwards it was reported that he was to resign in favour of Hume, who was without a seat after retiring from Kilkenny and being defeated at Leeds.43The Times, 19, 24 July 1841, 17, 24 Aug. 1841.

Continued illness forced Chalmers’s resignation, 6 Apr. 1842, and there were no shortage of candidates to fill the vacancy.44Caledonian Mercury, 26 Mar. 1842. He took the Chiltern Hundreds, 6 Apr. 1842. Before Chalmers’ official retirement, a public meeting of Forfar electors charged the chairman with sounding out potential candidates, who included Thomas Gisborne, a peripatetic Radical in search of a seat, Henry Warburton, late member for Bridport, and Edward John Stanley, the former Whig whip. Hume declared he was prepared to stand, but was unwilling to ‘undertake either the trouble or expense of a contested election’ and refused to canvass ‘at my time in life’.45Hume to David Carnegy, 22 Mar. 1842; Hume to Boath, 6 Apr. 1842, Caledonian Mercury, 11 Apr. 1842. In this issue Hume published the correspondence relating to the election. David Wemyss Jobson, a dentist, issued an address, promising ‘the most uncompromising hostility’ to Peel’s administration and to the reintroduction of the income tax.46Examiner, 2 Apr. 1842. Sir James Carnegie, 5th bt., of Kinnaird, who had sat for Aberdeen Burghs, 1830-1, briefly offered for the Conservatives, whilst yet another contender was David Carnegy, of Craigo, a Whig ‘of the old school’.47Montrose Review, qu. in The Times, 5 Apr. 1842. Carnegy informed Hume that he would not have offered if he had known that he was to stand himself, but was reluctant to stand aside, as was Hume, who maintained that he had the stronger claim.48Hume to Carnegy, 22 Mar. 1842, 6 Apr. 1842; Carnegy to Hume, 4 Apr. 1842, Caledonian Mercury, 11 Apr. 1842. Sir John Ogilvy, bt., a local Whig landowner and Sir James Duke, a native of Montrose and Liberal MP for Boston, were also rumoured to be linked with the constituency.49Dundee Courier, qu. in The Times, 8 Apr. 1842. After addressing electors in the different burghs, Carnegy retired, leaving the former Whig whip, Edward John Stanley, who was staying at Chalmers’ home, and Jobson, in the field.50The Times, 16 Apr. 1842. His position strengthened by public meetings in his favour at Arbroath, Forfar and Montrose, Hume stood firm, and by nomination day, Stanley had resigned in his favour, and as Jobson was unable to find an elector to nominate him, the veteran Radical was returned unopposed.51Caledonian Mercury, 2 Apr. 1842; The Times, 18, 19 Apr. 1842. Notwithstanding his earlier remarks, the previous day Hume had toured the five burghs, and although his visit to Forfar was marred by Jobson launching a ‘violent tirade of abuse’ against him, he was generally well received.52Caledonian Mercury, 16 Apr. 1847.

Ongoing distress in the linen industry, and in Montrose’s shipping and fish and pork curing trades added impetus to anti-corn law feeling in the burghs, from which came further petitions to the Commons.53SCPP, Appendices (1843), 84-5, 148-9, appendices 143, 253; Black, History of Brechin, 215; Hay, History of Arbroath, 364-5. When Cobden passed through Forfar, which he described as ‘a poor little borough with a great many weavers of coarse linens’, in 1844, he noted the local popularity of free trade, which was also reflected in the public celebrations when the corn laws were repealed in 1846.54Richard Cobden to Catherine Ann Cobden, 14 Jan. 1844, Add. 50748, f. 112; W. Milne, Reminiscences of an old boy: being autobiographic sketches of Scottish rural life from 1832 to 1856, (1901), 97, 151-2.

