Economic and social profile:
South Staffordshire was famous for ‘its numerous and valuable mines of coal and ironstone, and for the extent and variety of its manufactures in iron, steel and other metal’. However, it was also renowned for the ‘fertility and diversity of its soil, and the number and elegance of the seats of its nobility and gentry’.W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire (1834), 13. As an industrial region, Black Country mines profited from ‘an almost inexhaustible store of coal’ which had in turn encouraged the establishment of iron works in Wolverhampton and Bilston.Ibid., 51. The production of finished metal goods was a major part of the local economy, especially in Wolverhampton, the division’s most populous town, and satellites such as Walsall, which specialised in saddlers’ ironmongery.Ibid., 164-6, 415-16. Local landed magnates were also enriched by the increasing value of urban land and the revenue from mineral rights. Allied to this, there had been considerable agricultural improvement in the early nineteenth century, using irrigation techniques and encouraged by the establishment of many societies to spread innovations.Ibid., 43. Staffordshire was noted for its pastoral farming, with the ‘most profitable livestock’ being horned cattle, sheep, horses and pigs.Ibid., 46. In 1834 it was noted that landed estates ‘are in great variety as to extent and value’, comprising great aristocrats, wealthy gentlemen as well as many smaller proprietors.Ibid., 44. A ‘large portion of the county’ was held on leasehold and copyhold tenures, with leases often much shorter than 21 years.Ibid.
The economic importance of the region was reflected in its impressive transport links. Waterways included the Birmingham, Wyrley and Essington, Stafford and Birmingham, and Birmingham and Liverpool canals, and the Grand Junction, South Staffordshire, Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Dudley railway lines were all in place by the late 1840s.H. Glynn, Reference book to the incorporated railway companies of England and Wales (1847), 6, 133; Parliamentary gazetteer for England and Wales (1844), iv. 591. The division was served by the leading county newspaper, the Staffordshire Advertiser, which was established in 1795 and published in Stafford. Mildly Liberal, the paper had a weekly circulation of 6,400 in 1850, and 10,000 by 1859. A Conservative rival, the Staffordshire Gazette, was in existence from January 1839 to March 1842.VCH Staffs., vi. 258-9.
Electoral history:
The southern division of Staffordshire, a county long regarded as Whig territory, was a significant electoral battleground in the reformed period. The Conservatives’ triumph at the 1835 by-election, resulting from their prowess in the registration courts, indicated the party’s growing strength in the English counties. In contrast with many other counties, however, the Liberals, led by a group of Whig magnates, successfully resisted the Conservative onslaught. The expensive and fiercely fought 1837 election was inconclusive, producing a split return. The consequence was the controversial election compromise of 1841, when leading landowners arranged that a Whig and a Conservative would be returned unopposed. Thereafter a variety of factors, including the Conservative split over the corn laws and demographic change, gradually tilted the representation towards the Liberals. However, they did not have an overwhelming majority on the register until 1854. That year, the Liberals convincingly won the second seat at a by-election, a result that settled the representation of the constituency for the remainder of the period. By this point, however, it was becoming apparent that the younger generation of Whig aristocrats were unable or unwilling to perform the same political role as their forefathers. This allowed the increasingly assertive Liberal ironmasters to secure a share of the representation in 1857. Thereafter the constituency was represented by one country gentlemen and one representative of the mining and manufacturing interest.
In the unreformed period, the representation of Staffordshire had long been shared between the Trentham interest of the Leveson-Gowers, marquesses of Stafford and later dukes of Sutherland, and the gentry.HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 357-8. However, the increasingly powerful independent freeholders, in alliance with Whig nobles, were able to oust the Trentham nominee in 1820 and return two Reformers at the 1831 general election.HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 5-10. The boundary changes that accompanied the 1832 Reform Act split the county into northern and southern divisions. South Staffordshire contained the Black Country industrial region, but also many great aristocratic estates. Unlike the northern division, which became a Conservative stronghold after the mid-1830s, the southern division was finely balanced between the competing parties.
