Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
A Study of Political Behaviour Under the Impact of the Reform Agitation1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
A study of parliamentary elections in a certain area must be preceded by the attempt to describe the character of the electorate. This is the more necessary as it is often little recognised to what a large extent the size and composition of the new electorate created by the £ 10 franchise varied from borough to borough. This was due to some extent to the strength of local registration societies and the different interpretation which the revising barristers gave to the term ratepayer, but its main cause was the character of the housing in the constituencies. Land values, custom and, of course, the wage structure of the community determined the quality and standard of building and in consequence rent and rates. While the urban middle classes were probably everywhere in possession of the vote the above mentioned factors clearly determine the proportion of the working-class who enjoyed the franchise. It seems useful therefore to compare the Yorkshire figures with those for other parts of the country. To do this it is best to disregard York and Hull with their large number of freemen voters and to concentrate on the newly enfranchised boroughs.
The electorates in the five new boroughs were all of a fair size; the smallest, Halifax, had 1,491 electors and Sheffield over 7,000. Yet with the exception of the latter, where as the result of the many skilled workmen and small masters we expect to find a large democratic electorate, the proportion of voters, whether measured in terms of inhabitants or houses, is almost inversely related to the size of the town.
page 231 note 1 The constituencies chosen for this comparative study are: Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Hull, Leeds, Sheffield and York.
page 231 note 2 A detailed discussion of this can be found in the minutes of proceedings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Elective Franchise which was set up in 1859 and reported in 1860. BPP 1860, vol. XII.
page 232 note 1 Electors as Percentage of Population and of Houses rated to the Poor.
*From Parliamentary Returns.
a Population figures projected to 1859 from 1851 Census figures, taking 1841–51 rate of population growth.
b Houses according to 18 5 6 returns.
page 232 note 2 Bradford and Sheffield show a more even rate, voters growing as fast as houses. Statistics for Halifax are difficult to interpret; no accurate figures for the number of houses within the boundaries of the Parliamentary Borough in 1832 seem to exist.
page 232 note 3 BPP 1866, LVII, (170).
page 232 note 4 If election petitions may be used as criteria of electoral purity we may conclude that the Yorkshire cities – Hull, whose corruption is notorious, apart – were rather pure, only one member (W.R.C. Stansfield of Huddersfield) had ever been unseated. For figures of election petitions, 1832–1853 see The Spectator of Jan. 7, 1854, cited Newmarch, Journal of the Royal Society, 1859, pp. 226–229.Google Scholar
page 233 note 1 Cf. House of Lords’ Committee on the Elective Franchise, BPP 1860, vol. XII.
page 233 note 2 See below pp. 254–256.
page 233 note 3 Cf. Morley, J., Life of Cobden, p. 663Google Scholar and Richards, F.: John Bright and Manchester, 1859.Google Scholar
page 234 note 1 Cf. A Letter to Edward Baines on his treatment of W. E. Forster and the Leeds Electors (1857). See also below p. 239, n. 1.
page 234 note 2 Rogers, J. E. T. (Ed.) The Public Speeches of John Bright, vol. II, p. 29.Google Scholar
page 234 note 3 The first enthusiasm soon waned, however, and the unanimity was more apparent than real. A meeting of the provisional committee held a week later resolved that the purpose of the association shall be ‘the achievement’ of some extensive measure of parliamentary reform' but refused to pledge itself to Bright's bill or that of any other statesman.
page 234 note 4 The Leeds Mercury reports during January also Reform Meetings in Doncaster and Pudsey.
page 235 note 1 As the local press forms the main source for this study of the election no references for individual quotations will be given. Although local papers follow political lines there was little biased reporting. The fact that most towns had two or more journals (of different views) made it possible to gain a fairly balanced view.
page 236 note 1 The result for the whole of the country showed a gain by the Conservatives of some 30 seats. But although Grenville boasted that the election had “elicited the completely Conservative spirit of the country”, the government was not strong enough to withstand the pressure of a united opposition. They were defeated by 13 votes at the beginning of June and resigned.
page 237 note 1 i.e., in Bradford: A. Harrisa, H. W. Wickham, T. Salt.
in Halifax: Sir C. Wood, J. Stansfield, S. Waterhouse.b
in Huddersfield: E. Ackroyda, E. A. Leatham.
in Hull: J. Clay, J. H. Lewis, J. Hoare.
in Leeds: E. Baines, G. S. Beecroft, W. E. Forstera.
in Sheffield: G. Hackfield, J. A. Roebuck.
in York: J. P. Brown-Westhead, H. A. Layarda, J. G. Smyth.
adefeated at the polls.
bdid not go to the poll.
