Herefordshire

Economic and social profile:

Renowned for its ‘fine hop gardens and very extensive and celebrated orchards, which produce the cider so universally known as the produce of the county’, Herefordshire’s economy was almost entirely based on agriculture.1Daily News, 8 May 1847. Justly famous for its ‘fine-fleeced sheep’ and a ‘valuable red-brown’ type of cattle, the county’s northern segment was also a centre of horse breeding.2Dod’s electoral facts, 1832-53, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 143. The success of local graziers in managing livestock and bloodlines was widely recognised.3Daily News, 8 May 1847. Trade and retail was concentrated in seven market towns and Hereford, the county town and cathedral city. The Hereford to Shrewsbury line, which opened in 1853, gave the county valuable railway links.

Electoral history:

One of only seven English constituencies to elect three MPs after 1832, the representation of Herefordshire was generally shared between the parties in this period, an arrangement encouraged by the addition of its third member by the Reform Act. The balance of party strength did shift, however. The Liberals held two seats until 1841, after which the Conservatives held the majority. The intensity of local protectionist sentiment allowed the Conservatives to capture all three seats in 1852, but the balance was restored at the following general election in 1857, when a Liberal topped the poll, with two Conservatives elected alongside him. While triple-member status made such compromises easier, it also allowed candidates to differentiate themselves from their party colleagues. This was most notable in 1841 and 1857, when Kedgwin Hoskins, a Whig, and Thomas Booker-Blakemore, a Conservative, curried favour with electors by professing, respectively, pro-corn law and Palmerstonian sympathies at odds with their colleagues.

There were only three contests in the period, and compromises that minimised the expense of polls and avoided disturbing the peace of the county were evidently convenient for the leading landed families. The 1857 contest apparently cost one candidate £10,000 and another £5,000.4Hereford Journal, 4 May 1859. Apart from 1852 and 1857, the Conservatives never put up three candidates, even when, as in the 1832-41 period, their strength on the register might have justified it. For their part, Liberals were reluctant to bring forward second candidates after 1841, despite the occasional lobbying of some local activists. But with no strong urban presence in the constituency that could register and organise electors as in industrial counties, such pleas could be safely ignored by the Whig gentry, who seemed content with one seat.

In 1847 the radical liberal Daily News observed of Herefordshire that ‘there are few counties in which the strength of family influence is more intensely felt’.5Daily News, 8 May 1847. A decade earlier, the Hereford solicitor John James had emphasised the influence of landlords over their tenants in his evidence to the select committee on bribery in 1835.6PP 1835 (547), viii. 59. While the Hanbury family, Barons Bateman, of Shobdon Court, were resident aristocrats, much of the county was divided among the local baronetcy and gentry, such as the Cotterells, baronets, of Garnons; the Hoskyns, baronets of Harewood; the Scudamore Stanhopes, baronets, of Holme Lacy; the Cornewalls, baronets, of Moccas Court; the Clives, of Whitfield Court; and the Arkwrights, of Hampton Court, to name but a few. The county also had a significant female patron in the form of Lady Emily Foley, of Stoke Edith, who headed her family’s interest after 1846. Her influence enabled her to bring in her brother unopposed at the 1858 by-election even though he did not own so much as an acre in the county. Many of the county’s representatives and landowning families, such as the Baileys, of Glanusk Park, Breconshire; the Baskervilles, of Clyro Court, Monmouthshire; and the Lewises, baronets, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, had their principal estates in neighbouring counties. Yet there was no opposition to them standing for Herefordshire, and it is tempting to speculate that the county’s representation was part of wider arrangements made between landed proprietors who owned land across the Anglo-Welsh border region.

