Economic and social profile:
Stafford was ‘pleasantly situated near the centre of the county’, on the north bank of the river Sow.W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire (1834), 109. The staple trade was boot and shoe making, with ‘immense quantities’ sent weekly to London and big regional markets.Ibid., 125. In 1834 it was noted that ‘there are perhaps more shoemakers here than in any other town of the same population’.Ibid. This staple trade prospered throughout the period and began to be mechanised after 1855.VCH Staffs. ii. 231-5; ibid., vi. 217. It employed 2,000 people in 1861.VCH Staffs. vi. 217. Ancillary trades, such as leather and metal, were also important in the local economy, and from the 1860s an engineering sector began to develop.Ibid., 218-19. A well-established staging post for roads from London to the midlands and north west, Stafford was on the Grand Junction Railway that opened in 1837.Ibid., 196-8. A line to Lichfield, Rugby and London opened in 1847 and the railway to Uttoxeter in 1867. The Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal had opened in 1772.Ibid., 198. The town was home to the leading county newspaper, the Staffordshire Advertiser, which was established in 1795. 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 published from January 1839 to March 1842. The short-lived Stafford Mercury (1863) was aimed at Stafford inhabitants rather than a county audience.Ibid., 258-9.
Electoral history:
One of the most corrupt constituencies in the reformed representative system, Stafford only narrowly escaped disenfranchisement in the 1830s.N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 154, 158; Dod’s electoral facts, 1832-1853, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 289-90. The election agent Joseph Parkes commented in 1835 that the borough had the ‘most open system’ of bribery he had ever experienced.PP 1835 (547), viii. 92, from Parkes’s evidence to the select committee on bribery. Thereafter, Stafford retained its well-deserved reputation for venality. There was usually no shortage of candidates because, as the Staffordshire Mercury sarcastically but truthfully remarked:
The reason for this is the well-known independence of the constituency. There is no predominant influence at Stafford – the burgesses, in the strictest sense of the word, are free and independent – and Stafford is undeniably an “open borough”.Staffordshire Mercury, qu. in Morning Chronicle, 13 July 1847.
There was also a high turnover of MPs because representing Stafford was an expensive business. A culture of bribery had developed in the unreformed period partly because there was a tacit agreement between parties not to petition on the ground of corruption.PP 1835 (547), xi. 96, 109 (Parkes’s evidence to select committee on bribery). This tradition continued and although petitions alleging bribery were presented after the 1841 and 1847 elections, they were swiftly withdrawn before any investigation could be established. Stafford thereby managed to avoid further scrutiny by parliamentary committees or commissioners and so avoided the fate of Sudbury and St. Albans, which were disenfranchised in 1842 and 1852 respectively. There was a degree of partisan alignment from 1832-41, when Liberals and Conservatives vied to claim credit for preserving the borough’s parliamentary representation. Afterwards, elections were frequently confusing affairs, with innumerable candidates, many of them adventurers, mavericks or lawyers on the make. Although Norman Gash has written that given Stafford’s venality, the opinions of the candidates ‘matter[ed] less than usual’, issues were not entirely absent.Gash, Politics in the age of Peel, 158. Indeed, since both sides engaged in wholesale bribery, issues could assume considerable significance. After 1847, party labels were less clear, and the borough was frequently contested by a plethora of candidates, none of whom had good local connections and all of whom had money. Given this context, it is notable that the candidates frequently published very detailed addresses and their speeches referred to a whole range of policies. When there was little to mark individuals out in terms of money or connection, then, issues were a way for candidates to differentiate themselves to the electorate. As in Newcastle-under-Lyme, another corrupt Staffordshire borough, criticism of the new poor law and support for cheap bread, in particular, were well received by the freemen who predominated among the electorate.