The constituency’s great Conservative landowners included Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 2nd Earl Talbot, of Ingestre Hall; William Legge, 4th earl of Dartmouth, of Sandwell and Patshull Halls; Dudley Ryder, 1st earl of Harrowby, of Sandon Hall; and William Ward, 11th Lord Ward, of Witley Court, Worcestershire. These peers were matched in acreage and influence by Whig magnates such as Thomas William Anson, 1st earl of Lichfield, of Shugborough; Henry William Paget, 1st marquess of Anglesey, of Beaudesert; Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Earl Granville, of Stone Park; and George Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd duke of Sutherland, of Trentham Hall. After his elevation to the peerage in 1835 as 1st Baron Hatherton, of Teddesley Park, Edward John Littleton, MP for Staffordshire 1812-32, South Staffordshire, 1832-35, was instrumental in cajoling, organising and extracting subscriptions from a sometimes quarrelsome group of Whig peers.For example, the duke of Sutherland never forgave Lord Lichfield for his role in ousting him from the representation of Staffordshire in 1820, when he sat as Earl Gower on his father’s Trentham interest: Lord Hatherton to Joseph Parkes, 30 Dec. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffordshire Record Office, D260/M/7/5/27/18. The industrial nature of the constituency made some Conservatives pessimistic about their prospects. In 1834 John Chetwynd-Talbot, the barrister son of Lord Talbot, wrote that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think that ‘corn could struggle successfully with iron & brass’ in the division.John Chetwynd-Talbot to Ralph Sneyd, 20 Dec. 1834, Sneyd papers, Keele University Library, SC 13/61. However, there was plenty of evidence of Conservative support in industrial areas, and as late as 1848 the Liberal election agent Joseph Parkes complained that ‘our Iron masters are Tory-ish to say the least’.Joseph Parkes to Lord Hatherton, 1 Dec. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18.
The two Whig sitting members for Staffordshire, Littleton and Sir John Wrottesley, of Wrottesley Hall, were returned unopposed for South Staffordshire at the 1832 general election. At the nomination, Littleton advocated further reforms, particularly of the established church and Bank and East India Company charters, while also declaring that he was ‘friendly to a revision’ of the corn laws. Wrottesley supported a low fixed duty on corn, the commutation of tithes, and free competition in banking.Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 Dec. 1832. Despite rumours of an Ultra Tory-Radical alliance against Littleton, he was re-elected after his appointment as Irish chief secretary in June 1833.Letters from ‘A Conservative Elector’ and ‘A Freeholder’, The Standard, 22, 28 May 1833; Morning Chronicle, 3 June 1833. The Conservatives launched an abortive opposition, putting up Henry John Chetwynd-Talbot, viscount Ingestre, Earl Talbot’s heir, at late notice.Dyott’s diary: a selection from the journals of Gen. William Dyott, 1781-1845, ed. R.W. Jeffrey, 2 vols. (1907), ii. 160 (1 June 1833); The Standard, 30 May 1833. Ingestre withdrew, but this did not prevent a brief poll in which Littleton was victorious.
The result of the by-election and the composition of the electoral register understated Conservative strength.Morning Post, 5 June 1833. The constituency’s electorate of 3,107 was significantly lower than the 8,756 registered to vote in the northern division.H. Stooks Smith, The register of parliamentary elections (1842), 145; PP 1833 (189), xxviii. 92. The Conservatives now began to pay much more attention to registration, and as a result the electorate expanded by 28.4% between 1833 and 1835.P. Salmon, Electoral reform at work: local parties and national politics, 1832-1841 (2002), 78. However, the anticipated ‘strenuous opposition’ to Littleton did not materialise at the 1835 general election, in part due to the esteem in which he was held as a diligent representative.The Times, 12 Dec. 1834; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 11 Dec. 1834. Sir Francis Lyttleton Holyoake Goodricke, of Studley Castle, Warwickshire, opted to stand for Stafford rather than challenge Littleton.Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 Nov. 1834. Accordingly, Littleton and Wrottesley were returned unopposed at the nomination, with both reaffirming support for the conduct of the late Whig ministry and reform principles.Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 Jan. 1835.
In March 1835 the Staffordshire Conservative Club was founded to attend to the register and establish district committees.G.B. Kent, ‘The beginnings of party political organisation in Staffordshire, 1832-41’, North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 1 (1961), 86-100 (at 91); Dyott’s diary, ii. 193, 196-7 (20 Mar., 8 Apr. 1835); John Chetwynd-Talbot to Ralph Sneyd, 18 Mar. 1835, Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 13/62. When Littleton was ennobled as 1st Baron Hatherton in May 1835, Conservatives were determined to contest the vacancy.Earl Talbot to Ralph Sneyd, [n.d. 1835], Sneyd papers, Keele Univ. Library, SC 13/49. After failing to secure Edmund Peel, brother of Sir Robert and former MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, the Conservatives brought forward Goodricke, who resigned as MP for Stafford in order to stand.Dyott’s diary, ii. 198-200 (3, 5, 6, 8 May 1835). The Whig candidate was Colonel George Anson, brother of the earl of Lichfield, and late MP for Great Yarmouth. Although he was a Warwickshire landowner and a poor speaker, Goodricke benefited from strong organisation, one partisan noting that ‘we have a chain of powerful Conservative interests in the towns of Dudley, Wolverhampton, Wednesbury, Lichfield and Tamworth’.The Standard, qu. in Morning Post, 12 May 1835. On the hustings, Anson pointed to the broken promises of many Conservative MPs regarding the malt tax, while Goodricke promised to rescue the ‘county from Whig domination’ and support the institutions of church and state.Morning Chronicle, 25 May 1835; Derby Mercury, 27 May 1835.