In the unreformed era, the representation of the county had generally been shared between the Whig and Tory gentry, although two Reformers came in unopposed at the 1831 general election. The 1832 Reform Act left the county intact, although there were minor boundary changes at the margins, with small portions of land being annexed to Monmouthshire, Shropshire, Radnorshire and Worcestershire West. Far more significantly the county gained an extra representative.7HP Commons, 1820-1832, ii. 463-71. The pre-1832 ‘voterate’ had numbered around 5,000; the new electorate was initially 5,013, but rose to 7,226 by 1836-7. It peaked at 7,944 in 1842, but remained around 7,000 thereafter.8PP 1836 (190), xliii. 365; 1844 (11), xxxviii. 428. The structure of the electorate remained stable, with 40s. freeholders generally accounting for 70-75% and £50 occupying tenants 20-25% of registered voters. The only parliamentary boroughs in the county were Hereford and Leominster, both small towns with little industry, so the proportion of urban freeholders was electorally insignificant, amounting to only 7.3% in 1857.9PP 1857-58 (108), xlvi. 573.

At the 1832 general election, the Reform incumbents, Sir Robert Price, of Foxley, and Kedgwin Hoskins, of Strickstenning, were returned without opposition alongside the Tory Edward Thomas Foley, of Stoke Edith. The election set a trend for the future in two important respects. Firstly, the candidates tended to downplay party cries. For example, Foley promised to promote ‘general prosperity’ and the agricultural interests of the county and Hoskins similarly emphasised his commitment to furthering local interests in a hustings speech notably devoid of political content.10Hereford Times, 1 Dec. 1832. While Price made a more partisan speech on the hustings, celebrating the passage of reform, Catholic relief and other measures, he praised Foley’s ‘amiable and excellent disposition’. Secondly, the election was notable for the extraordinary entrances that candidates made to the nomination, a display repeated at future contests. Hoskins was accompanied by a ‘vast body of his friends’ to the Shire Hall, while Foley arrived with similar fanfare, in an open carriage ‘drawn by four beautiful greys’, and blue banners waved by his supporters. After the termination of proceedings, the candidates were ‘chaired’, which as in many English constituencies after the Reform Act, meant being drawn in carriages through the town rather than being held aloft by a crowd.11Hereford Journal, 19 Dec. 1832. The good-natured spirit of compromise extended to the Liberal Hereford Times, which conceded that if the county must have at least one Tory MP, it might as well be Foley, given his personal qualities.12Hereford Times, 22 Dec. 1832.

Before the 1834 dissolution a correspondent to the same newspaper complained that:

the registration of voters in this county, and many others, has been left entirely to the Conservatives. ... The want of holding well together for the support and protection of each other’s interests ... against the common enemy, foolish bickering and divisions, and injudicious patronage, are the besetting sins and fatalities of the Liberal party, and give their less numerous but more co-operative enemy the superiority over them.

The Liberals were like ‘awkward squads’, whereas their enemies were like disciplined Roman soldiers holding their formation.13Hereford Times, 29 Nov. 1834. However, the Conservatives did not press their advantage, and the contest that occurred was accidental rather than intentional, further underlining the mutual interest of local landowners in amicably sharing the representation.

The incumbents, who all stood their ground at the ensuing 1835 general election, again made impressive and colourful entrances at the nomination, but the rituals were interrupted by an unexpected opposition.14Foley’s procession included 286 horsemen and 15 carriages, all sporting his blue colours: Hereford Journal, 14 Jan. 1835. Complaining of the Whig government’s inattention to agricultural distress, John Barneby, Conservative MP for Droitwich, proposed the absent Edward Poole, a former mayor of Hereford, as an independent candidate. This prompted Price to defend his votes on agricultural issues. He argued that the repeal of malt duty would not have had much benefit for ‘this cider county’ and dismissed Lord Chandos’s motion for agricultural relief as ‘a mere humbug’. As at the previous election, Foley and Hoskins were less partisan in their addresses. Tellingly, Foley denied being any party to the plan to put up Poole, who was really a ‘farmer’s friend’ candidate rather than an official second Conservative.15Hereford Journal, 14 Jan. 1835.

Poole lost the show of hands, but his proposers demanded a poll, in which their candidate finished bottom. Hoskins, Foley and Price were returned in first, second and third place respectively, all comfortably ahead of Poole, in a contest in which 86.6% of the 4,970 registered electors voted.16PP 1836 (199), xliii. 375; Hereford Times, 17 Jan. 1835. Foley was praised by the Hereford Times for his ‘independent conduct’ in refusing to influence his tenants, or give any encouragement to the independent candidate.17Ibid. On the other hand, at the declaration, Price asserted that he had opposed the notion of bringing forth a third Whig candidate to counter Poole. All sides therefore sought to avoid a straight party contest, and the baronet also noted that the Whig gentry had attempted to influence their ‘tenants in favour of Mr. Foley, which they might fairly and honourably do’.18Hereford Journal, 21 Jan. 1835.