Before 1832, both the corporation and the Trentham interest of the marquess of Stafford had possessed some influence in Stafford. However, in the 1820s the Trentham interest withdrew from Staffordshire politics and in 1827 the legal validity of the corporation’s charter was successfully challenged. Henceforth, money became the major determinant of elections, although the borough was already notorious for its corruption.HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 21-6. The boundary change accompanying the Reform Act enlarged the area of the parliamentary borough from 0.6 square miles to one square mile.PP 1866 (259), lvii. 587. The Reform Act doubled the electorate to 1,176 in 1833, of whom 983 (83.5%) were freemen and 193 (16.5%) £10 householders.HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 21; PP 1833 (189), xxvii. 217. In 1846 The Times observed that the freemen were ‘chiefly journeymen shoemakers’, who possessed ‘at any time the power of turning the scale at any election’.The Times, 10 Mar. 1846. The electorate rose to 1,390 by 1859, but freemen still comprised over two-thirds of the electorate.PP 1859 sess. 1 (140), xxiii. 141. An 1865 parliamentary return classified 58% of the electorate as working class, the second highest total out of all parliamentary boroughs; in the same year it was noted that the 1,540 electors represented one in seven of the borough’s population.PP 1866 (169), lvii. 749; Leicester Chronicle, 1 July 1865. During the debates on the 1866 reform bill, a former Stafford MP noted that in the constituency the working classes were ‘not only predominant, but all-powerful’.Hansard, 26 Apr. 1866, vol. 182, c. 2141 (Arthur John Otway). For this reason, in Stafford, the show of hands often proved to be an accurate indicator of the poll. Elections in Stafford had high turnouts, with between 70% and 85% of voters usually polling, and all but one election was contested in this period.1832: 89.2%; 1835: 84.1%; 1837: 78.6%; 1847: 73.2%; 1857: 83.4%; 1859: 78.7%; 1860 by-election: 74.2%; 1865: 81.3%. The anomaly was the 1846 by-election when there was a turnout of 60.3%, but that was a very one-sided contest with a predictable result.
Three Reformers competed at the 1832 general election. Rees Howell Gronow, a Regency dandy from a Swansea gentry family, declared his support for retrenchment, the abolition of slavery and ‘Reform in Church and State’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Nov. 1832. William Blount, of Bellamour Hall, expressed similar principles and his ‘liberality’ was ‘well-received’ by the burgesses.Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 Nov. 1832. The former member Sir George Chetwynd, of Brocton Hall, was rumoured to be standing, but in the event it was his brother William Fawkener Chetwynd who offered, voicing support for reform of the Church and House of Lords, the revision of the poor laws and the abolition of slavery.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10, 17, 24 Nov. 1832. Even at an early stage in the campaign, one observer complained of ‘bare-faced bribery’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 24 Nov. 1832. The mayor and corporation hastily created sixty freemen who had just turned 21 years old; the admission fees, totalling £120, were paid by the three candidates.Ibid. However, the revising barrister rejected the young freemen’s right to vote as they had not been qualified to vote on the last day of July, as stipulated by the Reform Act.Ibid.
As nomination day drew nearer, many burgesses feared that Gronow would withdraw, depriving them of a lucrative contest, so they solicited a fourth candidate, Robert Farrand, a London corn merchant and former MP for Hedon, who was passing through the borough. As Gronow was present at the nomination, Farrand withdrew. The three Reformers expressed similar sentiments on the hustings. Chetwynd criticised monopolies, but did not join the others in attacking the corn laws.Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. He led the poll throughout. Blount retired on the second day as it was calculated that he ‘could not win this election, except by an enormous pecuniary sacrifice’, blaming his defeat on the rejection of the young freemen’s votes. Although Gronow was elected in second place, at the declaration he was forced to reluctantly swear his property qualification, and the result was also questioned because the mayor had mislaid the poll book.Ibid. Gronow admitted in his memoirs that he:
was determined that no one should outbid me for the support of these worthy and independent gentlemen, so I set to work to bribe every man, woman, and child … I engaged numerous agents, opened all the public houses which were not already taken by my opponents, gave suppers every night to my supporters, kissed all their wives and children, drank their health in every sort of abominable mixture, and secured my return.R.H. Gronow, Recollections and anecdotes (1863), 190.
