Knaresborough

Economic and social profile:

‘Delightfully situated’ on the north bank of the river Nidd, 18 miles north-west of York,1H. Schroeder (ed.), The annals of Yorkshire from the earliest period to 1852 (1852), ii. 114. Knaresborough was a small market town with a dwindling population, described by the Daily News in 1849 as ‘in a state of utter stagnation and paralysis’.2Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. Its medicinal waters had formerly made it a fashionable resort, but Harrogate had superseded it as a spa town.3Schroeder, Annals of Yorkshire, ii. 115. Less than ten per cent of adult males were employed full-time in agriculture,4B. Jennings (ed.), A history of Harrogate and Knaresborough (1970), 322. but it had one of the county’s principal corn markets.5S. Lewis, A topographical dictionary of England (1844), ii. 700-1. Knaresborough’s main industry was linen manufacture: in 1838 there were two flax mills employing 138 hands.6Parliamentary gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), ii. 610. There was also some small-scale cotton manufacture.7Schroeder, Annals of Yorkshire, ii. 115. However, by the 1840s these industries were ‘very much diminished’, which was blamed on competition from ‘low goods from Scotland’ and on the lack of a coal supply and transport connections.8Lewis, Topographical dictionary, ii. 700; Parliamentary gazetteer, ii. 610. The construction of a railway line linking Knaresborough to York and Harrogate finally began in 1847, although its opening was delayed after a viaduct over the Nidd collapsed.9J.S. Fletcher, Harrogate and Knaresborough (1920), 119-20; Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 18 Mar. 1848. The railway’s arrival stabilised the remaining linen firms, but ‘came too late to promote the development of Knaresborough as an important industrial centre’.10Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 285, 316. Alongside Anglican provision, the town had places of worship for Independents, Quakers, Wesleyan Methodists and Catholics.11Parliamentary gazetteer, ii. 610.

Electoral history

Despite doubts about its prosperity, the boundary commissioners concluded – mistakenly, as it turned out – that Knaresborough’s potential for ‘becoming a place of greater consequence’ merited its continued representation after 1832.12PP 1831-2 (141), xl. 376. Some observers ascribed its retention of two members to the fact that Knaresborough was controlled by the Whig duke of Devonshire, who owned most of the qualifying burgage properties, and whose nominees had faced only one challenge since 1805.13Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849; HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 269. Although its boundaries were extended to include the whole town of Knaresborough and part of the adjoining township of Scriven-with-Tentergate, Knaresborough’s electorate remained small, increasing from 88 burgage-holders to 278 voters.14It was the town of Knaresborough (as defined under the 1823 Improvement Act) rather than the wider township which was included in the parliamentary borough. Yet hopes that Devonshire might still control one seat ‘came to nothing, for he was unwilling to spend any money’.15HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 272. With Devonshire’s influence ‘much diminished’, the constituency lacked any dominant interest, although Charles Dod recorded in 1853 that the Slingsby family had ‘some weight’ in Scriven.16H.J. Hanham (ed.), Charles R. Dod. Electoral facts from 1832 to 1853 impartially stated (1972), 169. The Collins family, headed by Rev. Thomas Collins,17While Collins was often mistakenly identified as the vicar of Knaresborough, he was in fact the perpetual curate of nearby Farnham: Lewis, Topographical dictionary, ii. 215. The Collins family had lived in Knaresborough for over 200 years: Leeds Mercury, 12 July 1851. wielded some influence through their ownership of fields on which cow-sheds or barns were erected and rented to voters to enable them to meet the £10 franchise qualification.18On these so-called cow-shed or pig-sty votes, see P. Salmon, Electoral reform at work. Local politics and national parties, 1832-1841 (2002), 30. In 1838 Collins controlled 24 out of 49 cow-houses in the borough, while his brother owned another two.19Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 361.

After 1832 Knaresborough’s representation swung back and forth between the parties. Among the six smallest English boroughs in 1848,20Manchester Times and Gazette, 29 Apr. 1848. its electorate was said to have a ‘peculiarly unstable character’,21Daily News, 21 Oct. 1852. making election results ‘extremely doubtful’.22Daily News, 2 July 1852. Voters’ opinions on the particular merits of individual candidates, rather than the parties they sought to represent, often played an important role in shaping electoral outcomes, and there were significant levels of cross-party voting throughout this period.23A breakdown of plumps and split votes at each general election can be found in W.W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 896-902. Following their defeat in 1837, the Conservatives endeavoured to tip the balance back in their favour by exploiting the ‘cow-house’ vote. Despite this, elections remained closely fought, notably in 1852, when three candidates polled exactly the same number of votes. While the Conservatives triumphed at the 1857 and 1859 elections, Liberalism remained sufficiently strong to regain one seat in 1865.

With one exception, the candidates who stood at the 1832 general election were not strangers to Knaresborough’s electors. John Richards, a Southwark hop merchant, originally from Worcestershire, had declined an invitation to contest Knaresborough in 1826.24HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 270. Richards had visited the town after abandoning his candidature at Boroughbridge. He had canvassed at the by-election in June 1832, but had withdrawn before the nomination, as had Benjamin Rotch.25Ibid., ii. 272. A London barrister, Rotch had first considered contesting Knaresborough at a by-election in December 1830, but had instead backed an unsuccessful challenge to Devonshire’s influence from John Entwisle, a Tory,26Ibid., ii. 271; Morning Post, 4 Dec. 1830. and had become ‘a favourite’ with ‘the populace’.27Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. After Entwisle’s defeat, he and Rotch were chaired by his supporters: York Herald, 4 Dec. 1830. At the 1831 general election he had proposed the Whig Sir James Mackintosh, in a speech which Mackintosh presciently described as ‘chiefly calculated to obtain a seat in the reformed Parliament’.28HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 272. When Rotch re-appeared in December 1832, ‘professing Liberal principles’,29Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832. it was unclear whether he was testing the ground for another candidate, but ‘after canvassing... he threw off all disguise and declared himself their champion’.30Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. At the nomination, he advocated reform of the Church and abolition of monopolies of all kinds.31Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832.­ Andrew Lawson, of Boroughbridge Hall, a local magistrate, had also been briefly in the field at the June by-election.32Lawson had previously stood at Boroughbridge in 1830: HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 262. In contrast, the fourth candidate, Henry Rich, of London, ‘was a young gentleman of whom, at that time, nobody knew anything’,33Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. although he was reportedly ‘a literary gentleman of first-rate talent, and a strenuous supporter of the present Ministers’.34Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832.