By the time of the next general election in 1837, the electorate had dramatically expanded by 45% to 7,226.19PP 1836 (199), xliii. 375; 1836 (190), xliii. 365. Yet the incumbents were returned unopposed at the nomination, with no second Conservative brought forward. As before, the proceedings were preceded by an impressive spectacle. Foley was accompanied by 220 horsemen and 24 carriages. Following the practice of previous elections, Price was the most partisan, hailing the ‘steady reform of every remaining abuse in our institutions’, while Foley and Hoskins made brief addresses which avoided controversy.20Hereford Journal, 2 Aug. 1837. At a post-election dinner given by local Reformers, Price declared that he had warned local Conservatives that a third Whig would stand if they brought forward a second candidate.21Hereford Times, 5 Aug. 1837.

Revealingly, when the Conservatives finally resolved to exploit their advantage on the register in 1840, it was to claim two rather than three seats. In that year Thomas Baskerville Mynors Baskerville, of Clyro Court, Monmouthshire, and Joseph Bailey, of Glanusk Park, Breconshire, were announced as the new Conservative candidates at the next general election, at which Foley would retire.22Hereford Times, 3 Oct. 1840. The 1841 general election was notable for a rebalancing of the representation to reflect Conservative strength. Yet this was achieved without a contest, and the qualities of the candidates were as important as party labels, as shown in the differing fates of Hoskins and Price.

Criticising the votes of the Whig members, the Conservative Morning Post claimed that Hoskins had been corrupted by Price into becoming a blind supporter of Melbourne’s government.23Morning Post, 8 June 1841. Yet Hoskins was returned unopposed alongside Bailey and Baskerville. This was because, unlike Price, he had consistently voted in favour of motions to relieve agricultural distress even when it meant opposing the Whig leadership. Even more significantly, he promised to oppose a fixed duty on corn ‘let the proposition come from whatever quarter it may’.24Hereford Times, 19 June 1841. He was prepared then to oppose his own government on this issue. In contrast, Price, who had long been vocal in his objections to the existing corn law, fully supported the fixed duty on corn proposed by the Whig government. As he recognised, his unwillingness to pledge against the alteration of the corn laws compelled his retirement, as he would almost certainly have been defeated in a contest.25Hereford Times, 19 June 1841.

The 1841 nomination thus saw the unopposed return of three protectionists, two of whom were Conservatives, and Hoskins, who was a Reformer. Bailey and Baskerville were accompanied by a two mile long procession, comprising 1,500 horsemen and 70 carriages. Hoskins made a characteristically brief speech, declaring that his ‘politics were unchanged’. Baskerville and Bailey both declared their opposition to the proposed fixed duty, which would not stand in their view. The absent Price was nominated but withdrawn after the show of hands. After the proceedings, Bailey and Baskerville left in a ‘beautiful triumphal car covered with blue silk’.26Hereford Journal, 7 July 1841. The Hereford Times complained that the nomination had been a humiliation for the Liberals and blamed the returning officer for not calling a poll, arguing that there were grounds for a petition. This was wishful thinking, however, as the strength of local protectionist feeling and the Conservatives’ majority on the register would have ensured Price’s defeat, even had he been willing to risk the expense of a contest he could ill afford given his fragile finances.27Hereford Times, 10, 17 July 1841.