Blount petitioned against Gronow’s return on the grounds that he had not the requisite property qualification, 7 Feb. 1833, but this was discharged on a technicality, 22 Feb. 1833.CJ, lxxxviii. 16, 103. A petition of electors also disputed Gronow’s return, alleging bribery as well as his ineligibility to stand, 18 Feb. 1833.Ibid., 51-2. However, this was eventually discharged, 4 June 1833.Ibid., 454. The proceedings against the borough were not initiated by the petitions but by Edward Ellice, MP for Coventry, bringing in a bill to indemnify witnesses who gave evidence about the late election, 12 Mar. 1833.Hansard, 12 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc. 554-60 (at 555). This explains why neither Chetwynd nor Gronow were unseated (as they surely would have been if the petitions had been pursued). Ellice’s bill fell, but a second bill was introduced and eventually passed, despite the opposition of Chetwynd and other Staffordshire MPs.CJ, lxxxviii. 173, 181, 192, 204, 414, 452-3, 487, 496; Hansard, 20, 22, 29 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc. 894-8, 991-5, 1283-90. An inquiry was appointed, 8 June 1833, and recommended Stafford’s disenfranchisement, 17 July 1833.CJ, lxxxviii. 467; PP 1833 (537), xi. 11. Its report found that prior to the election the candidates had distributed tickets redeemable for 5 or10s. to electors, and small sums to the wives and families of the poorer electors.Ibid., 3. The candidates thought that they had fixed the price of votes at £2 10s. for a split or shared vote and £5 for a plumper. The burgesses, however, forced votes to be paid according to the market rate, which rose during the polling to £4 5s. 6d. for shared votes and £7 for a plumper, although £10 and £11 was paid in some cases.Ibid., 4. When one candidate ran out of money, a friend quickly withdrew £500 which he theatrically displayed in the market place as the ‘publicity would do good to the cause’.Ibid., 4-5. Votes were openly exchanged for money in public places with electors ‘selling themselves to the highest bidder’, although their aim was to be paid the market rate from the candidate they supported. To have not paid, the committee noted, ‘would have been fatal to the prospects of any candidate’.Ibid., 4. From the surviving tickets issued by candidates to electors for their votes, it was calculated that 852 (81%) of the 1,049 who polled had been bribed.Ibid., 6. Furthermore, many of the ‘immaculate’ minority received the pre-election ‘ticket’ money and distributed bribes to others.Ibid., 9-10. Of the 882 freemen who voted, 767 (87%) were bribed.Ibid., 6, 8. Even among the new electors, ‘corruption appears to have prevailed … to a very considerable extent’, with 85 (51%) of the £10 householders who polled receiving bribes.Ibid., 7.
When the committee chairman Sir Thomas Fremantle introduced the first Stafford disenfranchisement bill, 6 Aug. 1833, he rejected the alternative solution of adding the neighbouring towns of Stone and Ecclestone.Hansard, 6 Aug. 1833, vol. 20, cc. 361-4. Chetwynd objected that the measure would punish the innocent, but abandoned his alternative bill to prevent bribery in Stafford.Ibid., 365-6, 369. Fremantle’s bill received its first and second reading, but progressed no further due to the lateness of the session.CJ, lxxxviii. 652. A new disenfranchisement bill was introduced in February 1834 and was passed by the Commons, with Chetwynd’s amendment to establish another inquiry rejected 167-5, 5 Mar. 1834.Hansard, 5 Mar. 1834, vol. 21, c. 1177; CJ, lxxxix. 20, 138, 149, 157. Chetwynd complained that the committee’s report was ‘full of inaccuracies’ and advocated expanding the constituency, but Fremantle argued that there was ‘no nucleus’ for ‘an independent and honest constituency’.Hansard, 5 Mar. 1834, vol. 21, cc. 1172, 1173. However, the bill progressed no further after its first reading in the Lords.LJ, lxvi. 103.
A number of candidates were linked with Stafford prior to the 1835 general election. In the event, the incumbents were joined by three others: Farrand, the radical baronet Sir Charles Wolseley, of Wolseley Park, and Francis Lyttleton Holyoake Goodricke, of Studley Castle, Warwickshire.Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 3, 24 Dec. 1834; Derby Mercury, 17 Dec. 1834; The Times, 29 Dec. 1834; Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Dec. 1834. The Morning Chronicle described Gronow as a ‘decided Reformer’, Chetwynd as a ‘moderate Reformer’, Goodricke as a Liberal, Wolseley as an ‘ultra-Liberal’ and Farrand as a Conservative.Morning Chronicle, 31 Dec. 1834. Goodricke was really a Conservative, however, and benefited from the backing of Charles Giffard of Chillington and the Moncktons of Somerford. Chetwynd’s parliamentary proposal to add Stone and Eccleshall to the constituency was not well received by the freemen, who thought he had tried to sell them out. On Wolseley’s behalf William Cobbett tried to get up a popular outcry about the admission fees paid by poor freemen compared to the 1s. registration fee paid by £10 householders.However, the admission fees for freemen were a one-off charge, unlike the annual 1s. registration fee paid by £10 householders. This was why many electors who were jointly qualified opted to be registered as freemen rather than householders. Blount reappeared in the constituency to stake the claim of Charles Brinsley Sheridan, grandson of the celebrated Whig playwright and former Stafford MP Richard Brinsley Sheridan. However, Sheridan arrived too late in the campaign and consequently withdrew.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835.