Described as ‘an independent Whig’35Ibid. and ‘a thorough reformer’,36Sheffield Independent, 2 June 1832. Richards had the backing of ‘decent tradesmen’ and the borough’s ‘few gentry’, and his return was considered secure.37Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. In the wake of Reform, the Tory Lawson’s prospects were felt to be poor,38Ibid. and he apparently resorted to professing ‘the extreme of Liberal principles, manifestly for the purpose of ensuring his election’.39Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832. Among the policies he reportedly endorsed were the ballot, universal suffrage and excluding bishops from the Lords.40Leeds Mercury, 31 Jan. 1835. There was an acrimonious battle between Rich and Rotch for the second seat. In contrast with damaging claims that Rich was Devonshire’s nominee, Rotch played up his position as ‘the man of the people’, and won a strong following among the poorer £10 householders. Rich’s supporters, meanwhile, accused Rotch, who had been involved in earlier contests at Sudbury and Evesham as well as Knaresborough, of ‘having been for years a trafficker in elections; of seeking out candidates, irrespective of politics... and of personally profiting by these proceedings’. It was also claimed that he had been complicit in bribery at Evesham.41Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. At the nomination, which drew a 3,000-strong crowd, Richards and Rotch won the show of hands decisively.42Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832.­ They repeated this victory at the poll, where Richards took a comfortable lead and Rotch stood almost 40 votes clear of Lawson and Rich by 3 p.m. on the first day. Lawson retired, but Rich insisted on opening the poll for a second day.43Yorkshire Gazette, 22 Dec. 1832. He was, however, unable to overcome his rivals, who were chaired in front of Knaresborough’s ‘greatest ever’ gathering.44Ibid.; Leeds Mercury, 22 Dec. 1832. The bitter division between Rich and Rotch was reflected in the fact that they shared only 5 split votes. In contrast, Richards and Rich shared 61 splits, while Richards and Rotch shared 95.45Bean, Parliamentary representation, 896. Richards received 3 plumpers, Rotch had 11, Rich had 9 and Lawson had 22. Lawson shared 28 splits with Richards, and 5 apiece with Rich and Rotch.

Rich petitioned against Rotch’s return, 18 Feb. 1833, on the grounds that he was an alien, having been born in France to American parents.46CJ, lxxxviii. 50-1. Although Rotch had allegedly admitted during the contest that he was a foreigner, Rich faced difficulties in obtaining evidence from France, and after unsuccessfully petitioning to delay the case, 11 Mar. 1833, he abandoned his petition.47CJ, lxxxviii. 153; The Standard, 12 Mar. 1833; Leeds Mercury, 23 Mar. 1833. No counsel, agent or party appeared when the petition committee was due to be appointed, 14 Mar. 1833, and the petition was duly discharged: CJ, lxxxviii. 165.

Rotch’s populist stance was undermined by his parliamentary speeches against trade unions in 1834, which prompted ‘general dissatisfaction’ among his supporters.48Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. He did not seek re-election in 1835, when Lawson, Rich and Richards offered again. The Hon. Charles Langdale, a Liberal from a prominent Yorkshire Catholic family, was briefly in the field after retiring from Beverley, but transferred to the East Riding.49Sheffield Independent, 13 Dec. 1834; The Times, 6 Jan. 1835. In the event, Langdale did not persist with his candidature for the East Riding either: The Times, 13 Jan. 1835. The final candidate was a London barrister, Sir Gregory Allnutt Lewin,50Morning Post, 8 Dec. 1834. whose election address declared his motto to be ‘King, Lords, and Commons’, and who wished to reform abuses in church and state, ‘provided the means adopted be constitutional’.51York Herald, 20 Dec. 1834.

There was no coalition between the candidates, and the contest was notable for their keenness to eschew party labels. This was aptly symbolised by the mixture of party colours worn on nomination day by a well-known local, ‘Lampley Ned’, who appeared ‘with one side of his face painted orange, and the other blue; dressed in an orange cloak, and mounted on a horse decorated with pink ribbon’.52York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. Richards’ election address declared that he was ‘disappointed in the Whigs... mistrusted the Tories, and feared the Radicals’.53The Times, 2 Apr. 1836. On the hustings he reminded voters of his assertion in 1832 that ‘he belonged to neither of these parties, that he was one of the people, and that he would stand by his own order’. Emphasising his diligent parliamentary attendance, he denied charges that ‘his conduct had been too Radical’, explaining his votes against Whig ministers, which included dividing for repeal of the window and malt taxes, shorter parliaments, and a reduction in compensation for slave-owners. He had also backed the admission of Dissenters to universities and appropriation of the Irish church’s surplus revenues. Lawson, after a dig at Richards’ lengthy self-exculpation, appealed to them as a neighbour, and declared his support for Lord Stanley’s views. He endorsed Sir Francis Burdett’s recent contention that ‘the flags and watchwords under which the Whigs and Tories fought their disgraceful battles, ought to be deserted and abolished’.54York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. The Times had earlier described Lawson, confusingly but accurately, as a man ‘of liberal independent Conservative principles’.55The Times, 17 Dec. 1834. Lewin similarly professed himself ‘neither Whig nor Tory’, but ‘an Englishman, free and independent’. He favoured admitting Dissenters to universities, decried the new poor law as cruel and unjust, and considered the corn laws no longer fit for purpose. The exception to this disavowal of party was Rich, who described party distinctions as ‘the safeguards of a man’s honour’, and declared himself ‘a Whig to the backbone’. He advocated church reform, ‘freedom of our consumers from shackles’ and greater education, without which the suffrage could not safely be extended.56York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835.

Richards and Rich won the show of hands, but it was Lawson who topped the poll, with Richards re-elected in second place. Rich polled a creditable third, and Lewin a desultory fourth.57Ibid. A later account suggested that Lawson’s triumph was due partly to votes received from former supporters of Rotch, who backed him rather than Rich.58Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. The victors were chaired in chairs decorated in pink and orange silk, ‘tastefully ornamented with laurel’.59York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. The lack of clear-cut party divisions was evident from an analysis of the poll: Lawson shared 86 splits with Richards, 69 with Rich and just 18 with Lewin. Richards and Rich, meanwhile, shared only 30 splits.60Bean, Parliamentary representation, 896. There were 18 plumpers for Richards, 10 for Rich and 6 for Lawson. Rich and Lewin shared 2 split votes.