In late June 1847, the Caledonian Mercury predicted that the incumbent would be unchallenged at the forthcoming general election, but a fortnight later it was reported that ‘no less than three opponents to Mr. Hume are spoken of’.55Caledonian Mercury, 21 June 1847; Daily News, 5 July 1847; see also North British Mail, qu. in Morn. Chro., 6 Aug. 1847. As in other burghs, candidates had to be wary of disappointing or offending influential religious groups, especially the Evangelical Alliance, established in 1845 by Free Churchmen (who had seceded from the Kirk in 1843) and Dissenters (or voluntaryist Presbyterians).56I. Hutchison, A political history of Scotland 1832-1924: parties, elections and issues (1986), 60-5. However, in Montrose it seems that there were significant differences between Churchmen and Free Churchmen on the one hand, who fiercely opposed Roman Catholic endowment, (above all the Maynooth Grant), and on the other hand, Dissenters who opposed endowment of any kind. Even so, the Montrose Review speculated that if the two groups combined they would have the ‘power of returning anyone of whom they approve’.57Montrose Review, qu. in Aberdeen Journal, 21 July 1847. The zealously Sabbatarian Free Churchmen were also irked by Hume’s conspicuous support for Sunday openings of the British Museum.58The Times, 13 Aug. 1847. More organised opposition came from local shipping interests unhappy with Hume’s staunch support for repeal of the navigation laws, which they had petitioned against, 1 July 1847.59The Times, 2 July 1847, 13 Aug. 1847. Hume was, however, endorsed by a meeting of Arbroath electors, 31 July 1847, although he had to account for his vote against the ten hours bill.60Caledonian Mercury, 5 Aug. 1847. In the week preceding the nomination both Hume and his opponent, David Greenhill, of Fearn, a local shipowner, were assiduous in canvassing and addressing electors of the different burghs.61Aberdeen Journal, 11 Aug. 1847. Rumours that John Neilson Gladstone, whose father, Sir John Gladstone, 1st bt., was a local landowner and former Liverpool merchant, was to stand in the Conservative interest came to nothing.62Daily News, 3 Aug. 1847.

At the nomination Greenhill offered support for the navigation laws, whilst Hume, who was hissed by sailors and carpenters, argued that repeal would allow the cheaper importation of goods.63The Times, 6 Aug. 1847. His description of his opponents as monopolists sparked an altercation with David Birnie, a shipbuilder who proposed Greenhill. After tempers had subsided, Hume apologised for Birnie, saying that he had no idea of decorum, which drew approval from the crowd, such as ‘That’s true Joe; he ken’s nae better’.64Caledonian Mercury, 9 Aug. 1847. Hume appealed to seamen as a shipmaster’s son, but bluntly warned Free Churchmen that opposing him would be contrary to their interests.65The Times, 6 Aug. 1847; Caledonian Mercury, 19 Aug. 1847. Whilst he opposed further endowments, he made no apology for supporting the Kirk and the Church of England as long as they served the moral and educational needs of the people.66Caledonian Mercury, 19 Aug. 1847. The show of hands favoured Hume, but Greenhill pressed a poll, in which Hume was triumphant by just over 200 votes. Hume gained majorities in all the burghs, but Greenhill performed notably better in the ports of Montrose and Arbroath, which also had the largest electorates, where he won 41.3% and 40.3% of the vote respectively, where as in Brechin and Forfar the comparable figures were 17% and 13.9%.67The Times, 13 Aug. 1847. In victory, Hume said that ‘the only burgh of which he had cause to complain was his own town’ (Montrose), and expressed bemusement at an opposition of Sabbatarians and ‘out and out Tories with free traders in everything but … their own interests’.68Ibid.

Although the question of continuing the Maynooth grant generated rancour and contests in not a few burghs, there was no opposition forthcoming at the 1852 general election to Hume, whose nomination speech reflected on his parliamentary achievements before making the case for the continued importance of an independent member.69Manchester Times, 17 July 1852; Hutchison, Political history of Scotland, 66-8. After criticising Aberdeen’s coalition as a government ‘that has no opinion of its own’, Hume added his customary rebuke against church sinecures and military establishments, before restating his call for the abolition of the remaining protective duties.70Daily News, 12 July 1852. Hume spoke briefly in favour of his proposed ‘little Charter’, comprising the ballot, household suffrage, abolition of the property qualification and equal electoral districts.71Caledonian Mercury, 12 July 1852.