At the nomination, Chetwynd mounted a robust defence of his conduct regarding the disenfranchisement bills, declaring that he ‘had almost stood alone in defence of the borough’. He endorsed the abolition of slavery and the opening of the East India trade, but disapproved of the new poor law. After Gronow’s short speech, Goodricke declared his backing for ‘the reform of all proved abuses’, associating himself with Peel’s moderate Conservatism. Farrand also endorsed Peel’s new administration and called for the repeal of the new poor law, a sentiment shared by the radical Wolseley, who also advocated the disestablishment of the Church of England. Goodricke led throughout the poll, with Chetwynd and Farrand following. A sudden surge of plumps boosted Gronow, but led to Farrand’s supporters demanding the administration of the bribery oath. Goodricke topped the poll, aided by a ‘long purse’, with Chetwynd elected in second place.Gronow, Recollections and anecdotes, 190. The ‘exceedingly popular’ Farrand finished third and promised to stand again, Gronow was fourth and Wolseley bottom.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835.
Although Gronow petitioned against Goodricke’s election, 25 Feb. 1835, alleging ‘open and extensive corrupt practices’, his petition was discharged on a technicality, 12 Mar. 1835.CJ, xc. 15, 103. Goodricke resigned to successfully contest the South Staffordshire by-election in May 1835, but the Commons repeatedly refused to issue a new writ.CJ, xc. 262, 359, 505, 551; Hansard, 18 May 1835, vol. 27, cc. 1178-81. A new disenfranchisement bill was introduced, 1 June 1835, and Irish MPs unsuccessfully proposed the transfer of Stafford’s seats to county Cork, 20 July 1835.CJ, xc. 298, 306, 345, 470, 475, 504; Hansard, 1 June 1835, vol. 28, cc. 208-9; 20 July 1835, vol. 29, cc. 775-84. The disenfranchisement bill reached the Lords too late in the session, but a new bill was introduced in February 1836.LJ, lxvii. 343; CJ, xci. 17-18; Hansard, 9 Feb. 1836, vol. 31, cc. 233-4. The bill quickly passed the Commons, but the Lords reopened the inquiry into the 1832 election, which prevented the measure becoming law.CJ, xci. 110, 121, 124, 135; Hansard, 3 Mar. 1836, vol. 31, cc. 1200-2. No further disenfranchisement bills were introduced, but the Commons continued to delay issuing a new writ.CJ, xci. 17, 279, 417, 657, 708, 748, 792; Hansard, 3 Aug. 1836, vol. 35, c. 865.
A by-election was finally triggered when Chetwynd’s motion for a new writ passed by one vote, 13 Feb. 1837.CJ, xcii. 40-1; Hansard, 13 Feb. 1837, vol. 36, cc. 445-53. The news was greeted with ‘great excitement’ locally. William Whateley, the Conservative solicitor who had represented the town in the Lords proceedings declined to come forward, as did Blount and Edward Richard Littleton, the Whig heir of Lord Hatherton.The Times, 20 Feb. 1837; Morning Chronicle, 18 Feb. 1837; The Standard, 22 Feb. 1837. Farrand was consequently returned in the only uncontested election of this period, after reiterating his Conservative principles and opposition to the ‘unjust and cruel’ new poor law.The Times, 22 Feb. 1837.