Richards’ vote with the Conservatives on the speakership, 19 Feb. 1835, prompted 40 or 50 Reformers to sign a requisition calling for his resignation. Despite his obfuscation on party during the contest, they argued that he had been elected ‘as we supposed, the Reform Member for our borough’.61Leeds Mercury, 14 Mar. 1835. Richards refused to respond, ostensibly due to the small number of signatories, although it was claimed that twice as many would have signed were it not for the fact that local innkeepers and tradesmen were waiting for him to settle election bills.62Morning Chronicle, 6 Apr. 1835. Richards’ continued support of Peel in the division lobbies, eventually joining the Conservative ranks, prompted further attacks on his ‘political profligacy’,63The Times, 2 Apr. 1836. notably in the Commons by the Radical Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, whose family had local connections.64Hansard, 29 Mar. 1836, vol. 32, cc. 812-13.

At the 1837 general election Richards ‘bid the electors a pompous farewell’, and instead stood at Southwark as a Conservative.65The Examiner, 9 July 1837. Lawson sought re-election, and Rich also offered again, although earlier rumours that Sir William Amcotts Ingilby, of Ripley Castle, would be his running-mate came to nothing.66Hull Observer, cited in The Champion, 23 Oct. 1836; Leeds Mercury, cited in The Examiner, 23 Oct. 1836. Two other Liberals appeared: Langdale, the prominent Catholic, and John Massey Hutchinson, a London barrister.67Leeds Mercury, cited in The Times, 4 Apr. 1837; Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 5 June 1852. The latter subsequently withdrew, leaving the field clear for Langdale and Rich. Both were considered ‘stanch Reformers’,68The Examiner, 9 July 1837. although Langdale’s views inclined to Radicalism, while Rich’s had a more Whiggish hue.69Bradford Observer, 27 July 1837.

Orange (Liberal) and pink (Conservative) banners gave Knaresborough ‘a very lively appearance’ on nomination day.70Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. The Liberal press dismissed Lawson’s hustings speech as ‘a long and tedious harangue’, which ‘highly extolled his own consistency’.71Morning Chronicle, 28 July 1837. In particular, he responded to criticism that he had reneged on earlier promises, such as that to vote for excluding bishops from the Lords.72Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. Mindful that the Liberal candidates for the West Riding were due to speak in Knaresborough later that day, Rich and Langdale kept their remarks brief. Rich urged voters to return men ‘of sound and Liberal principles’, who wished not to destroy established institutions, but ‘to reform, ameliorate, and improve’. Langdale likewise extolled the virtues of a Liberal government,73Ibid. and declared his support for the ballot.74Morning Chronicle, 27 July 1837. Lawson’s observations that it was the principle of the Protestant to do all he could against the Catholic, and vice versa, prompted Langdale to assert that ‘it was his anxious wish to preserve the just rights of both’. He noted his efforts whilst MP for Beverley to secure provision for Catholic worship for workhouse inmates.75Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. Nonetheless he recognised the need to avert anti-Catholic feeling, remarking that ‘the electors had nothing to do with his religious opinions; all they had to consider was whether he was qualified to serve them faithfully’.76Morning Chronicle, 28 July 1837.

Langdale and Rich won the show of hands with an ‘immense preponderance’.77Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. Rich topped the poll, garnering almost 50 votes more than Langdale, who finished just six votes ahead of Lawson. As the lone Conservative, Lawson received 47 plumpers. In contrast Rich received seven and Langdale four, but they shared 107 split votes. The remaining voters who backed Lawson were far more willing to split with Rich (58 splits) than Langdale (13). This was undoubtedly a reflection on Langdale’s more radical views, and crucially, his Catholicism.78York Herald, 29 July 1837. The Morning Post had averred that ‘Protestantism and Popery, light and darkness, can never go on well together’,79Morning Post, 10 July 1837. and Knaresborough’s ‘vigorous evangelical’ vicar, Rev. Andrew Cheap, had canvassed and issued a circular for Lawson.80Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 358-9; Leeds Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837. Cheap subsequently delivered ‘a violent philippic’ from the pulpit against those who voted for Langdale, although this reportedly provoked ‘strong disapprobation’ among his parishioners.81Leeds Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837. Langdale, who had stood on condition that no public houses were opened in his support, gave a celebratory dinner for electors and their wives, and ‘a tea-drinking for the old women’, who thwarted his abstemious intentions and ‘contrived to put spirits into their tea, and many of them got tipsy’.82W.J. Amherst, ‘Charles Langdale’, Dublin Review, 4 (Oct. 1892), 409.

Langdale’s narrow majority prompted both parties to attend carefully to registration. George Leeman, of York, appeared in the revision courts for the Liberals in 1839, successfully objecting to Conservative efforts to manufacture votes by sub-dividing a large pasture owned by Rev. Collins.83York Herald, 26 Oct. 1839. A Mr. Bond of Leeds appeared for the Conservatives. However, Leeman’s objections, on the grounds that the properties had not been occupied for the requisite period, could not be sustained indefinitely. With nearly 30 ‘cow-shed’ voters by the time of the 1841 election, Lawson’s chances of regaining his seat appeared strong.84Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. In contrast, Langdale faced growing anti-Catholic sentiment. The ‘No Popery’ cry was compounded by concerns that his attentiveness to Catholic questions had caused him to neglect Knaresborough’s interests.85Amherst, ‘Charles Langdale’, 409. Rich was considered more secure, especially given his efforts ‘in getting the sons and brothers of electors made excise and custom-house officers’.86Morning Post, 11 June 1841. He therefore provoked consternation when he retired at the dissolution, citing unspecified circumstances.87Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. Rich had been appointed a groom in waiting to Queen Victoria by Melbourne’s ministry in July 1837, and correspondence with Sir Robert Peel reveals that it was his (ultimately forlorn) hope of retaining this appointment under Peel’s ministry, together with financial losses two or three years earlier, which prompted his retirement.88Sir R. Peel to H. Rich, 4 Sept. 1841, Add. MS. 40487, f. 228; H. Rich to Sir R. Peel, 5 Sept. 1841, ibid., f. 230; Rich to Peel, 6 Sept. 1841, ibid., ff. 232-3; Peel to Rich, 9 Sept. 1841, Add. MS. 40488, ff. 116-17; Rich to Peel, 10 Sept. 1841, ibid., ff. 118-19. Hopes of a compromise to return Rich and Lawson were dashed.89Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849.

