Derby

Economic and social profile:

Situated on the west bank of the river Derwent, Derby was an established market and county town that expanded as a result of the development of new industries such as railways and brewing. The town was already an established centre for the manufacturing of silk and lace, the latter of which employed approximately 700 people in 1846.1S. Bagshaw, History, gazetteer and directory of Derbyshire, with the town of Burton-upon-Trent (1846), 90-94. S. Glover, The history and directory of the borough of Derby, a guide (1843), 73-79. Textile manufacture remained important, but Derby had a diverse economy that also included iron and lead works and porcelain and china manufacture.2Bagshaw, History. 97-98; Glover, History, 79-81. Its market continued to play a significant part in the town’s life.3Glover, History, 9-11. Derby’s location and proximity to other towns meant it became a major transport hub. Links to nearby Nottingham and Leicester were opened in 1839 and 1840. Routes to Birmingham and Leeds soon followed and as early as 1843, 300 people were employed at Derby Station.4Bagshaw, History, 22-25; Glover, History, 87.

Electoral history:

Before 1832 the representation of Derby had been divided between the duke of Devonshire’s interest and the Whig-Liberal corporation. Control was maintained by creating non-resident honorary freemen, who were often tenants of the Whig duke. As a result there had only been two contests between 1780 and 1832.5HP Commons, 1754-1790, i. 248-9; HP Commons, 1790-1820, i. 360. After 1832 the town’s representation continued to be dominated by the Whigs, or Liberals as they were increasingly being called, and the Conservatives only returned MPs twice, in 1852 and 1865, although the former was unseated on petition and the latter benefited from a third Liberal entering the contest. The Liberals also controlled municipal politics, winning thirty-one seats out of thirty-six in the first elections in 1835, an ascendancy they retained at subsequent elections.6Derby Mercury, 6 Jan. 1836; for other municipal elections see Morning Chro., 4 Nov. 1837; Morning Chro., 10 Nov. 1838; Morning Chro., 3 Nov. 1841; Morning Chro., 4 Nov. 1843; Morning Chro., 3 Nov. 1845. However, the politics of Derby were more competitive and contentious than this summary suggests and it would be wrong to stress continuity without also acknowledging the considerable changes that occurred after 1832.

Although the constituency’s boundaries were unaffected by the Reform Act, the franchise changed, with £10 householders joining those freemen who were not disenfranchised. This opened up politics in the town and every election in the period was contested. Freemen remained a significant and stable component of an expanding electorate, with 372 in 1832 and 359 thirty years later, but they also gave Derby a reputation for corruption.7PP 1866, (259), lvii. 580. The chairman of the select committee investigating the 1847 contest noted that although only nine cases of corruption were proven, there was ‘reason to believe that nearly 400 of the 500 freemen had been bribed’.8Hansard, 17 Apr. 1848, vol. 98, c.405.

The first election of the post-reform era saw the Conservative Sir Charles Colvile of Duffield Hall challenge the two sitting Reformers, Edward Strutt and Henry Frederick Compton Cavendish, who represented the corporation and Devonshire interest respectively. Colvile was an effective and popular campaigner, who upstaged Strutt and Cavendish’s attendance of a celebratory reform dinner with his own public entry to Derby, which was witnessed by at least 5,000 people, many of whom displayed his crimson colours.9Derby Mercury, 15 Aug. 1832. In a move calculated to upset Strutt, whose family were cotton manufacturers, Colvile expressed himself in favour of Michael Sadler’s factory bill.10Ibid.; C. Hogarth, ‘The Derbyshire Parliamentary Elections of 1832’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1969), lxxxix. 68-85 (at 83-84). Strutt, however, was a strong candidate, unlike Cavendish, who had to be defended from accusations that he was a placeman and pensioner.11Derby Mercury, 19 Dec. 1832. Strutt emphasised his record as a consistent Reformer and declared his support for the ballot, a low fixed duty on corn and further retrenchment. Colvile claimed that the independent party in Derby had been held back by ‘improper influence’ and he urged voters to reject the Devonshire interest. Colvile achieved a ‘very considerable’ tally in the show of hands, ahead of Strutt and Cavendish, but ultimately lost the poll.12Ibid., 12 Dec. 1832.