The nomination and polling were marked by disturbances. Despite his brother ‘moving heaven and earth’ to secure his return, Anson was beaten by over 200 votes.Morning Post, 23 May 1835. News of his defeat sparked a riot in Wolverhampton that led to the dragoons being called in, shooting into and drawing their swords on the crowd, and the Riot Act being read twice.For a detailed analysis of the riots and their aftermath see D.J. Cox, ‘ “The wolves let loose at Wolverhampton”: a study of the Staffordshire election riots, May 1835’, Law, Crime and History, 2 (2011), 1-31. The wider significance of the result was not lost on the national newspapers, the Morning Post hailing a ‘glorious Conservative triumph’, especially in what had ‘always hitherto been looked upon as a strong Whig county’.Morning Post, 29, 30 May 1835. In defeat, Anson declared that the registration had been decisive: ‘If the freeholders had been properly registered I would now be MP’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 23 May 1835. His election expenses were partly defrayed by Hatherton, who contributed £2,000.Hatherton Journal, 7 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1.
Wrottesley questioned the involvement of the dragoons in the House, and forced the government to establish an inquiry, 1 June 1835.Hansard, 1 June 1835, vol. 28, cc. 226-41; PP 1835 (343), xlvi. 245. The home secretary Lord John Russell declared himself satisfied with the findings of the inquiry, condoning the military, who he argued, had acted with forbearance, 1 July 1835, a verdict Wolverhampton’s radical MPs vigorously disputed.Hansard, 1 July 1835, vol. 29, cc. 132-5. Ten men were charged with rioting, but only two were committed for trial, one of whom was gaoled for seven days. The others were also released after assurances were given for their future good conduct.Cox, ‘ “Wolves let loose”’, 23.
The 1835 by-election result prompted a registration battle that resulted in a striking expansion of the electorate from 4,122 in 1835 to 7,543 by 1837.Stooks Smith, The register of parliamentary election, 146; Salmon, Electoral reform at work, 84-5; PP 1837-38 (329), xliv. 564. By 1836 the Conservative solicitor John Smith thought there was a majority of 800-1,100 for his party on the register.John Smith to Lord Sandon, 11 Mar. 1836, Harrowby MSS, Sandon Hall, qu. by Kent, ‘Party organisation’, 90. Combined with their extensive network of district committees, the Conservatives were confident prior to the 1837 general election. Goodricke retired as local partisans thought him ‘a most inefficient member’.Smith to Sandon, 14 Apr. 1837, Harrowby MSS, Sandon Hall, qu. by ibid., 91. His replacement was Ingestre, but the Conservatives had also raised a subscription of £4,000 to field a second candidate.Hatherton Journal, 1 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. Anson, who had been returned for Stoke-on-Trent in 1836, also announced his candidature.Staffordshire Advertiser, 1 July 1837. However, the Conservatives initially proposed to Wrottesley that he and Ingestre be returned unopposed in a compromise.Hatherton Journal, 6, 8 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. By making this offer, the Conservatives hoped to keep their powder dry for a future vacancy if Wrottesley was elevated to the peerage as was widely expected.Hatherton Journal, 9 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. In the event, Wrottesley announced his retirement, citing his poor health, leaving Anson as the only Whig contender.Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 July 1837. As the Conservatives’ preferred second candidate, William Henry Chetwynd, son of Sir George Chetwynd, of Grendon Hall, Warwickshire, declined to stand, it appeared that Anson and Ingestre would be returned unopposed.Hatherton Journal, 9, 10 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1; Staffordshire Advertiser, 15, 22 July 1837.