The popularity of protectionism was underlined by a series of public meetings in the early and mid-1840s. In 1842 Baskerville defended his support for Peel’s revision of the sliding scale on corn, while admitting that he wanted a ‘greater protection’ to farmers of barley and oats in particular.28Hereford Journal, 6 Apr. 1842. Two years later the Herefordshire Agricultural Protection Society was founded, when Bailey took the opportunity to attack the Anti-Corn Law League. In particular he contrasted their predictions of cheap bread given to urban audiences with their reassurances to farmers that the repeal of the corn laws would stabilise rather than substantially diminish the price of wheat.29Hereford Times, 17 Feb. 1844. After Peel’s conversion to free trade became apparent, the Society held a meeting in January 1846, chaired by Earl Somers, which was attended by local landowners and all three MPs, including Hoskins. Baskerville expressed his shock at his erstwhile leader’s ‘extraordinary’ conduct, while Bailey declared that his principles were entirely in accordance with the pro-corn law sentiments of the constituency.30Hereford Journal, 21 Jan. 1846.

Despite the apparent strength of protectionist feeling in Herefordshire, the 1847 general election was notable for another unopposed compromise. Baskerville retired and was replaced by Francis Richard Haggitt, of Belmont Abbey. He was not, however, a protectionist, but a Peelite, who promised a ‘fair trial’ to free trade, and enjoyed the backing of significant landowners such as John Arkwright.31Hereford Journal, 23 June 1847. Hoskins also retired, with his replacement the Liberal free trader (and future chancellor of the exchequer) George Cornewall Lewis, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire.32Hereford Times, 26 June 1847. With Bailey standing his ground it meant that the constituency was now represented by a Peelite, a protectionist Conservative and a free trade Liberal.

There was some criticism of Lewis, who had served as a poor law commissioner, as a ‘Whig placeman’, but even though he lectured farmers on the merits of repeal of the corn laws, there was no attempt to oppose him.33‘A Freeholder’, letter, Hereford Journal, 30 June 1847. The result led Price, now MP for Hereford, who returned to nominate Lewis, to express himself ‘perfectly satisfied with the state of the representation’. Bailey argued that agriculture and manufacturing would suffer from the one-sided free trade introduced by Peel, and called for the reduction or repeal of malt and hop duty to compensate farmers. Haggitt styled himself as ‘a member of the Tory party’, but followed a Peelite line. The election was accompanied by the customary processions, both before and after the proceedings.34Hereford Times, 7 Aug. 1847.

By the time of Bailey’s death in August 1850, the fall in agricultural prices, blamed on the repeal of the corn laws, meant that farmers were much less willing to tolerate a compromise that gave free traders two-thirds of the representation. As a statement of intent they solicited the candidature of Thomas Booker, of Velindra, Glamorgan, a landowner and ironmaster, whose wealthy uncle Richard Blakemore, MP for Wells, owned land in the county.35Hereford Journal, 11 Sept. 1850. At the by-election Booker wasted little time in condemning free trade as a ‘false and suicidal policy’, and the Hereford Times described him as ‘of the ultra Tory school’.36Hereford Times, 14 Sept. 1850. Previously, the Conservative Hereford Journal observed, tenant farmers had been told that protection was merely a landowners’ question, but they had become more assertive in the last eighteen months, with district protectionist associations established in Ross, Ledbury, Leominster and Kington. While local landlords would have preferred a country gentleman to stand, local farmers adopted and brought forward Booker because of his strong protectionist credentials.37Hereford Journal, 18 Sept. 1850. Although Booker replaced another protectionist and met with no opposition, the election can be seen as milder version of the farmers’ revolt against their landlords in evidence in other counties, such as in Nottinghamshire North and South.38J. Owen, ‘Nottinghamshire North’ and ‘Nottinghamshire South’, HP Commons, 1832-1868 (draft entries).

Booker’s return was a foretaste of the 1852 general election, when the popularity of protectionism led to a contest that ousted Lewis and allowed the Conservatives to take all three seats, the only occasion the constituency was completely under the control of one party in this period. When Derby’s government took office in February 1852, candidates began jostling in anticipation of the expected dissolution. Haggitt retired, but two new Conservatives entered the field to stand alongside Booker. James King King, of Staunton Park, summed up his principles as ‘Conservative, Protectionist and Protestant’. Charles Spencer Bateman Hanbury, brother of 2nd Baron Bateman, the county’s lord lieutenant, declared to the Ross Protection Society that he would support the re-imposition of agricultural protection. The ‘vast majority, the combined strength and the unanimity of feeling of the Protectionist party in this county’ meant that it had a ‘just, fair, legitimate, undeniable right to assert and affect its claim to return three Protectionist members’, argued the Hereford Journal. Furthermore, the newspaper claimed that Hanbury was an ‘avowed Whig’, whose father had been ennobled by Melbourne’s government.39Hereford Journal, 25 Feb. 1852. While Hanbury was to all intents and purposes a Derbyite Conservative, his Whiggish antecedents did provide useful cover, allowing the joint campaign to be presented as a protectionist rather than a Conservative one. For his part, Booker declared that a ‘reversal’ of commercial policy was ‘absolutely necessary’.40Hereford Journal, 10 Mar. 1852.