Of the 1,136 who polled, 698 shared their votes between the Whigs, who together received only eight plumpers. Colvile received 234 plumpers, 181 split votes with Strutt and 15 split with Cavendish.13A correct list of the electors and how they polled at the contested election for the borough of Derby, 11 and 12 December, 1832 (1832), 34. The Conservatives concluded that their best chance was to put up a single candidate and target the second, weaker Liberal candidate. However, plump votes were never enough to win a seat on their own. A second problem was the freemen, who divided strongly in favour of the Whig-Liberal alliance, especially in the early part of the period, much more so than householders. For example, in 1832, Colvile garnered 54 freemen votes compared to Cavendish’s 250 and Strutt’s 271.14A correct list for Derby, 1832, 34.

In 1835, Derby’s reformers sought a new partner for Strutt as Cavendish was thought to have neglected his duties as an MP.15C. Hogarth, ‘The 1835 Elections in Derbyshire’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1974), xciv. 45-59 (at 52-53). John George Brabazon Ponsonby, the son of Viscount Duncannon, was invited to stand, but due to his temporary insanity, Ponsonby had to be kept under observation and was absent from the election proceedings. Electors were informed that he was ill and John Cam Hobhouse spoke for him at the nomination.16Hogarth, ‘1835 Elections’, 53-54. Opposing Strutt and Ponsonby was Francis James Curzon, the son of Lord Scarsdale of Kedleston Hall, whose family had shared the county representation with the Devonshires for much of the eighteenth century.17Hogarth, ‘Derbyshire Elections of 1832’, 68-70; Hogarth, ‘1835 Elections’, 54; HoP Commons, 1715-1754, i. 223. Curzon associated himself with Peel, whilst partly reprising Colvile’s independent stance of 1832. Strutt defended the Whig government’s record and highlighted its achievements, saying that he had only voted against them, when they were not reforming quickly or extensively enough.18Derby Mercury, 7 Jan. 1835. Curzon matched or bettered Ponsonby amongst the householders in most of the parishes, but was defeated by the substantial leads the Reformers secured amongst the freemen and in St Alkmund’s. Curzon also relied heavily on plumpers, who accounted for 60% of his votes.19The poll book taken on the 7th and 8th Day of Jan. 1835, at the Election for the Representatives for the Borough of Derby (1835), 36.

At the 1837 election, Curzon stood again and was joined by Charles Robert Colvile, the son of the 1832 contestant. This was one of only two occasions in this period when Conservatives contested both seats. The hostility of the Tories to the New Poor Law, which Colvile described as ‘tyrannical, oppressive, and unfeeling’ caused the Liberals to complain that their opponents were attempting to set rich and poor against each other.20Derby Mercury, 26 July 1837; C. Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1837-47’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1976), xcv. 48-58 (at 50). Strutt and Ponsonby, who favoured the ballot and reform of the Corn Laws, were elected; having a second candidate had done little to improve Conservative prospects.

Four years later, and with no local candidates coming forward, the Conservatives asked Edward Sacheverell Chandos-Pole, of Radbourne Hall, to stand, ten hours before the nomination, which began at 10 o’clock. Chandos-Pole arrived by train at half past three.21Derby Mercury, 14 July 1841. By that time, Conservative prospects had been further damaged by a reactionary speech by the candidate’s brother, who expressed nostalgia for the distant days when Tories and Whigs had carved up the representation of the borough between them.22Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1837-47’, 54. Although Strutt and Ponsonby were returned comfortably, the traditional Whig-Liberal monopoly of Derby’s representation was being slowly undermined by two factors: the steady development of Derby Conservatism and the growing assertiveness of local Liberals, which forced the Members to be more accountable and responsive. The single votes cast for the Conservatives were not enough to win a seat, but they did indicate a strong partisan preference among a large minority of the electorate, so that even a weak candidate with a non-existent campaign like Chandos-Pole secured nearly 600 votes. Conservatives also drew on elements of an independent tradition which had been denied expression against the Devonshire interest and the Corporation before 1832, and gained confidence from their capture of South Derbyshire in 1835. Party organisation was built up, with the Cox family and Josiah Lewis, a local silk manufacturer, playing prominent and enduring roles. The late 1830s saw the establishment of a Derby Operative Conservative Association and the Derby and Derbyshire Protestant Association. Press support came from the Derby Mercury (established in 1723) and Derbyshire Courier (1829).23The DOCA celebrated its tenth anniversary in 1847, although few operatives seem to have attended the dinner; the DDPA was established c.1839: Derby Mercury, 27 Oct. 1847, 30 June 1841.