Hume’s death, 20 Feb. 1855, occasioned much manoeuvring among Liberals of different shades, all claiming the mantle of the veteran radical. First amongst the candidates were John Salusbury Trelawny, late member for Tavistock, and the local Whig landowner Sir John Ogilvy, bt., of Baldovan House.72Morn. Chro., 23 Feb. 1855; The Times, 23 Feb. 1855, 1, 2 Mar. 1855. A third candidate was William Edward Baxter, a Dundee merchant from a wealthy flax manufacturing family, who, with his free trade views and commercial background had most in common with Hume, one of whose sons was also reported to be standing.73The Times, 1, 7 Mar. 1855; Daily News, 26 Feb. 1855. By the time of the nomination, 5 Mar. 1855, only Baxter and Ogilvy remained, the latter arguing for a continuation of the Crimean War, and also supporting parliamentary reform.74The Times, 7 Mar. 1855; Daily News, 7 Mar. 1855. Baxter emphasised the ‘advantage of electing a commercial man in preference to a country gentleman’.75Daily News, 7 Mar. 1855. In the context of widespread public criticism of the civil and military mismanagement of the war, Baxter shrewdly cited the Times’s call to send ‘more commercial and business men to Parliament’, arguing that Scotland’s ‘commercial interests’ were not adequately represented.76The Times, 7 Mar. 1855; Caledonian Mercury, 8 Mar. 1855. He added that thorough-going administrative reform was needed to root out the ‘many useless men’ in government offices.77Daily News, 7 Mar. 1855. The show of hands overwhelmingly favoured Baxter, but a poll was demanded.78Ibid. Disturbances led to polling being suspended at Forfar for a time, but Baxter was returned by 478 votes to Ogilvy’s 434.79Daily News, 9 Mar. 1855. Baxter’s advantage in Forfar was cancelled out by his opponent’s in Brechin, and with both candidates sharing the spoils in insignificant Inverbervie, the outcome depended upon the two ports. Although the baronet won Arbroath by 75 votes, this was overturned by Baxter’s majority in Montrose, which ultimately determined the result.80Glasgow Herald, 12 Mar. 1855; Aberdeen Journal, 14 Mar. 1855; Hutchison, Political history of Scotland, 81. Reviewing the election, Scottish newspapers attributed Ogilvy’s defeat, despite his stronger local connections, to Baxter’s hostility to endowment, and especially Maynooth, which was emphasised in his address, if not in his nomination speech.81Aberdeen Journal, 7 Mar. 1855; Caledonian Mercury, 12 Mar. 1855. This seemed to have mobilised Dissenters and Free Churchmen in sufficient numbers to secure his return, but Baxter’s carefully crafted commercial appeal may also have been a significant factor.

Issues were generally in abeyance at the 1857 general election in Scotland, with even Maynooth having less salience.82Glasgow Herald, 25 Mar. 1857. However, a number of Baxter’s supporters at Montrose and Arbroath were unimpressed with their representative, but as Ogilvy, the only likely challenger, was instead standing at Dundee, this dissatisfaction found no outlet, although other candidates were rumoured.83Arbroath Guide, qu. in Caledonian Mercury, 11 Mar. 1857; The Times, 31 Mar. 1857. On the hustings, Baxter expressed support for Palmerston’s government, assimilating the English and Scottish county franchises and extending religious liberty, as well as social and moral reforms to check rising crime.84Caledonian Mercury, 31 Mar. 1857.

At the 1859 general election, rumours that one of the earl of Aberdeen’s sons would offer came to nothing and the shipowners of Montrose and Arbroath decided against mounting an opposition to Baxter.85Caledonian Mercury, 9 Apr. 1859; Morn. Chro., 13 Apr. 1859; Aberdeen Journal, 13 Apr. 1859. During the campaign Baxter criticised the Conservative government’s reform bill, which would have ‘unsettled everything and settled nothing’. Offering support for Russell’s scheme, consisting of a £10 householder franchise in the counties, and a £5 or £6 franchise in the burghs and also favoured the ballot and a large redistribution of seats.86Caledonian Mercury, 23 Apr. 1859. At the nomination, where he was returned unopposed, Baxter expressed sympathy for Italian nationalism, but believed that Britain should not intervene in the peninsula. He rebuked Austria, but had no time for France, who sought Italian unity for its own ends: ‘Let them fight it out – it is no concern of ours’. He added that ‘the state of Europe cannot be worse physically, mentally and religiously than it is now, and good may come out of the turmoil’.87Caledonian Mercury, 30 Apr. 1859; see also Aberdeen Journal, 4 May 1859; The Times, 2 May 1859.

Baxter, who described himself as an ‘advanced Liberal’, stood his ground at the 1865 general election, and reiterated his support for a non-interventionist European policy, retrenchment, religious liberty and an extension of the franchise to a ‘large portion’ of the working classes.88Caledonian Mercury, 27 June 1865. At the nomination, attended by ‘several hundred’ electors and non-electors, Baxter was again returned unopposed.89Glasgow Herald, 15 July 1865.

The 1868 Representation of the People (Scotland) Act enfranchised all male householders in the burghs, but left the composition of the constituency unaltered.90PP 1867-68 (29), iv. 579, 582-3. Baxter faced the novelty of a Conservative challenge got up by local Tory lairds at the 1868 election, but won easily, helped by Liberal working men. He repeated the performance in 1874 and was returned unopposed in 1880.91McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, 208; W.E. Baxter to William Ewart Gladstone, 23 Nov. 1868, Add. 44416, f. 220. After 1885, the constituency became a redoubt of Gladstonian Liberalism, despite challenges from Liberal Unionists, Conservatives and Independent Labour Party candidates, and the Liberals retained control of the constituency until its abolition in 1950.92McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, 177; Dyer, ‘Burgh districts’, 304-5.