SCHOLEFIELD, William (1809-1867), of 17 Old Square, Birmingham , Warwickshire

Described in 1862 by his colleague John Bright as ‘rather Palmerstonian’, which was not intended as a compliment, Scholefield’s respectability and moderate manner have obscured his record as a ‘Radical Reformer’.1John Bright to Richard Cobden, 6 Jan. 1862, Add. 43384, f. 286, qu. by J. Vincent, The formation of the British Liberal party, 1857-68 (1966), 233; Birmingham Daily Post, 10 July 1867; Dod’s parliamentary companion: new Parliament (1857), 275; Gent. Mag. (1867), ii. 262. In this respect, his parliamentary career bears comparison to that of his father, Joshua Scholefield, MP for Birmingham, 1832-44, though he was busier, being described in 1854 as one of the ‘sensible, practical, hard-working men’, who enabled committee business to be processed.2J. Spellen, The inner life of the House of Commons (1854), 37.

At a young age Scholefield entered the family firm, Joshua Scholefield and Sons, which had banking, manufacturing and mercantile interests, and it was whilst on business on his father’s behalf in the United States that he met his ‘pretty American’ wife.3Birmingham Daily Post, 10 July 1867; Gent. Mag. (1867), ii. 263. From 1837, Scholefield began to play a prominent part in Birmingham’s public life, following in his father’s footsteps by serving as high bailiff and being elected to the political council of the revived Birmingham Political Union.4C. Flick, The Birmingham Political Union and the movements for reform in Britain, 1830-1839 (1976), 119. He became the first mayor of Birmingham the following year, but his use of metropolitan policemen to maintain order in the town when Chartist meetings were held proved disastrous, precipitating the Bull Ring riots, 4 July 1839, and provoking much acrimony and a temporary suspension of the council’s police powers.5C. Behagg, Politics and production in the early nineteenth century (1990), 202-18 remains the best account of the riots; for the impact on the town council see C. Gill, History of Birmingham (1952), i. 245-71.

After his father’s death, 4 July 1844, Scholefield contested the subsequent by-election, but due to his bereavement took no part in the campaign. This, and the candidature of a rival reformer, contributed to his defeat by the Conservative Richard Spooner, whom Scholefield beat at the 1847 general election. Thereafter he was unchallenged except in 1859, when he topped the poll.6McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 24; The Times, 6, 8, 9 July 1844; Morn. Chro., 13 July 1844. Described as a ‘faithful and trusted’ representative by one local chronicler, his support for the South in the American Civil War created a ‘little cloud’ between Scholefield and some of his supporters, but did little to dent his general popularity.7Birmingham Daily Post, 11 July 1865; J. Langford, Modern Birmingham and its institutions (1873), 302, 342-3. S. Timmins, ‘Scholefield, William (1809–1867)’, rev. M. Lee, www.oxforddnb.com incorrectly states that he supported the North.

Like earlier Birmingham representatives, including his father and Thomas Attwood, Scholefield was a consistent supporter of radical political reform, and was one of the thirteen MPs who divided in favour of Feargus O’Connor’s motion for the People’s Charter, 3 July 1849. For his efforts in the cause of popular rights, Birmingham non-electors presented him with an Italianate silver vase, 15 Apr. 1853.8Illustrated London News, xxii. 312. Unlike his colleague, George Frederick Muntz, the last of the currency reformers to represent Birmingham, Scholefield had few qualms about endorsing free trade and Gladstone’s financial policy, and gave general support to successive Liberal governments.

Scholefield possessed the qualities of a good private member, being ‘unobtrusive, zealous, hard-working, and thoroughly well-informed’, all of which made him well-equipped to chair private bill committees, which, he explained to constituents in 1865, meant that he worked from ‘early in the morning’ to ‘late in the night’ for two to three months each session.9Birmingham Daily Post, 10 July 1867, 13 July 1865. He did not complain of such onerous responsibilities, believing that ‘I have merely taken my share of business.’10Birmingham Daily Post, 13 July 1865. In 1849 Scholefield was described as ‘a constant attendant at his post in Parliament’ but ‘by no means a frequent speaker’ (a comment also applicable to his later career), whose style was ‘matter-of-fact in his reasoning, being alike remote from twaddle as he is from ornate, rhetorical flourish’.11Illustrated London News (1849), xv. 13.