Undeterred, Lewis made no attempt to trim his free trade views, telling electors that any attempt to restore the corn laws was ‘doomed to certain and inevitable disappointment’.41Ibid. The critique of Lewis developed by his opponents and frequently expressed by the Hereford Journal was three-fold. Firstly, he was a dogmatic free trader. Secondly, he had done little to promote the county’s interest or relieve farmers. Finally, he had been closely associated with Russell’s discredited government, firstly as a junior minister and then as a ‘slavish partisan’.42Hereford Journal, 7 July 1852. Quote from letter by Henry C. Robinson in ibid.

The candidates arrived as part of ‘vast cavalcades’ at the nomination, although banners and bands were conspicuous by their absence as it had been agreed beforehand by both sides that they should be dispensed with. Lewis defended free trade and his votes against Disraeli’s motions for agricultural distress, which were really of a ‘party character’. The Derby government had no intention of restoring the corn laws he sneered, but were cynically sending ‘protectionists to the counties and free-traders to the towns’. Booker reaffirmed his support for the ‘good old policy of Protection’, while King complained that Lewis was the ‘bitterest enemy’ of the agricultural interest. Hanbury justified his support for Derby’s government as it would protect the constitution, grant concessions to farmers and stand up for Protestantism. A poll was demanded on King’s behalf after he lost the show of hands.43Hereford Journal, 14 July 1852.

The polling was distinguished by violence. Booker and Hanbury’s carriage was pelted with stones and the declaration was delayed by the destruction of poll books in Ross district by a mob. Liberal agents, including F. L. Bodenham, questioned the legality of declaring without such records, a tactic described as ‘vexatious’ by Booker. The high sheriff, after a discussion of the law, declared King, Booker and Hanbury returned in first, second and third place, with Lewis relegated into fourth by less than 200 votes.44Hereford Journal, 21 July 1852.

The Liberals regained their seat at the next general election in 1857, restoring the ‘balance and equilibrium of interests’ as Lewis termed it.45Hereford Journal, 1 Apr. 1857. A number of factors worked in their favour, including the popularity of Palmerston. A letter from A.W. Chatfield, of Much Marcle, to the Hereford Times, provided a telling example of this. Having voted for the protectionists in 1852, Chatfield thought the country ‘better governed’ under Palmerston’s administration than any alternative. He also supported his patriotic and assertive foreign policy, and admired the premier’s ecclesiastical appointments. In short, Palmerston seemed to preserve the best elements of existing institutions, while passing ‘just and well-considered measures’ when necessary. He was the most effective ‘liberal Conservative’ leader available.46Hereford Times, 14 Mar. 1857. The Liberal candidate, Sir Henry Geers Cotterell, 3rd baronet, of Garnons, nailed his colours firmly to the Palmerstonian mast throughout his campaign.

But Booker-Blakemore (as he was now known) also proclaimed in his address that Cobden’s motion on Canton, supported by most Conservative MPs, had been ‘unfair and dangerous’ and ‘not justified by the circumstances of the case’.47Hereford Times, 21 Mar. 1857. For this reason he had abstained in the division that defeated Palmerston. At the nomination he expressed himself even more strongly: ‘he did not consider it good Conservative policy to attempt to weaken Lord Palmerston’s government and possibly overthrow it’. Returning to propose Cotterell, Lewis, now MP for Monmouth district and Palmerston’s chancellor of the exchequer, praised Booker-Blakemore for showing that he was ‘no blind or headlong partisan’. The Conservative repaid the compliment by describing Lewis as a ‘safe British minister’.48Hereford Journal, 1 Apr. 1857.