The next opportunity for a challenge occurred in 1846, when Strutt was appointed to be the Chief Commissioner of Railways, leading him to take the Chiltern Hundreds and seek re-election. This was not a legal requirement and appears to have been a conscientious decision by Strutt, who was increasingly mindful of the disgruntlement of his erstwhile supporters.24Morning Chro., 31 Aug. 1846. The Conservatives attempted to stoke sectarian feeling by making much of the Maynooth grant, which Strutt and Ponsonby had supported, to the annoyance of local Dissenters. And even though Strutt easily beat his Tory opponent, both he and Ponsonby had to justify their parliamentary conduct to a meeting of Derby Liberals, which included Dissenting Ministers.25Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1837-47’, 55-56.

Ponsonby’s succession to the peerage triggered a second by-election nine months. His Liberal replacement was Edward Frederick Leveson-Gower, Devonshire’s nephew. The Duke was reluctant to continue his connection with the constituency and only seems to have maintained it in this instance because of his relationship to the candidate.26E. Leveson-Gower, Bygone Years (1905), 237. The election was notable for revealing the extent of the fractiousness of Derby Liberalism, a recurring theme over the next twenty years, and for having a Chartist candidate. Disgruntled Radicals demanded that Leveson-Gower pledge himself to a set of measures, as Ponsonby had done in 1837, but this aroused the displeasure of moderates who unsuccessfully attempted to bring in their own candidate, whilst Dissenters failed to secure an outsider more amenable to their views.27Derby Mercury, 26 May 1847, 9 June 1847. With no Conservative opposing Leveson-Gower, it was left to the Chartist Philip M’Grath to provide an opposition. At the nomination, M’Grath was received with ‘deafening cheers’ and clearly won the show of hands.28Ibid., 23 June 1847. However, the mayor the stated that many of those who raised their hands were not voters, and then concluded that as he had not yet received a deposit from the Chartist, Leveson-Gower was the victor.29Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1837-47’, 56-57; Derby Mercury, 23 June 1847. Though this was not illegal, as Leveson-Gower thought, it was certainly sharp practice.30Leveson-Gower, Bygone Years, 238.

One month later Derby faced the 1847 general election. Henry Raikes, of Chester, came forward as Conservative and his canvass met with ‘marked success.’31Derby Mercury, 28 July 1847. Leveson-Gower, who was accused of professing ‘rabid’ opinions to curry favour with Radicals, and of having done nothing of distinction in Parliament since his election, stood again with M’Grath. The Conservatives reprised the political Protestantism of Mackworth’s candidacy of 1846, while M’Grath appealed to the Dissenters, was nominated by a Baptist Minister, and spoke about the relationship between Church and State. Strutt was firmly on the defensive, having to justify his record on past measures and votes. The contest was hard-fought with Strutt, Leveson-Gower and Raikes receiving similar tallies in four of the five parishes. Strutt topped the poll with 881 votes, Leveson-Gower was returned with 852, thirty-two votes ahead of Raikes, with M’Grath achieving a respectable 216. Leveson-Gower’s return was a surprise, not only because he had trailed Raikes for most of the day, but because the Conservative Committee, as well as his own, had estimated his total as ‘considerably less’.32Ibid., 4 Aug. 1847. The freemen had made the difference, with both Liberals receiving 229 votes each compared to Raikes’s 158.33Poll book for the Borough of Derby … July 31, 1847 (1847), 42. The Liberals again relied mostly on shared votes, but although three-quarters of Raikes’s votes were plumpers, he shared 157 votes with M’Grath, in what appears to have been a Tory-Chartist flirtation.34Ibid.