After an unpropitious canvass, Langdale withdrew, lamenting that he could only win ‘by means which I believe must tend to demoralize the Inhabitants and corrupt the Constituency’.90Leeds Mercury, 12 June 1841. The Conservatives were said to be treating extensively.91Ibid. See also Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 19 June 1841. Although his retiring address eschewed responding to attacks on his religious faith,92Leeds Mercury, 12 June 1841. Langdale subsequently told his supporters, ‘almost with tears in his eyes’, that he could not counter the electors’ ‘bigotry’.93Morning Post, 12 June 1841. The Conservatives quickly fielded a second candidate, William Busfeild Ferrand, of Harden Grange, near Bingley, reviled by the Leeds Mercury as ‘a red-hot Ultra Tory’,94Leeds Mercury, 12 June 1841. Ferrand had initially intended to contest Bradford in opposition to his uncle, William Busfeild, the Liberal incumbent. but praised by the Morning Post for his ‘energy’ and ‘combined humour and eloquence’.95Morning Post, 12 June 1841. The Liberals, meanwhile, struggled to find a challenger. After three days’ canvassing, the Hon. Nicholas Ridley Colborne withdrew rather than mount ‘a vexatious opposition’, and found a safe seat elsewhere.96Leeds Mercury, 12 June 1841. Ridley Colborne, who was returned unopposed for Richmond, had been introduced to Knaresborough by Thomas Duncombe, although he did not share his Radical views: Morning Post, 11 June 1841. Massey Hutchinson also swiftly abandoned his candidature.97Morning Post, 12 June 1841. George Goodman, a Leeds merchant,98The Times, 19 June 1841. and the former Sheffield MP James Silk Buckingham were mooted, but neither offered.99Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 19 June 1841. A requisition asking Rich to reconsider was equally fruitless.100Ibid. At the last minute Charles Sturgeon, a London barrister and ‘ardent Reformer’, appeared.101Leeds Mercury, 3 July 1841. Sturgeon arrived in Knaresborough the day before the nomination: Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849.

Despite heavy rain around 2,000 people attended the 1841 nomination, where Lawson arrived with pink banners, and Ferrand with blue, while Sturgeon ‘hoisted the old Orange standard’. Assailed with cries of ‘turn coat’, Lawson maintained that he had always been ‘a moderate Tory’. The corn laws were the dominant issue, although the poor law also featured prominently. Lawson decried the Liberals’ proposed 8s. fixed duty on corn as ‘a vile trick, to deceive the electors’. He supported the poor law to some extent, but would modify its oppressive clauses. Ferrand emphasised his Yorkshire connections, and made a typically colourful speech, dismissing the ballot as ‘un-English and detestable’, declaring that he would rather separate his head from his shoulders than the church from the state, and condemning the ‘inhuman and oppressive’ poor law. He staunchly defended the corn laws, and opposed altering the timber and sugar duties, as did Lawson. Sturgeon, who denied that he was Earl Fitzwilliam’s nominee – and later also refuted claims that he had been sent by the Anti-Corn Law League102The Standard, 31 Mar. 1843. According to later claims by Ferrand, agents of the League were, however, present during the contest, while Ferrand was assisted in his campaign by John Harper, a pro-corn law lecturer: Northern Star, ­18 Mar. 1843; Leeds Mercury, 2 Nov. 1844. – shared Ferrand’s horror of the poor law and attacked Lawson’s inconsistency in voting for it. He condemned his opponents’ use of treating. He endorsed the ballot and reform of the Church, and wished to ‘extend commerce and secure equal rights and privileges to all classes’.103Leeds Mercury, 3 July 1841. Lawson and Ferrand narrowly won the show of hands,104Ibid. but with 122 split votes, they comfortably outpolled Sturgeon.105Bean, Parliamentary representation, 896. Of Sturgeon’s 83 votes, 58 were plumpers.

The Liberals improved their position on the register in 1841.106Leeds Mercury, 23 Oct. 1841. This was helped by the overseers adding ‘a great many’ of the Liberals’ supporters to the register. Although on the hustings Ferrand had emphasised the importance of the domestic market – and, by extension, the corn laws – to Knaresborough’s linen trade,107Leeds Mercury, 3 July 1841. those involved with this industry favoured free trade,108Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 362. and there was mounting evidence that Ferrand’s staunch protectionism did not reflect the views of his constituents more generally. An Anti-Corn Law League lecturer in 1842 claimed that not even 43 of Knaresborough’s 243 voters were ‘confirmed monopolists’.109Manchester Times and Gazette, 23 Apr. 1842. Ferrand was greeted in a ‘cold and indifferent manner’ when visiting in 1843, except by ‘a few ultra Tories of his own calibre’, and eschewed a public meeting.110Leeds Mercury, 4 Feb. 1843. More than half the electorate – 127 voters – signed a requisition that year asking their representatives to support Villiers’ motion for corn law repeal.111Ibid.; Northern Star, ­18 Mar. 1843. Ferrand’s outspoken parliamentary conduct led many electors ‘to feel extremely anxious to be quit of this unfortunate connexion’.112Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. He also lost favour with ‘his agents, riband suppliers, and the innkeepers’ due to tardiness in settling his election bills,113Leeds Mercury, 4 Feb. 1843. and few leading Conservatives attended when he spoke locally in December 1844.114Leeds Mercury, 14 Dec. 1844.

Ferrand nonetheless sought re-election in 1847. His address boasted that he had ‘no broken pledges to explain away’ and emphasised his support for the Ten Hours Act and ‘his unalterable hostility to Popery’ and the poor law.115Morning Post, 6 May 1847. He subsequently withdrew after finding that, contrary to his expectations, Lord Harewood, a prominent protectionist who owned property nearby, would not endorse him, instead favouring his own brother, the Hon. William Saunders Sebright Lascelles.116The Times, 2 June 1847; Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849; J.T. Ward, ‘West Riding landowners and the corn laws’, EHR, 81 (1966), 267. Lascelles had represented Wakefield as a Conservative, but had grown ‘too liberal’ for his supporters there.117Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849. Unlike Harewood, Lascelles backed free trade, but Harewood told him that ‘although we may differ upon some points, I agree infinitely more with you than with Mr. Ferrand’.118The Times, 2 June 1847. Among the issues on which Lascelles took the opposite line from Ferrand was factory reform, questioning ‘the right of the legislature to say to an adult operative that he should only work ten hours per day’.119Leeds Mercury, 29 May 1847. While some reports described Lascelles as a Peelite,120Bradford & Wakefield Observer, 5 Aug. 1847. most recognised that he had embraced Liberalism, and on the hustings he disclaimed any animosity towards Russell, who had recently given him a household appointment.121The Standard, 20 Aug. 1847. For other reports listing Lascelles as a Liberal, see Leeds Mercury, 8 May 1847; The Times, 30 July 1847.