In debate Scholefield generally limited his contributions to issues of religious liberty and commercial questions. Although he was a Churchman, Scholefield spoke against the ecclesiastical titles bill, 14 Feb. 1851, and was a prominent critic of the repeated attempts of his old adversary Spooner, whom he described as ‘an ever-willing instrument’ of ‘sleepless bigotry’, to end the endowment of the Catholic seminary at Maynooth.12Hansard, 14 Feb. 1851, vol. 114, c. 699; ibid., 1 May 1855, vol. 137, c. 2077. Scholefield opposed all religious endowment, but objected to the hypocrisy of MPs who complained noisily about Maynooth and yet had nothing to say about the ‘hideous enormity’ of the Irish church.13The Times, 8 July 1852.

Given his business expertise, Scholefield took a natural interest in commercial questions, but as the first president of Birmingham’s Freehold Land Society, he was also concerned with working-class financial institutions.14Birmingham Daily Post, 10 July 1867. He served on the 1848 investigation into the Chartist land plan, and in 1855 forced the government to drop their proposal to end the exemption from stamp duties enjoyed by friendly societies.15PP 1847-48 (577), xix. 334-5; Hansard, 27 Apr. 1855, vol. 137, c. 1934; 6, 13, 16 July 1855, vol. 139, cc. 608-9, 869-70, 949. As the government’s proposal had been struck out of the friendly societies’ bill by the Lords, Gladstone slyly reinserted it into the state carriage duties bill (which as a money bill could not be tampered with by the peers). However, Commons opposition, led by Scholefield, forced the offending clause to be dropped. Between 1862 and 1864, Scholefield introduced bills to enable investors to become limited rather than general partners in companies, and his measure was adopted by the government and passed in 1865.16PP 1862 (126), iv. 55-68; 1863 (26), iii. 203-14; 1863 (172), iii. 215-22; 1863 (242), iii. 223-32; PP 1864 (68), iii. 197-210; 28 & 29 Vict., c.86.

Scholefield’s main legislative achievement, however, was the 1860 Adulteration of Food Act, the campaign for which stemmed from a public letter in 1854 by the Birmingham scientist John Postgate, who had exploited chemical advances to reveal the extent of the adulteration of food, drink and medicine. Postgate proposed that local councils should appoint public analysts empowered to test articles for contaminants and punish the guilty.17Unless otherwise stated the summary of the campaign against adulteration is based upon T. Seccombe, ‘Postgate, John (1821-1881)’, www.oxforddnb.com; Langford, Modern Birmingham, 446-66. While Postgate mobilised public opinion, Scholefield chaired a committee, which reported in 1856, providing a horrifying catalogue of the common adulterants in everyday foodstuffs and beverages.18PP 1854-55 (432), viii. 225; 1854-55 (480), viii. 373; 1856 (379), viii. 2-10. After widespread opposition forced the withdrawal of an 1857 proposal, which would have been compulsory, Scholefield introduced a permissive bill in 1859, which with slight amendments was passed the following year.19PP 1857 session 2 (93), i. 9-20; 1859 session 2 (10), i. 5-10; 1860 (18), i. 49-54; 1860 (103), iii. 55-60; 23 & 24 Vict., c.84; Hansard, 7 July 1859, vol. 154, c. 846-50; 15, 29 Feb. 1860, vol. 156, cc. 1094, 2025-42; 14 Mar. 1860, vol. 157, c. 545; Langford, Modern Birmingham, 456-7. The principal change was to extend the 1860 bill to Scotland and Ireland as well as England. Despite its deficiencies, given that the campaign took place in an era when the influence of individualism had ‘raised the notion of caveat emptor into a species of immutable rule’, it was perhaps an achievement to get a measure passed at all.20K.T. Hoppen, The mid-Victorian generation, 1846-1886 (1998), 117.

Scholefield’s deteriorating health, partly the result of his heavy committee duties, precluded his involvement in Postgate’s campaign for a compulsory measure, which was later taken up by the Birmingham MPs George Dixon and Philip Henry Muntz, resulting in the passing of a second Act in 1872.21Langford, Modern Birmingham, 458-66; Birmingham Daily Post, 10 July 1867. Unfortunately, Scholefield did not live to see this, as he died in harness from a sudden attack of heart disease, 9 July 1867.22Ibid. He had retired from active involvement in the family firm after benefiting from the will of his maternal grandfather, Clement Cotterill, in the early 1860s, but remained a director of the Midland Bank until his death, and also served as president of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce.23Ibid. He was succeeded by his only surviving son, Clement Cotterill Scholefield (1839-1904), a clergyman.24Gent. Mag. (1867), ii. 263; Timmins, ‘Scholefield, William’.