The 1847 election was the last time that Strutt and a relative of the Duke were returned. The long period of stability, guaranteed by Liberal candidates who were attached to the Corporation and the Devonshire interest, had ended. But although subsequent elections were marked by Liberal discord, the Conservatives found it difficult to capitalise on their opponents divisions and were not helped by the late entry of some of their candidates, who often lacked strong local connections.

Strutt and Leveson-Gower had little time to enjoy their triumph. On 6 Dec. 1847 Josiah Lewis and William Thomas Cox presented a petition against their return to Parliament. A committee was appointed, 17 Mar. 1848, and on 22 Mar. the election was declared void on account of bribery by the Members’ agents of which it was said they had no knowledge. The judgement also drew attention to the long-established practice in Derby of appointing freemen to serve on committees who were then remunerated for ‘pretended services’.35Derby Mercury, 8 Dec. 1847; PP 1847-48 (212), xi. 609, 613, 730-31. Parliament pondered what to do next. Some MPs thought Derby should be disenfranchised or its freemen stripped of their right to vote, but they opted for the milder punishment of delaying the issue of the new writ until August 1848.36Hansard, 17 Apr. 1848, vol.98, c.413; 1 June 1848, vol. 99, c.177; 23 June 1848, vol. 99, col.1088; 17 Aug. 1848, vol.101, c.198.

September 1848 saw the fourth election in two years, at which voters had the novelty of four new candidates and, for only the second time since 1832, two Conservatives, although one was labelled as a Protectionist.37Morning Chro., 28, 30 Aug. 1848. Opposing them were Michael Thomas Bass, the head of a major local brewery, and Laurence Heyworth, a Liverpool Radical and merchant with no connection with the constituency. The show of hands was 100 to 1 in favour of Bass and Heyworth, who easily won the poll.38Daily News, 2 Sept. 1848.

In 1852, Heyworth and Bass faced Thomas Horsfall, a Liverpool merchant, formerly chairman of the city’s Chamber of Commerce, who had some family links to Derby. In selecting Horsfall, a moderate in favour of free trade, the Conservatives were attempting to reach some of the voters to whom Strutt had appealed.39Derby Mercury, 23 June 1852; C. Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1852-65’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1981), ci. 151-72 (at 151-52). The tactic appeared to pay off as Horsfall finished seven votes ahead of Heyworth. This rare defeat provoked recriminations; Liberals alleged bribery and presented a petition to the Commons on 12 Nov.40Hansard, 12 Nov. 1852, vol. 123, c.128; CJ cviii. 60-61. A committee was appointed to investigate the alleged involvement of a junior minister, Major William Beresford, in a ‘plan for an organised system of bribery’ in the constituency.41Hansard, 16 Dec. 1852, vol.123, c.1569; PP 1852-53 (78), xii. 167; PP 1852-53 (219), xii. 14. A second committee, appointed 3 Mar., ruled on 9 Mar. 1853 that Horsfall should be unseated and Heyworth returned in his place, with a counter-petition against Bass rejected.42Hansard, 9 Mar. 1853, vol. 124, cc.1348-49; Hogarth, ‘Derby and Derbyshire Elections, 1852-65’, 153-55; CJ cviii. 304, 322.

The last three elections in this period were characterized by Liberal factionalism, with the Tories underplaying party labels in an attempt to appeal to moderate Liberals who were unhappy with advanced candidates. As Josiah Lewis put it in 1857 ‘The only difference between Conservatives and so-called Liberals is one of degree and time. Every man knows that a country like this cannot stand still.’ 43Derby Mercury, 1 Apr. 1857. Although the 1857 election finished in an easy victory for Bass and a second Liberal Samuel Beale over their Conservative opponent, the campaign displayed the extreme fractiousness of local Liberalism. Uncertainty surrounding Heyworth’s intentions had prompted the entry of no less than three contenders to partner Bass: John Moss, a prominent, long-serving local Liberal, Beale, the vice president of the Midland Railway, and W. Melbourne James, a London barrister. Local supporters then induced Heyworth to return to Derby and stand again, prompting the withdrawal of Moss. At the nomination, Beale and James had fought it out to be the second Liberal Member, with Heyworth strangely absent. After the show of hands James was persuaded to withdraw by an independent arbitrator.44Ibid.