Sir Charles Slingsby, of Scriven, declined the invitation of a Conservative meeting, chaired by Rev. Collins, to offer alongside Lawson.122Morning Post, 10 June 1847; The Standard, 17 June 1847. Rev. Cheap, the vicar of Knaresborough, also took a prominent role at this meeting. The Liberals, however, were able to secure a second candidate, Joshua Proctor Westhead, a Manchester manufacturer and railway director, whose seat was at Lea Castle, Worcestershire.123The Times, 10 May 1847. A Wesleyan Methodist, Westhead had, like Lascelles, formerly been a Conservative, but was a long-standing supporter of free trade.124J.P. Westhead. A letter to a Wesleyan elector of the borough of Manchester (1841); Morning Chronicle, 13 July 1852. Westhead had seconded the nomination of the Conservative Sir George Murray at Manchester in 1841: Morning Chronicle, 1 July 1841. Addressing voters in May, he voiced concerns about the centralising aspects of the poor law and government interference in the religious aspects of education.125Leeds Mercury, 29 May 1847. Although they both stood as free traders against the protectionist Lawson, there was no formal coalition between Lascelles and Westhead: ‘every tub stands upon its own bottom’.126Bradford & Wakefield Observer, 29 July 1847. A fourth candidate, John Foster, a townsman and former proprietor of the Leeds Patriot, went no further than issuing an address.127Morning Chronicle, 26 July 1847.

With a close contest expected between Lawson and Westhead for the second seat, both resorted to corrupt means, opening public houses and allowing each elector to nominate a non-elector for employment as a runner or banner-bearer. Westhead allegedly spent £900 hiring over 300 non-electors, who received between 3s. 6d. and 5s. daily, as well as three meals and two quarts of ale. One of Westhead’s agents engaged ‘a large body of navvies’, who caused several disturbances. The Conservatives’ detention of several voters at the Elephant Inn prompted an altercation on the eve of the poll. After the voters’ wives summoned help, a constable and ‘a party of staff men’ entered the inn-yard, ‘notwithstanding a stout resistance’ led by Lawson’s eldest son, who subsequently sent to York for the military.128Leeds Mercury, 7 Aug. 1847. The Conservatives subsequently brought a complaint against the constable, accusing him of ‘encouraging the fray’ and of showing his partisanship by wearing an orange ribbon, but the case was dismissed by the magistrates. Troops arrived at 11 a.m. on polling day, by which time their presence was unnecessary, and they withdrew.129Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847, 7 Aug. 1847. His son’s over-reaction was said to have cost Lawson some votes,130Ibid., 7 Aug. 1847. and he also lost support because of concerns that he had favoured the interests of Boroughbridge, where he resided, over Knaresborough when weighing up the merits of local railway schemes.131Bradford & Wakefield Observer, 1 July 1847. Lascelles comfortably topped the poll, and Westhead ousted Lawson by 14 votes.132Several newspapers initially reported in error that Lawson and Lascelles were the victors: Morning Post, 5 Aug. 1847. In this closely-fought contest only half-a-dozen voters failed to poll,133Bradford & Wakefield Observer, 5 Aug. 1847. and the last man to vote was ‘dragged from his bed’ in a drunken state and ‘without hat and shoes’.134Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847. There was a significant amount of cross-party voting. Lascelles and Westhead received 103 splits, but Lascelles also shared 53 votes with Lawson, while Westhead shared 24 with the Conservative.135Bean, Parliamentary representation, 896. The victors were chaired ‘with great pomp’.136Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1847.

Lascelles’ death in July 1851 prompted a by-election, at which Rev. Collins’s son Thomas, a barrister on the northern circuit, offered for the Conservatives.137Daily News, 14 July 1851. Although Collins reportedly came forward ‘on Church and State and Protectionist principles’,138York Herald, 5 July 1851. it was evident that the latter policy would not play well, and in an election speech he disclaimed any desire to renew ‘the Bread Tax’, although he would back measures of relief for the agricultural interest. He opposed endowment of the Catholic church, and favoured economy in public expenditure, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and self-government in provincial matters for ‘all truly British colonies’. He declined to commit himself on electoral reform.139Leeds Mercury, 12 July 1851. He was opposed by William Henry Watson, a fellow barrister and former Liberal MP for Kinsale, who endorsed franchise extension, the ballot, retrenchment, free trade and religious toleration.140Ibid. Although Watson was said to be ‘the popular candidate’,141York Herald, 12 July 1851. he withdrew after his canvass, concluding that he could not counter ‘local influence’.142The Times, 14 July 1851.

With a walkover expected, the nomination, at which Collins arrived with a band and light blue banners inscribed ‘Collins our townsman’, was sparsely attended.143Ibid.; York Herald, 19 July 1851. Charles Scott, ‘hitherto a professed whig’,144Daily News, 14 July 1851. was hissed upon seconding Collins’s nomination, but explained that he supported measures not men, and urged voters to elect a fellow townsman for the first time in 200 years.145York Herald, 19 July 1851. Some of Watson’s erstwhile supporters, determined to put Collins to the cost of a poll, nominated Lawson, the former member, in his absence.146The Standard, 14 July 1851. A local publican, Mr. Kirk, proposed Lawson as ‘a thoroughgoing conservative and protectionist’.147Daily News, 14 July 1851. Collins attacked the ‘disappointed clique’ which had arranged ‘a factious and useless opposition’, and who must have nominated Lawson without consent, as he had promised not to challenge Collins.148The Times, 14 July 1851. Lawson, however, belatedly issued an address, and spoke to voters at 7 a.m. on polling day, after which he departed for a prior engagement.149Lawson did not re-appear during the contest, and was absent from the declaration. He subsequently held a dinner at which he promised to offer again: Leeds Mercury, 2 August 1851. He explained that his promise not to oppose Collins had applied only while Watson remained in the field, not wishing to divide the Conservative vote, and declared his principles to be those ‘of moderate Conservatism’, but did not renounce protection.150York Herald, 19 July 1851. For subsequent correspondence from Lawson and Collins regarding the terms of Lawson’s promise not to oppose him, and whether this only applied while Watson remained in the field, see The Times, 19 July 1851; Leeds Mercury, 26 July 1851.