However, at late notice the Conservatives brought forward Richard Dyott, of Freeford, to stand alongside Ingestre.Dyott’s diary, ii. 257-60 (16, 22-25, 28 July1837); Hatherton Journal, 24 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. This led the Whigs to desperately search for a second candidate, which was considered essential to secure Anson’s return against two opponents. Hatherton’s heir Edward Richard Littleton declined, and eventually, and to general astonishment, Wrottesley came forward again at the nomination.Hatheron Journal, 24, 27-28 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1; Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 Aug. 1837; Dyott’s diary, ii. 260 (29 July 1837). This prompted John Chetwynd-Talbot, deputising for his absent brother Lord Ingestre, to sneer that Wrottesley’s health must have improved greatly for him to offer once more.Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 Aug. 1837. In fact the baronet only stood after being browbeaten by Lord Lichfield, who threatened to use his position in the Whig government to lobby Lord Melbourne against ennobling Wrottesley.Hatherton Journal, 27-28 July 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. Although Wrottesley admitted that ‘he desired the retirement of private life’, he contrasted his long experience with that of the two Conservatives. Anson declared himself to be confident of victory due to the state of the registration and blamed his opponents for disturbing the peace of the county. Chetwynd-Talbot and Dyott emphasised their support for church and state, and the latter accused Anson of insulting local farmers.Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 Aug. 1837.
The Whigs won the show of hands but the result of the poll was uncertain for a long time. Less than 200 votes separated the four candidates. Anson topped the poll, fifty votes ahead of Ingestre, who was elected in second place, with Dyott and Wrottesley in third and fourth place respectively.Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 Aug. 1837. Although the Conservatives publicly hailed the result as a triumph, their opponents had greater cause for satisfaction. Not only had Anson topped the poll, but, as Hatherton observed, ‘it is quite clear that had Wrottesley stirred from home, he might have come in on a canter’.Hatherton Journal, 2 Aug. 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. The election had also chastened the Conservatives, as Hatherton smugly wrote:
The licking has certainly done them good – made them civil, unpresuming – even apologetic – very different to what they were when they were victorious 2 years ago with a registration of only just one half its due amount.Hatherton Journal, 3 Aug. 1837, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D1178/1.
The result was a poor return on the sums the Conservatives had spent on electioneering and party organisation. The Staffordshire Conservative Association already had debts of £1,000 before the election.Kent, ‘Party organisation’, 91. The contest cost the party £7,000, of which £6,400 was covered by subscriptions. Ingestre angered the Dyott family by declining to pay the remainder as the victorious candidate.Dyott’s diary, ii. 276 (9 Aug. 1838). Dyott was forced to pay half the remaining costs. A further burden was the cost of the contest in the northern division, for which the newly-elected Conservative MP refused to contribute anything.Kent, ‘Party organisation’, 91-2. The deep pockets of the Whig peers seem to have prevented similar difficulties on the Liberal side.Ibid., 93-4. Despite the expense both sides continued to actively campaign between elections through dinners and party meetings. A Reform Association was founded in September 1837.Ibid., 93-4. A number of Conservative operative societies were formed in industrial districts and the party established the Staffordshire Gazette in 1839 as a rival county paper to the venerable but Whiggish Staffordshire Advertiser.Ibid., 94-6. In the event of a dissolution, Richard Dyott was ready to be the party’s second candidate, but in 1839 he switched his attentions to Lichfield.Dyott’s diary, ii. 295-7 (30 May, 5 June 1839).
At a party meeting in Wolverhampton in March 1841, the Conservatives agreed to oppose Anson at the next election, after a proposal by Edward Monckton, of Somerford Hall, to share the representation and avoid a contest was rejected. As Dyott’s father wrote, ‘it was pretty generally believed this proposal originated with Ingestre to spare a contest’.Dyott’s diary, ii. 335 (3 Mar. 1841). With a dissolution imminent, Hatherton unsuccessfully attempted to solicit Edward Buller, Whig MP for the northern division, to stand alongside Anson at the next contest.Hatherton Journal, 7 May 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22. Shortly before the general election in June, a meeting of Conservative peers and gentry in London agreed that Monckton should approach Hatherton about a possible compromise, in which both parties would agree to leave the representation as it was, with Anson and Ingestre returned unopposed.N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1949), 253; Hatherton Journal, 8 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22; E. Monckton, ‘Memorandum of a conversation on the 9th day of June with Lord Hatherton’, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/14. The attendees at the Conservative meeting included Earl Talbot, earl of Dartmouth, Lord Sandon, MP for Liverpool and Harrowby’s heir, Viscount Ingestre, William and Charles Bagot, and Charles Bowyer Adderley. A meeting of Whig peers held in London considered Monckton’s offer.The meeting, held at Stafford House, the duke of Sutherland’s town house, was attended by the duke, the marquess of Anglesey, Lord Wrottesley, Walter Wrottesley, Sir Francis Lawley, Lord Leveson, the earl of Lichfield and Lord Hatherton. They concluded that the result of any contest was likely to be uncertain, particularly as the revision of the corn laws proposed by Melbourne’s government would mean ‘that we should lose in the rural districts & gain in the manufacturing’.The other peers also resisted Lord Lichfield’s attempt to withdraw his brother from the county to bring him in for his pocket borough of Lichfield. Hatherton Journal, 8, 9 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22. However, while favourable to the proposal, they subscribed were willing to fight a contest if necessary. Granville Leveson-Gower, Lord Leveson, Earl Granville’s heir would stand as the second Whig candidate if the Conservatives forced a contest, and the magnates subscribed £2,500 for this purpose.Hatherton Journal, 9 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22. They firmly rejected the Conservatives’ argument that they ought to concede a seat at Lichfield and offer no opposition to the Conservative incumbent at Walsall, as the price for leaving the county undisturbed.Lord Hatherton, ‘Memorandum of a conversation with Mr Monckton in Grosvenor place on the 9th of June 1841’, Viscount Ingestre to Lord Hatherton, 12 June 1841; Hatherton to Ingestre, 13 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/14. As Hatherton wrote, the ‘Tories here swaggered & tried to bully us out of a seat & finding themselves firmly met, are now obliged to shave in their pretensions & accept our terms’.Hatherton Journal, 11 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22.