Farrand’s re-election was considered a certainty at the general election later that July, but Chetwynd was challenged by the Conservative William Bingham Baring, former MP for Winchester and son of the merchant banker Lord Ashburton.Morning Post, 4 July 1837. Blount was the fourth candidate. In a fiercely fought contest, both parties sought to present themselves as defenders of the privileges of the freemen and the borough. Whateley alleged that the disenfranchisement bills had passed the Commons ‘without a single effort being made in the borough’ to resist them. He had been employed by the burgesses to protect their rights and they were indebted to the Lords, not Chetwynd, for preserving the borough’s status.Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 July 1837. At the nomination Baring was forced to deny that he had sanctioned this attack on Chetwynd or that he was a nominee of Earl Talbot, of Ingestre Hall. A staunch supporter of the Church, Baring attacked Daniel O’Connell’s political influence and the new poor law. Before launching an anti-Tory tirade, Blount declared that his 1833 petition had related only to Gronow’s property qualification. Chetwynd topped the poll, with Farrand elected in second place ahead of Baring. Blount, who finished last, blamed bribery for his defeat, but no petition was forthcoming.Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837.
Prior to the 1841 general election, Chetwynd told Lord Hatherton that:
Less than £4,000 will not now win the seat so much more corrupt are the Burgesses become, and so much more excessive are the agencies requisite to deal with them. … A majority has signed a pledge to support a Tory candidate at the request of Mr. T. Salt the banker at Stafford.Hatherton Journal, 28 May 1841, Staffordshire Record Office, D260/M/F/5/26/22.
Hatherton enquired about the prospects of his son standing, but was informed by a local that ‘no man could stand a chance who had not £3 or 4000 ready in his pocket’.Hatherton Journal, 26 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/22. Chetwynd and Farrand retired.Staffordshire Advertiser, 12, 19 June 1841. New candidates included Swynfen Thomas Carnegie, a royal navy captain and son of the earl of Northesk. A Conservative, Carnegie had Staffordshire connections through his uncle Lord St. Vincent. A second Conservative was William ‘Billy’ Holmes, the former chief whip and late MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed.Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1841. Both Conservatives were strongly critical of the ‘wild and visionary schemes’ of the Whigs, the new poor law and, while professing to detest electoral corruption, the government’s bribery bill. Carnegie was not opposed to a modification of the corn laws, but Holmes emphasised that protection sheltered Stafford from an influx of cheap Belgian and French shoes and boots.Staffordshire Advertiser, 19 June 1841. It seemed that Carnegie and Holmes would be returned unopposed, but at a late stage Edward Buller, of Dilhorne Hall, late MP for North Staffordshire, offered as a Liberal.The Burton brewer Michael Thomas Bass had declined an invitation from Liberal electors to stand and John Ayshford Wise, of Clayton Hall, offered but withdrew soon after: Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1841, 3 July 1841; The Times, 28 June 1841.
At the nomination, Buller drew attention to Holmes’s past representation of innumerable rotten boroughs and stressed his own record in Parliament supporting ‘popular rights, religious liberty and free trade’, including repeal of the corn laws. He also emphasised his opposition to disenfranchisement in the 1830s. The show of hands favoured Carnegie and Buller, who were elected in first and second place respectively ahead of Holmes, who blamed broken promises for his defeat.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1841. Two petitions, from Holmes and electors against Buller and Carnegie respectively, alleged bribery, 7 Sept. 1841. However, both were simultaneously withdrawn, 13 May 1842.CJ, xcvi. 557; CJ, xcvii. 285.
Carnegie’s promotion to command of a ship prompted rumours of his retirement in January 1843. After enquiring about his son’s chances at a by-election, Hatherton was informed that ‘the borough was now divided between Whig & Tory – and the seat would not be so easily won on a Tory vacancy’.Hatherton Journal, 1 Jan. 1843, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/25. A degree of party alignment and organisation had emerged, with local partisans like Salt acting as conduits between candidates and electors. However, after the split in the Conservative party in 1846, party labels were less distinctive and elections, often with a glut of candidates, lacked the relatively clear dividing lines that had marked the 1837 and 1841 contests.