Collins, who had won the show of hands, also triumphed in the poll, having secured the bulk of the Conservative vote.151The Times, 14 July 1851; York Herald, 19 July 1851. He faced a hostile reception at the declaration, where ‘gangs of rough-looking fellows, armed with poles and bludgeons, and with tickets, printed “Lawson,” in their hats’, appeared. Although he tried for an hour and a half to get a hearing, he ‘was not heard a yard from his lips’.152Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 20 July 1851. The reporters close enough to hear his speech recorded that he again condemned the ‘miserable cabal’ which had forced a contest: York Herald, 19 July 1851. He and his supporters ‘were assailed with eggs until they were nearly smothered in yolks’,153York Herald, 19 July 1851. and attacked with stones, broken staves and bludgeons, several of which struck Collins and the reporters, although efforts to destroy the hustings failed.154Leicester Chronicle, 19 July 1851; Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 20 July 1851. Collins was badly cut on the head while making his retreat, and prudently declined a chairing.155Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 20 July 1851. Although this by-election was listed alongside Conservative victories at Boston and Scarborough as an indicator of protectionist strength, this was inaccurate, given Collins’ stance against re-imposing the corn laws.156The Era, 17 Aug. 1851.

Lawson and Collins offered again in 1852, but despite claiming to be ‘in the midst of a triumphant canvass’, Lawson reluctantly withdrew in March after being advised that he would jeopardise his party’s chances if he persisted. On the same day, Rowland Winn, of Nostell Priory, near Pontefract, issued an address as a Protectionist and defender of Protestant institutions.157Leeds Mercury, 20 Mar. 1852. Lawson’s withdrawal prompted Liberal hopes that by acting ‘with unanimity’, they might return two MPs.158Ibid. They fielded John Dent Dent, of Ribston Hall, ‘a friend to judicious reform’ and religious liberty, alongside Westhead.159Huddersfield Chronicle, 27 Mar. 1852. Dent’s father Joseph, a major Yorkshire landowner, had been chairman of the railway company which extended the line to Knaresborough in the late 1840s.160York Herald, 21 Aug. 1847.

The Liberals attempted to make free trade the central issue, with Westhead’s ‘spirited’ address urging voters to give ‘a decided negative to the policy of monopoly’.161Huddersfield Chronicle, 27 Mar. 1852. This fell flat, however, as Collins again promised not to vote for re-imposition of the corn laws, while Winn, a Derbyite, modified his views during his canvass, stating that he would vote against re-imposition.162Leeds Mercury, 27 Mar. 1852; The Standard, 2 July 1852. Despite this volte face, Winn subsequently withdrew, allegedly because ‘his views on the corn laws were not sufficiently liberal’, although his public explanation was ‘various causes of a private nature’.163Yorkshire Gazette, cited in Morning Post, 19 Apr. 1852. He was replaced by Basil Thomas Woodd, of Thorpe Green, the son of a London wine merchant, who had lived locally for some years.164Huddersfield Chronicle, 17 Apr. 1852; Yorkshire Gazette, cited in Morning Post, 19 Apr. 1852. He opposed the re-imposition of protection, but endorsed efforts to relieve the agricultural interest without injuring others. He also advocated retrenchment and legal reform.165Huddersfield Chronicle, 17 Apr. 1852. Preparations to swear in special constables lest the violence of the previous contest be repeated proved unnecessary.166Bradford Observer, 1 July 1852. There was, however, extensive treating, and one surgeon reportedly dealt with fourteen cases of delirium tremens, which caused one death.167Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 17 July 1852. Years later Woodd admitted that sizeable sums had been spent on his behalf.168Daily News, 18 Oct. 1880.

With all candidates agreeing that the corn laws should not be re-imposed, the nomination was noteworthy only for Collins’s pronouncements on electoral reform. While he did not regard the 1832 Reform Act as final, he opposed placing power ‘in mere numbers’, which would ‘deprive persons of property and education of their legitimate weight’.169Morning Chronicle, 9 July 1852. The two Liberals won the show of hands, but the poll saw Dent, Westhead and Woodd each receive 113 votes, prompting the returning officer to make a virtually unprecedented triple return.170Ibid. Collins, despite losing support from ‘some of the more influential conservatives’ due to his ‘tractarian tendencies’, finished only four votes behind.171Huddersfield Chronicle, 26 June 1852. There was a considerable degree of partisan voting, with Dent and Westhead sharing 96 split votes, while Woodd and Collins shared 92.172Bradford Observer, 15 July 1852. However, 34 electors split their votes across the parties.17311 voters polled for Westhead and Woodd, 9 for Dent and Woodd, 8 for Collins and Dent, and 6 for Collins and Westhead: Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 364. The result could easily have been rather different: two Liberal voters died just before the election, two others abstained, and two more reneged on their promises and voted Conservative.174Bradford Observer, 15 July 1852.

Dent, Westhead and Woodd were duly gazetted as MPs, with the caveat that ‘two only should have been returned, but by reason of equality of votes three are returned’.175London Gazette, 20 July 1852. However, none of them was entitled to sit until the result had been decided by an election committee.176Liverpool Mercury, 10 Aug. 1852. Woodd petitioned against Westhead and Dent, 23 Nov. 1852, and they petitioned against him, 24 Nov. 1852. Collins presented two petitions, 25 Nov., 6 Dec. 1852, but withdrew them, 17 Mar. 1853.177Bean, Parliamentary representation, 897-8. Given the likelihood of a by-election, registration proceedings in October 1852 generated particular interest. Twenty-three new voters were added to the register, but the Daily News reported that ‘the peculiarly unstable character’ of Knaresborough’s electors meant that ‘it is difficult to say to which party they ought to be allotted, but each claims a majority’, and predicted that any contest would be ‘close and severe’.178Daily News, 21 Oct. 1852. In the event, a by-election was unnecessary, as the parties came to a compromise regarding the petition, allegedly brokered by ‘the agents of the Carlton and Reform Clubs’.179Bradford Observer, 14 Apr. 1853. Sixty-five electors signed a petition – presented by Richard Cobden, 8 Apr. 1853 – protesting at this and requesting a full inquiry into the election.180Ibid.; Morning Chronicle, 9 Apr. 1853. However, this did not impede the election committee’s proceedings, 23 Apr. 1853. Woodd’s counsel moved that the vote of Richard Dewes, a solicitor who had polled for Westhead despite being his paid agent, be struck off. Westhead’s counsel conceded, and Dent and Woodd were declared duly elected.181PP 1852-53 (394), xiv. 71-6; Morning Chronicle, 25 Apr. 1853. This decision, reported to the House, 25 Apr. 1853, gave ‘great dissatisfaction’ to Knaresborough’s Liberals, and some ‘more enlightened conservatives’ agreed that there should have been a more rigorous inquiry given the corruption that had occurred.182York Herald, 30 Apr. 1853.