The eventual agreement was signed by two commoners, Monckton and Walter Wrottesley, to ‘avoid any open interference of the peers’.Edward Monckton to Thomas W. Giffard, 16 June 1841, Giffard papers, Staffs. RO, D590/724. To deter an independent Conservative candidate, the Conservatives pledged that they would not support any such challenge, and also that if this did occur, the Whigs would be free to field a second candidate.Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 254-5. Ingestre admitted to Peel that there was a ‘great deal of dissatisfaction’ among local partisans, but he threatened to retire if a second candidate was brought forward.Viscount Ingestre to Sir Robert Peel, 29 June 1841, Add. 40429, ff. 441-2 (at 441). A plan to put up Henry John Pye, of Clifton Hall, to oppose Anson, was abandoned due to lack of funds.Edward Henry A’Court to Sir Robert Peel, 23 June 1841, Add. 40429, f. 372; Dyott’s diary, ii. 344-5 (22 June 1841). Conservative party meetings at Wolverhampton and Lichfield were strongly critical of the arrangement, but admitted that it could not be broken without dishonour.Ingestre to Peel, 1, 2 July 1841, Add. 40485, ff. 18-19. They agreed that if a second Whig candidate was proposed, Pye would stand alongside Ingestre.Ingestre to Peel, 2 July 1841, Add. 40485, f. 19. The arrangement was honoured and Anson and Ingestre were returned unopposed at the nomination. Ingestre’s unconvincing declaration that he had nothing to do with the compromise was contradicted by Anson, and the two members also differed over the merits of the Whig government’s proposed alterations to the corn laws, and timber and sugar duties. The measures were based on a ‘fallacious theory’ protested Ingestre, while Anson denied that they would injure the agricultural interest by reducing the price of corn.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1841.
For Norman Gash, the 1841 compromise was evidence of the enduring electoral authority of the landed nobility and gentry in the reformed era, especially as their decision to avoid a contest went against the wishes of local partisans and activists.Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 249-57. However, given that Pye and Leveson were waiting in reserve, it was more of an armed truce between the parties than a compromise reminiscent of the unreformed era. Furthermore, as Philip Salmon has written, the deal has to be understood as a sequel to the fierce and expensive party battle of 1837.Salmon, Electoral reform at work, 144. The arrangement was strongly criticised by Conservative newspapers, including the Times, as the party had boasted of its majority on the register.The Times, 4, 12, 21 June 1841; Morning Post, 14 June 1841; Birmingham Advertiser, qu. in Morning Post, 18 June 1841. After the election, Dyott chaired a meeting in Lichfield that denounced the compromise, leading to a testy exchange of public letters with Monckton and Ingestre.G. Holyoake to Richard Dyott, 21 July 1841; Dyott to Holyoake, 26 July 1841; Copy of resolution of meeting at Lichfield, 16 July 1841; Viscount Ingestre to Richard Dyott, 26 July 1841; Dyott to Edward Monckton, 28 July 1841; Dyott to Ingestre, 28 July 1841; Dyott to Holyoake, 23 July 1841, newspaper cuttings in Dyott papers, Staffs. RO, D661/17/10. In truth, both parties were amenable to a compromise because the state of the register made the result of any poll uncertain. Hatherton, who believed the Conservatives had greatly exaggerated their strength, calculated that there were 3,118 Reform voters, 2,893 Conservatives, 132 split voters, and 1,203 ‘neuter’, that is of unknown allegiance.Lord Hatherton, ‘South Staffordshire registration’, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/14. Retaining their seat without a contest suited the Liberals, especially as they performed well in the rest of the county, rebuffing Conservative challenges at Lichfield and Stafford and making gains at Walsall, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent.Hatherton Journal, 30 June 1841, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/22.