In the event it was Carnegie’s appointment as a lord of the treasury in March 1846 that triggered a by-election. Although Carnegie supported the repeal of the corn laws, both free traders and protectionists sought to bring forward their own candidates and turn the by-election into a test of opinion on the issue. The protectionist Chetwynd declined to offer, but urged that the ‘turn-coat’ Carnegie be challenged, and many local agriculturalists were aggrieved at the sailor’s conversion to free trade.Daily News, 9 Mar. 1846. The Liverpool merchant and free trader Lawrence Heyworth offered, but withdrew before the nomination. A teetotaller, he refused to sanction the extensive treating that was a prerequisite for contesting the borough, and he had also been bemused to be greeted on his arrival by a group of freemen demanding 2s. 6d. each for accompanying his procession.The Standard, 11 Mar. 1846; The Times, 13 Mar. 1846. Heyworth’s replacement was Edmund Watkin, son of Absalom Watkin, of Manchester, a member of the Anti-Corn Law League.The Times, 13 Mar. 1846. The protectionist candidate was the pro-corn law lecturer Dr. Sleigh, of Brill House, Buckinghamshire, who argued that free trade would jeopardise the town’s staple trade.Ibid. Carnegie and Watkin expressed free trade principles in their addresses, but the latter withdrew as he had not the requisite property qualification and did not wish to risk letting Sleigh in. However, Sleigh received only 25 votes, over seven hundred behind Carnegie.The Times, 13, 14 Mar. 1846.
There was a surfeit of candidates at the 1847 general election. Buller resigned to contest the northern division, but Carnegie stood his ground.Daily News, 30 July 1847; Staffordshire Mercury, qu. in Morning Chronicle, 13 July 1847. H.S. Meteyard, a barrister later arrested on account of his railway liabilities and Edward Petre, late MP for York, both offered as Liberals before withdrawing. The contenders who remained in the campaign until the nomination included Thomas Sidney, a Stafford-born London tea merchant, who described himself as a ‘no party man’, but who endorsed free trade and the abolition of the workhouse test. John Lea, of Hammersmith, a Liberal barrister, promised to endow a school in the borough if elected. David Urquhart, the ex-diplomat and writer, was nominally a Conservative but was best known for his vendetta against Lord Palmerston, who he alleged was a Russian agent. Urquhart purchased and distributed 50 barrels of flour among ‘the poorest inhabitants of the town’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1847. A fifth candidate, James Adam Gordon, a Liberal, appeared at the nomination, and like Carnegie, emphasised free trade in his speech. Lea announced that he had deposited that morning £1,200 in a local bank to fund a new school if he was returned. Urquhart articulated his idiosyncratic interpretation of British foreign policy, but also criticised the new poor law and the Bank Acts. Sidney dwelt on his local connections and humble origins, endorsed free trade and promised to vote for ‘a great amelioration of the poor laws’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847. Lea and Urquhart won the show of hands. The latter topped the poll by a commanding margin ahead of Sidney, who relegated Carnegie into third place. Lea and Gordon received only seven votes between them.Ibid. Lea had, perhaps unwisely, decided to forego the ‘all the usual collateral influences of law agents, committees, and canvass’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 Aug. 1847. In defeat Carnegie observed that the election was notable for:
More than [the] usual display of every degree of corruption. Bribery was open, flagrant, and notorious. I felt it out of my power to win, without having recourse to similar measures and I have reluctantly submitted to the disappointment of defeat rather than be dishonoured.Swynfen Thomas Carnegie to Sir Robert Peel, 1 Aug. 1847, Add. 40599, f. 116.
A petition against Urquhart’s return on grounds of bribery was presented, 7 Dec. 1847, but withdrawn, 3 Feb. 1848.CJ, ciii. 90, 146.