Renewed energy was devoted to registration, and Sir Charles Slingsby provoked anger in 1853 when he blocked footpaths after ‘enclosing the town’s pasture to manufacture faggot votes’ for the Conservatives.183Huddersfield Chronicle, 20 Aug. 1853. As well as enclosing the meadow known as ‘Long Flat’, the Conservatives added more voters through joint occupation of property.184Leeds Mercury, 18 Oct. 1856. The register underwent significant changes: in 1855 it was reported that 100 new voters had been added since the 1852 election and that 68 of the 238 voters who had then polled were no longer registered.185York Herald, 3 Nov. 1855. The Liberal press asserted in 1855 that ‘a great majority’ of Knaresborough’s electorate was ‘decidedly liberal’, but the following year the Conservatives claimed a majority among the new voters.186Ibid.; Leeds Mercury, 18 Oct. 1856.

The Conservatives’ strengthened position through the addition of around 40 cow-house votes led Dent not to seek re-election in 1857.187Leeds Mercury, 24 Dec. 1894. Dent returned to Parliament later that year as MP for Scarborough. Efforts to persuade Westhead to offer again also floundered. Invited to stand for York, he agreed to remain at Knaresborough ‘if they can hold out a hope of his return’.188Bradford Observer, 19 Mar. 1857. Only 86 signatures were mustered for a requisition, although it was said that additional promises would bring his total to 130. A Liberal committee which scrutinised the voters’ lists considered him ‘in a very favourable position’, but Westhead was unconvinced, and opted for York.189York Herald, 21 Mar. 1857. Westhead topped the poll at York. A ‘combination of circumstances’ prevented George Watson Farsyde, of Bilton Hall, near Knaresborough, offering for the Liberals.190York Herald, 4 Apr. 1857. The anticipated walkover for Woodd and Collins was, however, thwarted by the arrival the day before the nomination of Robert Campbell, of Coombe Wood, Surrey.191Leeds Mercury, 28 Mar. 1857. Campbell had been on the Continent and so had only just heard of Westhead’s withdrawal. An Australian-born merchant who had made his fortune in the goldfields,192‘Campbell, Robert’, HP Commons, 1832-68 (forthcoming). Campbell was briefly MP for Helston in 1866. he declared his support for Palmerston’s foreign policy and his government generally, ‘so long as he is an advocate of progressive reform’, and endorsed extension of the franchise, the ballot and abolition of church rates.193Leeds Mercury, 28 Mar. 1857.

The election was a quiet affair, which was ascribed partly to the effects of the 1854 Corrupt Practices Prevention Act. Intimidation may also have been a factor, with reports that ‘only one or two shopkeepers had the courage to exhibit colours’.194Ibid. The candidates between them declared expenditure of less than £200, leading the Bradford Observer to remark that if this were true, Knaresborough had ‘done much to wipe out the reproach which has heretofore rested upon it, of being a very corrupt constituency’.195Bradford Observer, 17 Sept. 1857. Around 2,000 people – ‘very far short’ of the numbers in 1852 – attended the hustings, to which Collins and Woodd walked from the latter’s new residence at Conyngham Hall, reinforcing their local credentials.196Leeds Mercury, 28 Mar. 1857. Woodd had purchased Conyngham Hall in September 1856, having previously resided at Thorpe Green, near Boroughbridge: Ibid., 13 Aug. 1887.

Woodd observed that he had faithfully kept his pledges – clarifying ‘pledges they were not, but promises’ – and dismissed the idea of returning to protection as ‘insane’. He advocated retrenchment and a reduction in income tax. Defending his vote for Cobden’s censure motion on the Canton question, he asserted that ‘as to the insult to the flag, there were many ample remedies for that without shelling a city’. Although not a follower of Palmerston, he ‘would always support him in measures which he believed were right, – and he was very often right’. Collins likewise tried to cultivate cross-party support, with a similar platform of retrenchment and non-intervention in foreign affairs. He believed that his opinions were shared by ‘the moderate and best parties’ and hoped ‘to satisfy the whole of the Liberal section of the town’. He ‘would never place himself under the wing of any man, party, or section’ in the Commons, but professed a ‘strong affinity’ with the Peelites, although his claims that he ‘never was a Protectionist’ drew dissenting laughter from the crowd. Campbell, who was ‘vociferously cheered’, endorsed Palmerston’s Canton policy and reiterated his support for church rate abolition and electoral reform. He considered it ‘a monstrosity’ that only 250 of Knaresborough’s inhabitants were enfranchised, and condemned the ‘cow-house’ votes. Woodd received ‘a good show’ of hands, with about one quarter choosing Collins, and ‘a very large majority’ for Campbell.197Leeds Mercury, 28 Mar. 1857. This was not repeated in the poll, where Campbell trailed in third, having secured 57 plumpers. Woodd and Collins shared 129 split votes, but Woodd topped the poll, aided by ten plumpers (to Collins’s one) and 35 splits with Campbell (to Collins’s eight).198York Herald, 4 Apr. 1857.

Woodd and Collins sought re-election in 1859, when the state of the register again prompted qualms among potential Liberal candidates. Harry Stephen Thompson, of Kirby Hall, Bedale, the chairman of the North Eastern railway, initially declined to offer.199Leeds Mercury, 16 Apr. 1859. However, after a meeting of 70 or 80 Liberals pledged support and a scrutiny of the register suggested that his chances were good, he accepted.200Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 16 Apr. 1859. Thompson favoured enfranchising populous towns by taking one seat from small double-member boroughs, but considered franchise reform more problematic, as a £5 limit would not operate uniformly. He wished to enfranchise ‘persons who by their perseverance and industry had acquired a certain amount of money or property’, but strongly opposed the ballot. A ‘staunch Churchman’, he nonetheless endorsed abolition of church rates, and confessed that his former support for protectionism was ‘a great blunder’.201Leeds Mercury, 19 Apr. 1859. Rumours that Sir Isaac Morley, of Doncaster, would also come forward bore no fruit.202Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 16 Apr. 1859. Alfred Bate Richards, son of the former MP, John Richards, issued an address on ‘liberal, but independent’ lines,203Morning Chronicle, 20 Apr. 1859. but withdrew in Thompson’s favour.204Leeds Mercury, 23 Apr. 1859.