There were no further contests until 1854, partly because the split representation was congenial to the Anson and Chetwynd-Talbot families, especially as it minimised election expenses. More importantly, both parties remained finely balanced and as time passed it became increasingly difficult to predict the result of any poll. The split over the repeal of the corn laws in 1846 undermined the Conservatives’ prospects of winning both seats, not least because the immensely rich Lord Ward, whose influence had long been feared by the Whigs, became a Peelite. Accordingly, the Conservatives offered no opposition to Anson’s re-election in July 1846 after his appointment as clerk of the ordnance, despite rumours that Pye, a staunch protectionist, would stand.The Times, 10, 18 July 1846. At the 1847 general election Anson and Ingestre were again returned unopposed. At the nomination, which aroused little ‘interest or excitement’, Ingestre and Anson reaffirmed their respective protectionist and free trade views. There was some hostile questioning of Anson for his resistance to new lines that would threaten the monopoly of the London and North Western Railway Company, with which he was connected.Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 Aug. 1847; Edward Richard Littleton to Lord Hatherton, 3 Aug. 1847; Hatherton Journal, 30 July 1847, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/17, D260/M/7/5/26/43.
After 1847 the constituency gradually began to tilt towards the Liberals as it became increasingly urbanised and many Tory ironmasters changed sides. In late 1848 Hatherton and Parkes hatched a scheme for the vacancy that would arise when Ingestre succeeded his ailing father in the House of Lords. Wary of the power of the Conservative aristocracy and electors, they planned to bring forward Charles Smith Forster, of Lysways Hall, a former Conservative MP for Walsall, who was now widely regarded as a Liberal Conservative supporter of Russell’s government.Parkes to Hatherton, 1, 7 Dec. 1848, Hatheron papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18. As Forster was a ‘timid Liberalish man between both parties’, they hoped this would placate the Peelite Lord Ward, who loathed the Whigs.Parkes to Hatherton, 9 Dec. 1848; Hatherton to Parkes, 10 Dec. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18. As a banker, Forster would also appeal to those who demanded that the manufacturing and commercial interests be represented.Parkes to Hatherton, 1 Dec. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18. Although both Hatherton and Parkes admitted that Forster’s Conservative past meant that he was very unpopular with many local Liberals. Above all, a candidate like Forster was necessary because, as one local wirepuller admitted ‘we could not on a plumping contest give the Colonel [Anson] a Liberal colleague’.W.B. Collis, a Wolverhampton solicitor, qu. by Parkes in his letter to Hatherton, 26 Dec. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18.
However, the Liberals did not ultimately contest the vacancy occasioned by Ingestre’s succession to the peerage. Hatherton was unable to take any part in the campaign as he was grief-stricken by his wife’s death and also resented being passed over by Lord John Russell for the vacant lord lieutenancy.Hatherton Journal, 6, 18 Jan. 1849; Parkes to Hatherton, 15, 18 Jan. 1849, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/47, D260/M/7/5/27/20. As a result William Walter Legge, viscount Lewisham, the heir of the earl of Dartmouth, was returned unopposed at the nomination in February 1849. Declaring himself an ‘unreserved Conservative’, Lewisham said that he ‘entertained great doubts of the success’ of free trade, while admitting that it should be given a fair trial, and called for a revision of taxation to relieve farmers.The Standard, 19 Feb. 1849; The Times, 20 Feb. 1849.