Sidney announced in early 1852 that he would retire at the coming general election, citing the increased threat of a petition under the new bribery bill as his reason.Staffordshire Advertiser, 13 Mar. 1852, 29 May 1852. There was no shortage of Liberal lawyers ready to stand in the alderman’s place, all of whom professed free trade and reform principles. These included Arthur John Otway, an Irishman related to the Whig marquess of Anglesea; Richard N. Phillips, a barrister on the northern circuit, who endorsed the programme of the National Financial and Parliamentary Reform Association; James Cook Evans, a barrister on the Oxford circuit, who opposed the Maynooth grant; and the more conservative Serjeant William Allen, who had previously contested Birmingham.Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Mar. 1852, 3, 10 Apr. 1852. Otway was a brother-in-law of Lord Clarence Paget, one of the marquess’s sons. Another Liberal, John Griffith Frith, a merchant sailor from a local family, was also briefly in the field. A more formidable Liberal contender was John Ayshford Wise, of Clayton Hall, chairman of the Stoke board of poor law guardians, who had a long record of support for free trade, retrenchment and reduced taxation, including the reform of income tax.Staffordshire Advertiser, 1 May 1852. John Bourne, of Hilderstone Hall, also came forward, endorsing free trade, the remission of indirect taxation, revision of the poor laws, a £8 borough franchise and £25 county rental franchise.Staffordshire Advertiser, 22, 29 May 1852, 5 June 1852. Carnegie, the former Peelite member, declined to come forward as he was at sea.Staffordshire Advertiser, 1 May 1852. If Wise was the strongest candidate, Otway benefited from the endorsement of the Burton brewer Michael Thomas Bass, now Liberal MP for Derby, and Phillips publicised a letter of recommendation from Richard Cobden.Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1852. Given that Urquhart had not yet retired, there were six candidates in the field, prompting the Staffordshire Advertiser to comment that the election ‘promises to be one of the most extraordinary on record’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1852. Soon after this pronouncement, a seventh candidate, Edmund Hopkinson, a London banker, also offered, declaring that ‘although I am a Conservative, I am not a protectionist’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1852. Despite rumours to the contrary, Urquhart retired, but electors remained ‘absolutely bewildered with the rival claims of so many candidates’.Ibid.
Six candidates spoke at the nomination: Wise, Hopkinson, Phillips, Bourne, Allen and Cook Evans. All the candidates professed free trade principles, although Bourne admitted that he had been a protectionist and the crowd gave Hopkinson a rough reception as they doubted his free trade credentials. The show of hands favoured Wise and Otway, who were elected in first and second place after the withdrawal of Allen and Phillips. The latter’s retirement was probably crucial in securing Otway’s return ahead of Bourne. Cook Evans was a distant fourth and Hopkinson received just one vote.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1852.
Otway retired at the 1857 general election, but Wise stood his ground and was ‘deservedly popular’ due to his assiduity in his parliamentary duties. He advocated retrenchment, revision of taxation and the poor laws, and administrative reform, but opposed ‘centralising’ commissions and boards. There was the usual plethora of Liberals offering, of whom only Francis Cadogan, son of Earl Cadogan and a son-in-law to the late marquess of Anglesey, made it to the nomination.Other candidates briefly in the field included Peter Catterall, a Preston magistrate; Charles Brodie Locock, son of the Queen’s former physician, who published an address but took no further part in the campaign; Carnegie the former MP; and John Lea, who had been a candidate in 1847: Staffordshire Advertiser, 14, 21, 28 Mar. 1857; The Standard, 20 Mar. 1857; Derby Mercury, 25 Mar. 1857; Morning Post, 21 Mar. 1857. Cadogan was described as ‘a man of great talent, and of very competent fortune’, the latter always a recommendation in Stafford.Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Mar. 1857. At a late stage Lord Ingestre, heir of Earl Talbot, offered as the ‘Protestant and Conservative’ candidate.Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857. At the nomination, Wise and Cadogan emphasised their support for Palmerston, with the former also complaining that the 1854 Election and Corrupt Practices Act was ‘very un-English and very unnatural’, as he could not see ‘the harm of a little refreshment’, colours, music bands or chairing the member at election time.Ibid. The show of hands favoured the Liberals, but Ingestre secured second place behind Wise in the poll.Staffordshire Advertiser, 4 Apr. 1857. Cadogan had been warned during the campaign by two experienced local electioneers that his return was ‘very doubtful … without the expenditure of money’.Hatherton Journal, 10 Mar. 1857, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/71. As Hatherton reflected, Cadogan was ‘thoroughly beaten by Ingestre – whose people have paid £2 per vote extensively - & coals - & tickets for refreshments … Many voters offered openly their vote to Cadogan for money – stating their sum’.Hatherton Journal, 28 Mar. 1857, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/71.
Ingestre transferred to North Staffordshire at the 1859 general election.Derby Mercury, 13 Apr. 1859. His Conservative replacement was Thomas Salt, of Weeping Cross, son of the local banker and party manager, who was joined in the field by Wise, the former MP Alderman Sidney, and Colonel Henry Addison, who offered as a Liberal at a late stage after Lord George Paget, of Beaudesert, declined to come forward.Birmingham Daily Post, 14 Apr. 1859; Morning Chronicle, 16 Apr. 1859; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 18 Apr. 1859. Hatherton remarked that he ‘never remember[ed] any other candidate with so legitimate a claim’ for Stafford as Salt.