Unusually, the nomination was held at 2 p.m., to allow voters to hear speeches in the borough that morning from the Liberal candidates for the West Riding.205Leeds Mercury, 26 Apr. 1859. Woodd and Collins led in the following day’s poll from the start, although the latter’s majority over Thompson was only 13 votes.206Leeds Mercury, 7 May 1859. As in 1857, Woodd polled over 30 votes more than Collins. The latter’s failure to ‘command the wide respect’ accorded to Woodd has been ascribed to resentment of his family’s involvement with the cow-house vote.207Jennings, History of Harrogate and Knaresborough, 364. The fact that Woodd again secured more splits with the Liberal candidate – 35 to Collins’s 11 – suggests that he was also seen as more liberal than the formerly protectionist Collins.208Bean, Parliamentary representation, 899. The two Conservatives again shared 129 splits. Woodd secured 9 plumpers, Thompson 81 and Collins none. Thompson’s supporters blamed his defeat on ‘the fruits of intimidation... several of the local gentry had been tampering with their tenantry and tradesmen in the borough’.209Bradford Observer, 5 May 1859. For allegations of Conservative intimidation, see also York Herald, 30 Apr. 1859. Exasperation with the result meant that the victors found it impossible to get a hearing at the declaration, and made ‘a hasty retreat’, but were ‘caught by the mob and subjected to a course of very rude treatment’. Collins’s coat ‘was torn into shreds’, and the MPs ‘were trampled under foot’. Escaping into a shop, they ‘finally found their way home over the tops of high walls and houses’.210Bradford Observer, 5 May 1859. At a subsequent dinner to Thompson, there were repeated complaints about intimidation, but also admissions that the Liberals had neglected the register, allowing it to be swamped with ‘fictitious votes’ manufactured by the Conservatives. However, the Liberals had obtained ‘counsel’s opinion as to the illegality of many of the votes’.211Leeds Mercury, 21 May 1859.

At the 1865 election Woodd and Collins stood again, but as Thompson had been returned for a vacancy at Whitby, Knaresborough’s Liberals needed a fresh candidate. Having decided against contesting Pontefract,212Holden did not wish to endanger the re-election of Hugh Childers at Pontefract, and his keen advocacy of disestablishment did not find favour with Pontefract’s Liberals: Leeds Mercury, 7 June 1865; H.L. Malchow, Gentleman capitalists. The social and political world of the Victorian businessman (1992), 95. Isaac Holden, of Oakworth House, Keighley, offered on the recommendation of his friend John Crossley, of Halifax, brother of the West Riding MP.213Leeds Mercury, 7 June 1865. A highly successful Bradford wool-comber, Holden emphasised his humble origins, describing himself as ‘a plain hard-working man of business’, and telling a meeting of electors and non-electors in June that his father was ‘a Cumberland yeoman’. However, he also drew attention to the £500,000 he had recently spent on his French works. He endorsed Gladstone’s sentiments (made in a speech at Chester) that Liberals ‘trusted the people, but with prudence’, while Conservatives mistrusted them,214Ibid. and wished to extend the franchise to all classes. A Wesleyan Methodist, he backed the abolition of church rates.215York Herald, 10 June 1865. Endorsing him the following month, a non-electors’ meeting asserted that only by returning such men could the working classes ‘expect to be released from a state of political bondage’.216Bradford Observer, 13 July 1865. Holden later noted that on arriving in the town he was told that Knaresborough ‘was a corrupt borough, and that Liberalism was dead’, but found this a ‘scandalous misrepresentation’.217Leeds Mercury, 21 Aug. 1868.

Holden’s appearance prompted Woodd and Collins to address a Conservative meeting, the first public gathering of electors which Woodd had addressed for six years. He decried ‘the system which now so generally prevailed of annual meetings between electors and members’ because he went to Parliament ‘not as a delegate but as a representative, and not bound to answer at certain intervals as to the course he took’. He differed from many Conservatives in wishing to retain the malt tax as a valuable source of revenue. He endorsed a non-interventionist foreign policy, criticising Palmerston for having given the Danes the impression that Britain might intercede over Schleswig-Holstein. He opposed Baines’s £6 borough franchise bill and Locke King’s £10 county franchise bill, and confirmed his hostility to the ballot. On the thorny issue of church rates, he would relieve Dissenters from this burden. Collins took a similar line on fiscal and foreign affairs, observing on the Danish question that ‘people should never bark unless they intended to bite’. He pledged to uphold the connection between Church and state, and was ‘tooth and nail opposed’ to a £6 franchise.218Leeds Mercury, 24 June 1865.

At a well-attended but orderly nomination, the issue of parliamentary reform was to the fore, with the candidates restating their positions. Woodd and Collins feared that reform might ‘degrade’ or ‘Americanise’ the British constitution. Collins refuted allegations that he opposed Holden because he was a Methodist and that he had influenced the votes of his father’s tenants. Holden’s reception confirmed him as ‘the popular candidate’. Arguing for the ballot, he condemned the use of intimidation in Knaresborough’s elections, stating forthrightly that a man who dictated how his tenants should vote ‘ought to be tied to a cart and publicly whipped’. He won an overwhelmingly majority in the show of hands, where Woodd outperformed Collins.219Leeds Mercury, 14 July 1865. Woodd headed the poll, again benefitting from more cross-party splits than Collins, who was ousted by Holden by just four votes.220There were 38 splits between Holden and Woodd, but only 5 between Holden and Collins. Holden secured 84 plumpers, and Collins and Wood received two each, and shared 116 split votes: Bean, Parliamentary representation, 899. The presence of a ‘large force of policemen’ at the declaration, attended by around 3,000 people, prevented trouble.221Leeds Mercury, 15 July 1865.

Knaresborough’s small electorate made it an obvious target for redistribution, and the reform bills proposed in the 1850s and 1860s had variously sought to disfranchise it entirely, remove one seat, enlarge it to include Harrogate, or group it with Ripon and Thirsk.222The Examiner, 14 Feb. 1852; Morning Post, 14 Feb. 1854; Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, 22 Jan. 1859; Daily News, 1 Mar. 1859; Leeds Mercury, 6 Mar. 1860, 8 May 1866. In the event its boundaries were unchanged by the Second Reform Act, disappointing Harrogate’s residents who had petitioned for inclusion, but it lost one member.223Leeds Mercury, 25 May 1867. Woodd did not move his proposed clause regarding Knaresborough’s enlargement when the second reform bill was debated in 1867: York Herald, 13 July 1867. The electorate rose from 284 to 766 voters, but it remained a marginal constituency.224Yorkshire Herald, 30 Jan. 1892. Woodd retired in 1868 and Holden sought election elsewhere, leaving the seat for his son-in-law, Alfred Illingworth, who defeated Andrew Sherlock Lawson, son of the former MP. The Conservatives regained the seat in 1874 when Woodd stood again, only to lose it in 1880 to Henry Meysey-Thompson, son of the former Liberal candidate. He was unseated on petition, whereupon Collins won the seat, which the Conservatives retained after his death in 1884. Knaresborough was absorbed into the Ripon division in 1885, which was largely held by the Conservatives thereafter.