The Liberals mooted an opposition, based on free trade principles, to Lewisham at the 1852 general election.Littleton to Hatherton, 16 Mar. 1852, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/24. A plan to put up the Peelite Edward Cardwell, recently defeated at Liverpool, was abandoned due to his lack of local credentials.Hatherton Journal, 13, 15 July 1852; Parkes to Hatherton, 12, 15 July 1852, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/58, D260/M/7/5/27/24. However, the electorate had risen to 10,116 since the last contest and the Liberals had a majority on the register.PP 1852 (8), xlii. 312; Littleton to Hatherton, 16 Mar. 1852, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/24; Leicester Chronicle, 17 July 1852. Although Anson and Lewisham were returned unopposed, the latter was forced to publicly renounce protection, an indication of his party’s declining position in the constituency since Ingestre’s accession to the peerage. Lewisham openly admitted that if he stood as a protectionist he would be challenged and defeated.Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1852. At the nomination, Anson reaffirmed his support for free trade while Lewisham declared his backing for Lord Derby’s government and a revision of taxation to relieve agriculture. He later admitted that the register ‘is by no means in a satisfactory state’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 July 1852. In August 1853 Anson’s appointment to the command of the army in India created a vacancy that was filled by Hatherton’s heir Edward Richard Littleton. Other rumoured candidates, including the ironmasters Edward Bagnall Dimmack, of Messrs. Chance, Dimmack and Thompson, and Philip Williams, of Wednesbury Oak Iron Works, were not forthcoming.Daily News, 8 Aug. 1853. The nomination was ‘a remarkably tame affair’, attended by only 100-150 people. The sickly Littleton was returned in his absence without opposition, having earlier promised support to Aberdeen’s government.The Times, 16 Aug. 1853.
By the time Lewisham succeeded to the peerage later that year, the Liberals had an overwhelming superiority on the register. As W.B. Collis, a Wolverhampton solicitor and party organiser wrote, ‘many of the iron manufacturers, formerly Tory, are converts to Liberal principles’.W.B. Collis to Lord Hatherton, 31 Dec. 1854, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/14. The ironmaster William Mathews, of Corbyns Hall Ironworks, one of the architects of the subsequent campaign wrote:
We mean to win this battle by a 1,000 votes, & if our expectations are borne out the constituency of South Staffordshire will be liberalised for many a year to come.William Mathews to Lord Hatheton, 7 Jan. 1854, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/14.
Despite their superiority, the Liberals had some difficulty finding a candidate. In the end Henry William George Paget, Lord Paget, the grandson of the marquess of Anglesey, was selected by a meeting in Wolverhampton, and agreed to stand after he was given guarantees that the expenses would be met by subscription.Hatherton Journal, 27 Nov. 1853, 2, 6, 8, 13, 15 Dec. 1853, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/63. Hatherton thought Arthur Wrottesley, the heir to the 2nd Baron Wrottesley, a much abler candidate, but he lacked funds and suffered from his father’s neglect of local politics.Hatherton Journal, 15 Dec. 1853, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/63. With many Whig magnates offering their influence but refusing to contribute any money, the cost of the Liberal campaign was largely borne by the increasingly assertive ironmasters, including William Orme Foster, of Stourton Castle, the British Iron Company, Messrs. Barker and Foster, and Messrs. Chance, Dimmack and Thompson.Hatherton Journal, 12, 19 Jan. 1854, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/63; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, qu. in Daily News, 30 Dec. 1853. In addition, Paget had the support of the Whig peerage and many of the local gentry.Berrow’s Worcester Journal, qu. in Daily News, 30 Dec. 1853.
Although the Liberals were confident of victory after their canvass, the Conservatives put up Charles John Chetwynd-Talbot, viscount Ingestre, son of 3rd Earl Talbot (who had represented the division until 1849).Collis to Hatherton, 31 Dec. 1853, 11 Jan. 1854; Hatherton Journal, 2 Feb. 1854; Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/14, D260/M/7/5/26/63. Like Paget, Ingestre visited Birmingham to curry favour with businessmen engaged in the staple trade of the industrial districts.Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 14 Jan. 1854. At the nomination in February 1854, Ingestre was at pains to state that he was a free trader, unlike his father.The Times, 10 Feb. 1854.
Paget won the show of hands and a crushing victory by almost 1,600 votes in the poll. Even though Ingestre had polled a similar total to his father in 1837, he was easily beaten as ‘the manufacturing population of the division has vastly outgrown that of the agricultural division’.The Times, 13 Feb. 1854. Ingestre secured narrow victories in a number of districts, but these were overwhelmed by the huge majorities Paget won in urban areas.Ibid. Hatherton also thought that the influence of Lord Ward had ‘greatly swelled’ Paget’s majority.Hatherton Journal, 15 Feb. 1854, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/63.
The result of the election made South Staffordshire a safe Liberal seat and the Conservatives offered no further challenge. The election also revealed the decline of aristocratic influence and the rising power of the ironmasters. In 1848 George Anson had written that ‘I dare say some of the Liberal party would prefer to have their representative connected with Trade or Commerce, to one of us, but they could not carry it against us’.George Anson to Lord Hatherton, 12 Feb. 1848, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/27/18. Five years later, however, Hatherton reflected:
The patronage for the seats in the southern division is passing into the hands of the Traders in the chief towns. In my earlier days they neither thought of it [n]or were thought of by others – the chief County families settled the matter among themselves.Hatherton Journal, 22 Dec. 1853, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/63.