Of the defeated candidates four soon found seats elsewhere.
page 238 note 1 One of them, John Harvey Lewis, who contested Hull, is a particularly picturesque character. Born in 1812, the eldest son of an Irish landowner, he studied at Trinity College, Dublin, was called to the Irish Bar and seems to have practised law from 1838 to 1850. He was High Sheriff of Kildare in 1857, became a shipowner, and founder and Chairman of the Galway-America Line. In 1857 he contested Bodmin as a 4th candidate appearing rather suddenly on the scene. The West Britain described him as “a man of large fortune and untrammelled by any party or pledge” but he himself claimed to be a supporter of Lord Palmerston. His election address was largely concerned with religious and social questions. He was, he said “a staunch supporter of the Protestant religion” and he hoped that the answer of the electors “would be one of the most decided noes to Puseyism ever given”. Yet financial considerations also weighed on his mind. “Some considerable portion of what he possessed in this world” he declared “was invested in the neighbourhood of Bodmin” and according to his supporter, Mr. Stripp, he had invested in mines and had been the instrument of sending no less than £ 4000 there. He was heavily defeated there and subsequently twice at Hull but finally succeeded in Marylebone in 1861.
page 238 note 2 Candidates in the Seven Constituencies
page 239 note 1 In 1857 there had been a volte face in the last minute. After an original meeting had decided on M. T. Baines and W. E. Forster as joint candidates the moderate wing withdrew their support and eventually adopted J. R. Mills as second candidate. See: A Letter to Edward Baines on his treatment of Forster, W. E. and the Leeds Electors, Leeds (1857).Google Scholar
page 240 note 1 From his election address.
page 241 note 1 This was important also vis a vis the followers of General Thompson. The latter, who had been thrown over rather unceremoniously had declared his willingness to stand down in favour of a local candidate provided he would be in favour of the ballot.
page 241 note 2 See a letter by C. E. in the York Herald of March 26 according to which Mr. Westhead “has not acted with that candour which a gentleman representing the Liberal cause and one who expects to retain the confidence of the Liberal Party should have done”.
page 243 note 1 Only E. A. Ackroyd based himself on the government bill when he declared that he would be in favour of a £ 25 Savings Bank franchise rather than the £ 60 proposed by the government.
page 243 note 2 The question of Church-rate repeal was one which had potentially a greater urgency but at this time it had in our constituencies with their strong non-conformist element almost ceased to be an issue. Those of the candidates who were Churchmen generally sided with E. A. Beacroft, the Conservative candidate in Leeds who declared in his election address that he wished to “accord to others the same freedom in religious matters which I claim for myself”. Where there had been some equivocation in this matter the campaign forced candidates to come out squarely for repeal.
page 243 note 3 See below.
page 244 note 1 Any comparison of franchise proposals must take into account the differences between rental and rateable value. Thus a proposal to confer a £ 6 rating franchise and an £ 8 rental come to very much the same thing.
page 245 note 1 While this outright opposition by Ackroyd to the West Riding Liberal Registration Society was somewhat unxpected the conflict between certain sections of the Liberal leadership and the Society appears to date from 1847 when the latter was captured by non-conformist groups and came out strongly in favour of voluntaryism in education, a move strongly resented by the Whigs. Ackroyd's attitude brought about counter measures from the West Riding Committee Rooms which issued orange cards, urging Huddersfield voters to support Leatham.
page 245 note 2 Whether the first move in the negotiations came from Wakefield is not quite certain. On the Huddersfield side the initiative came largely from Josiah Woodhead, proprietor of the radical Huddersfield Chronicle which from the beginning of the campaign had agitated against Ackroyd. See also Huddersfield Election Petition, 1898–2692 and 4877–5263.
page 246 note 1 According to the Conservative Hull Packet they were “an association for the spread of political radicalism”.
page 247 note 1 The latter's ‘vindication’ is fairly convincing. It seems clear that Lewis' orders were the result of his well-founded hope to become a candidate for the borough and were placed after his informal adoption in the summer of 1858.