The others are of the worst description. Wise, the best of them, will adopt any opinion to keep his seat – and last autumn spoke in the borough for equalising poor rates throughout the kingdom. … The other 2 candidates are adventurers dealing with principles as counters & ready to purchase votes - & doing it as giving them their only chance.Hatherton Journal, 29 Apr. 1859, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/81.
Soon after writing his eulogium to Salt, Hatherton wrote ‘to my surprise I find that honest T. Salt, has, like Wise, pledged opinion in favour of an equalisation of poor rates! No doubt to win votes.’Hatherton Journal, 2 May 1859, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/5/26/81. Salt was elected in second place behind Wise, with Sidney third and Addison, who gained some popularity and backing despite being initially regarded as a ‘mere adventurer’, finishing bottom.Birmingham Daily Post, 20 Apr. 1859.
Sidney was returned in August 1860 at a by-election prompted by Wise’s resignation due to ill-health.Birmingham Daily Post, 12 July 1860. During the campaign Sidney voiced support for a ‘national’ poor rate and contrasted his humble origins with those of his opponent Dudley Francis Stuart Ryder, viscount Sandon, of Sandon Hall, heir to the earl of Harrowby and former Liberal Conservative MP for Lichfield.Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Aug. 1860. Sidney supported the abolition of church rates and the enfranchisement of compound ratepayers, and reluctantly endorsed the ballot. Sandon opposed the ballot, household suffrage and the abolition of church rates, although he was willing to exempt Dissenters.Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Aug. 1860; Morning Chronicle, 3 Aug. 1860. Sandon now occupied ‘an independent political position’, no longer supporting Palmerston’s government, but unwilling to see it overthrown when there was no credible alternative that would command public and parliamentary confidence.The Times, 23 July 1860. A third candidate, William Chadwick, of Manchester, a member of the National Defence Association, spoke at the nomination (although his oration was largely shouted down), but did not go to the poll.Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Aug. 1860; Morning Chronicle, 3 Aug. 1860. Sandon retired early from the poll, telling electors that ‘I can only expect to be your member by the use of means which the law forbids’. The Times, 7 Aug. 1860.
Salt retired at the 1865 general election, as did Sidney after initially seeking re-election.Daily News, 6 July 1865. The election was a contest between Michael Arthur Bass, of the Burton brewing family and son of the Liberal MP for Derby; Henry Davis Pochin, of Broughton Old Hall, Manchester, who a Conservative newspaper claimed stood ‘on Radical and Chartist principles’; and Walter Meller, a Middlesex magistrate and Conservative.The Times, 28 June 1865, 6, 21 July 1865. A requisition got up for Sandon was to no avail.Birmingham Daily Post, 19 June 1865; The Standard, 23 June 1865. Bass, who supported a £10 county franchise but opposed the ballot, won an easy victory.Birmingham Daily Post, 28 June 1865. Meller beat Pochin to second place, after declaring his support for ‘progressive Conservatism’ and attacking Palmerston for his ‘meddling policy’ in foreign affairs.The Standard, 12 July 1865.
The 1867 Representation of the People Act doubled Stafford’s electorate to 3,152, but the borough was classified by Harry Hanham as one of the ‘extensively corrupt’ constituencies that survived in the post-1868 political system.PP 1868-69 (419), l. 111; H.J. Hanham, Elections and party management: politics in the time of Disraeli and Gladstone (1978), 263. Pochin and Meller were elected at the 1868 general election but were unseated on petition the following year. At the resultant by-election, Salt and another Conservative were returned ahead of two Liberals. Salt topped the poll at the 1874 general election, with Alexander Macdonald, one of the first working-class Liberal MPs, securing second. The Liberals seized both seats in 1880, although Salt came in at a by-election in 1881, defeating the working-class radical George Howell.McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 274. The borough was reduced to a single member constituency in 1885, after which it was controlled by the Liberals with the exception of Salt’s final spell as MP, 1886-92.Ibid., pt. II, p. 225.