At the 1859 election, James was determined to stand again, as he felt he had been duped into withdrawing. Reworking the traditional complaint about the Devonshire interest against Beale, he complained that it was ‘unjust that such vast influence as was necessarily attached to such a corporation as Midland Railway should be brought to bear on an independent constituency’.45Ibid. Such a claim was probably unjustified, as although the company had a Liberal outlook it scrupulously avoided interfering in local politics. (It should be noted, however, Midland Railway employees became a more important part of the electorate after the extension of the franchise in 1867, and showed a strong inclination to vote Liberal in 1868.46George Revill, ‘Liberalism and paternalism: politics and corporate culture in “Railway Derby”, 1865-75’, Social History, 24:2 (May, 1999), 196-214 (at 197, 200-201, 203-05).) Beale, who had to strike a difficult balance between getting across the commercial achievements and local importance of the company, whilst making it very clear that he did not influence, or seek to influence, his employees’ electoral choices, was a genuinely popular candidate and he won the show of hands.47Derby Mercury, 4 May 1859. He also benefited from James’s clumsy campaign. On his canvass James had presented himself as a moderate Reformer and garnered pledges from many Conservatives, who were then dismayed when he came out publicly for the ballot and other reforms. As one Conservative fumed, this ‘political trickery and dishonesty’ led many to plump for Raikes, a claim supported by the relevant poll book.48Ibid., 27 Apr. 1859; Poll book for the Borough of Derby (1859), p.4. If James hoped to attract Conservative voters, his speech went to impressive lengths to offend them, personally attacking Lewis and Raikes and stridently criticising Lord Derby’s government. James was further harmed by the unfortunate reputation he had gained as a young lawyer on the make.49Derby Mercury, 27 Apr. 1859.

Liberal disunity continued at the 1865 election, allowing the Conservatives to win a seat. The disruptive element was Samuel Plimsoll, an outsider to Derby with Radical views who was invited to stand by the advanced section of the Liberal party. Given the importance of Bass’s brewery, many locals took a dim view of Plimsoll’s teetotalism. The satirical Derby Ram jested:

Plimsoll comes forth for election;

For teetotallers he has affection.

With teapot and spout

He may blow himself out,

But such things will not win an election.50Derby Ram, 6 July 1865.

Unusually for the period after 1848, the Conservatives had a strong, well-established candidate in William Thomas Cox, a merchant, banker and ‘a popular townsman’ as one Liberal conceded after the election.51Derby and Chesterfield Reporter, 28 July 1865. Cox topped the poll, finishing thirty votes ahead of Bass, both men comfortably ahead of Plimsoll and Beale. Of the 2,127 voters who polled, 457 (21.5%) cast single votes for Cox, 378 split their votes between Cox and the moderate Bass, and a further 222 (10.4%) for Cox and Plimsoll. Like previous Conservative candidates, the core of Cox’s support came from single votes, but his victory owed more to distinctive voting patterns which suggest that he was able to attract the votes of moderate Liberals, but also those voters, possibly including Radicals, who were dissatisfied with the incumbents and the beer and railway interests they represented.52Poll book for the Borough of Derby, 1865 (1865), 27. Cox’s election, then, was the result of a highly specific set of circumstances that were unlikely to be repeated.

Derby reverted to being a Liberal stronghold after 1867. Splits were healed in 1868, with the expanded electorate yielding a comfortable margin for Bass and Plimsoll, who represented Derby until 1880. The Liberals retained control until 1895, when the Conservatives captured both seats. From 1900 the representation was shared between the Liberal and Labour parties.