Venerable Whig nobles including Sutherland, Anglesey and Hatherton had all declined to contribute to the cost of Paget’s election.Collis to Lord Hatherton, 16 Jan. 1854; Hatherton Journal, 27 Nov. 1853, 12 Jan. 1854, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/14, D260/M/7/5/26/63. The earl of Lichfield died in 1854, after which the Anson family increasingly withdrew to concentrate on their pocket borough of Lichfield. Furthermore, the younger generation of Whigs such as Littleton and Paget, scions of the houses of Hatherton and Anglesey, were incapable or unwilling parliamentarians. Both had dismal attendance records, and Littleton’s absenteeism and illness led his father to sadly write in 1857 that ‘for three years the S. Division of Staffordshire has been virtually misrepresented’.Hatherton Journal, 23 Feb. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71.
When Paget and Littleton retired at the 1857 general election, the ironmasters were determined to claim a share of the representation. A Liberal meeting at Wolverhampton resolved to have ‘one commercial man to represent’ the division and selected William Mathews.Hatherton Journal, 17-18 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71. However, a meeting of the local iron trade later endorsed William Orme Foster, of Stourton Castle, who was regarded as having ‘less extreme’ views than Mathews.Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Mar. 1857; Hatherton Journal, 27 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71. Mathews, always a reluctant candidate, then resigned in Foster’s favour.Hatherton Journal, 17-18, 28 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71. This left three country gentlemen, Arthur Wrottesley, Henry John Hodgetts Foley, of Prestwood, and Frederick Calthorpe, son of Lord Calthorpe, vying for the right to be the second Liberal candidate. Wrottesley was the ablest candidate, and had played a prominent role in Paget’s victory in 1854, but like Calthorpe he was abroad when the election was called.Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Mar. 1857. A party meeting endorsed Foley as the second Liberal candidate by 25 votes to Wrottesley’s 19, with Calthorpe receiving just one vote.Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857. With some reluctance Wrottesley withdrew, his prospects having been fatally undermined, in Hatherton’s opinion, by his father, who neglected his commercial neighbours and ‘whose great caution made him a bad representative of an absent son’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857; Hatherton Journal, 29 Mar. 1857, Hatherton papers, Staffs. RO, D260/M/7/5/26/71.
With the Liberals retaining their supremacy on the electoral register, there was no question of any Conservatives standing unless there were more than two Liberal candidates in the field.There were estimated to be 5,780 Liberal voters, 3,485 Conservatives, and 1,937 neuter or unknown: Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857. Accordingly, Foster and Foley were returned unopposed at the nomination, which generated little interest. Foley expressed support for the total abolition of church rates, the eventual abolition of income tax, the ballot and the extension of the franchise.Staffordshire Advertiser, 4 Apr. 1857. Foster voiced his approval of Lord Palmerston and emphasised the need for redistribution as well as franchise reform.Derby Mercury, 8 Apr. 1857.
Foley and Foster were again returned unopposed at the 1859 and 1865 general elections. On the first occasion, both men defended their votes against Derby’s reform bill and advocated a moderate extension of the franchise.Birmingham Daily Post, 4 May 1859. In 1865 there was some dissatisfaction at the incumbents’ votes against Edward Baines’s borough franchise bill, but rumours of a Conservative opposition or third Liberal candidate came to nothing.Birmingham Daily Post, 29 June 1865, 3, 19 July 1865.
The 1867 Representation of the People Act divided the constituency into two new double-member divisions, East and West Staffordshire, which both had electorates of around 10,000. At the 1868 general election, Foley and Foster’s lukewarm support for reform contributed to their defeat at the hands of two Conservatives for the western division, and the latter party retained their control of the constituency thereafter. The Liberals won both seats for the eastern division after a contest in 1868, but shared the representation with the Conservatives from 1873 until 1880 when they recaptured both seats.McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 272-3. The county was re-divided in 1885 into seven single member constituencies. Of these, Kingswinford and Handsworth were formed out of the old southern division, Staffordshire West from portions of the old northern and western divisions, and Lichfield from the old city constituency and parts of the surrounding county.PP 1884-85 [C. 4287], xix. 224-8. The Liberal Unionists controlled West Staffordshire, 1886-1906, and Handsworth, 1886-1910. Kingswinford was dominated by the Conservatives, but the Liberals fared better in Lichfield, which they held 1885-92, 1895-1910.McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, pt. II, pp. 223-5.