page 248 note 1 BPP, 1859, 2nd session, vols. III and IV.
page 249 note 1 In Hull, we are told, a resolution in favour of Clay and Lewis was carried “in a most enthusiastic manner, a round of cheers being spiritually led by Mr. Wm. Lewis, the brother of the candidate”.
page 249 note 2 Rogers, , op. cit., vol. II, p. 65.Google Scholar
page 249 note 3 Hull Election Petition, loc. cit.
page 250 note 1 Ibid. 6066.
page 250 note 2 Ibid. 4544.
page 251 note 1 Huddersfield Eelection Petition, 10c. cit.
page 251 note 2 In Hull posters directed against Lewis were strongly derogatory in character. The Conservative Chairman disclaimed all knowledge of them. They disappeared soon after-wards.
page 251 note 3 Bribery was possible through the payment of landlords for the letting of non-electors Committee rooms or for allowing their walls to be covered with posters.
page 252 note 1 Quoted in Robertson, , Life of Bright, 1883 ed., p. 264.Google Scholar On Working Ckss apathy see also John Saville (ed.), Ernest Jones, Chartist, p. 74.
page 253 note 1 Although of no political significance, the show of hands was of some psychological importance as its outcome might influence wavering voters. In Leeds the Mercury remonstrated with the Mayor who, as returning officer, had given the show of hands to Baines and Beecroft. The paper thought that it should have gone to Baines and Forster as all the hands that went up for the former had also gone up for the latter.
page 253 note 2 From the “Address of the Non-Electors of the Little Horton Ward to the Electors of the Borough of Bradford”.
page 253 note 3 There was, of course, the pressure on Shopkeepers and publicans which non-electors as well as voters could exercise. While this could be purely social it could also be outright intimidation. Cf. Huddersfield Election Petition, loc. cit., 155–246.
page 254 note 1 These percentages do not allow for duplicate entries on the register. In Bradford it was thought that the 3,600 entries on the register represented 3,300 electors. On that basis the percentage of the electorate voting is 90.
page 254 note 2 Cf. Bean, W., The parliamentary representation of the six Northern Counties of EnglandGoogle Scholar, where the figures of the electorates and of the number voting are given. Bean's figures seem based on actual analyses of polls and not deduced from voting figures. They were tested for the 1859 election and were found to be correct.
page 254 note 3 In Leeds 104 voters plumped for Forster but only 66 for Baines. In Bradford Salt's committee attempted at first to secure a large number of plumpers in order to ensure his return at the head of the poll. A last minute fear that this might lead to a victory of Wickham and the conservative candidate made them change their tactics, thereby defeating Harris but, at the same time, putting Wickham at the head of the poll.
page 255 note 1 Such figures were found for Leeds and the Bradford Poll Book which distinguishes unfortunately only between the borough and the three out-townships was analysed by the author. Where the poll books give addresses of voters and where the relevant Census schedules are available a more detailed study of voting behaviour could be undertaken. In the case of the election here studied both pre-requisites were absent.
page 256 note 1 A list of Leatham's workers (i.e., those who followed his carriage after the declaration of the poll contains among 23 names only 2 J. P.'s and 3 men to whom the paper gives the title ‘esq.’ (including the two justices).
page 257 note 1 But see: Gillespie, F. E., Labour and Politics in England, 1850–1867.Google Scholar
page 257 note 2 Asa Briggs, Victorian People, p. 239.
page 257 note 3 The position in Halifax is illustrated by a letter of Snowden, John to Jones, Ernest in reply to the latter's appeal for funds. “There is no Chartist organization in Halifax nor in any of the villages surrounding it… many have emigrated. Others… have become so thoroughly disgusted at the indifference of the multitude to their best interest that they are resolved to make no more sacrifices in a public cause…” Quoted by Saville, , Jones, Ernest, Chartist, , p. 74.Google Scholar
page 258 note 1 I am much indebted to Mr. C. Muris for the loan of his thesis on the Northern Reform Union (The Northern Reform Union, 1858–1862, M. A. thesis, Dept. of Education, King's College, University of Durham).Google Scholar
page 258 note 2 The author is greatly indebted to Sir Lewis Namier and Professor Asa Briggs for their comments on a draft of this paper.
You have
Access