The Liberals also contrasted the poor parliamentary performance of the incumbents with Lewis. Electors had rejected a man of rare talents for a trio of nonentities, the Hereford Times argued. As ‘A Farmer’ put it in one letter, despite their noisy support for protection at the last election, King and Hanbury in particular had been conspicuous by their silence and inactivity at Westminster.49Hereford Times, 21 Mar. 1857.

Hanbury was especially vulnerable for two reasons. Whilst King and Booker-Blakemore had conveniently absented themselves from the division on Canton, Hanbury had voted in the majority that defeated Palmerston.50Hereford Times, 14 Mar. 1857. Furthermore, he suffered from the unpopularity of his brother, who was embroiled in a dispute with a tenant. It was Hanbury’s misfortune to be ‘made to answer for the alleged unpopular acts of Lord Bateman’.51Hereford Times, 4 Apr. 1857. While King wisely made a brief speech at the nomination, Hanbury launched a long attack on Palmerston, whom he called a ‘chameleon’, which was impolitic given the premier’s popularity.52Hereford Journal, 1 Apr. 1857.

Hanbury lost the show of hands and finished fourth in the ensuing poll, with Cotterell, Booker-Blakemore and King elected in first, second and third place respectively. The Liberals’ electoral strategy was for their supporters to plump for Cotterell and once he was secure, cast split votes with any of the other candidates except Hanbury. Of Cotterell’s 3,360 votes, 2,074 (61.7%) were plumpers. The young baronet also shared 356 votes with Booker-Blakemore and 335 votes with Booker-Blakemore and King. Booker-Blakemore secured second place because 1,841 cast their votes for him, Hanbury and King, which may be considered straightforward Conservative party votes, whilst he also secured split votes with Cotterell. While the Liberal strategy worked to his advantage, it is likely that Booker-Blakemore’s Palmerstonian sympathies also proved appealing.53Herefordshire poll book (1857). The extent of Cotterell’s victory at the head of the poll, almost 900 votes ahead of Hanbury, begged the question of why no second Liberal had been brought forward.54Hereford Times, 4 Apr. 1857. There were, however, few candidates willing to come forward in such a capacity and it would seem that the Liberal gentlemen and landowners were content with one seat.

A rare example of female electoral patronage was revealed at the by-election in December 1858, occasioned by Booker-Blakemore’s death.55The Foley family papers are held by Herefordshire Record Office, (F, BD98, BG46; NRA 29103 Foley), but at the time of writing (Aug. 2013) they are closed. After Hanbury declined an invitation from local partisans to stand, Lord Montague William Graham, former Conservative MP for Grantham, was returned unopposed.56Hereford Journal, 17 Nov. 1858. He was the brother of the ‘noble proprietress of Stoke Edith’, Lady Emily Foley, whose husband had represented the county from 1832 until 1841.57Hereford Times, 13 Nov. 1858. Inheriting the estate on Foley’s death in 1846, Lady Emily’s popularity and prestige was readily acknowledged by all sides, even amidst grumbling at the Liberals’ unwillingness to field a candidate and the Conservatives’ inability to find a candidate who resided in the constituency.58Hereford Times, 20 Nov. 1858. The Hereford Journal noted that the respect in which Lady Emily was ‘so universally held, has been found to operate as a most potent influence, not only in the district immediately around this city, but in more distant parts of the county, where her ladyship’s deserved “popularity” has stood her brother in good stead’.59Hereford Journal, 8 Dec. 1858. A correspondent to the Liberal Hereford Times went even further, arguing that:

the owner of Stoke Edith estate ought to have, directly or indirectly, a voice in the legislature, and that, owing to the ineligibility of the lady in possession to a seat in the senate, she may, consistently with reason and right, authorise her brother to take her place, i.e. nominate him as a candidate. It is well known that her Ladyship exercises great political influence ... It is for the electors of Herefordshire to accept or reject her nominee.60A.P., letter, Hereford Times, 11 Dec. 1858.

Throughout the canvass and campaign Graham was accompanied by his sister’s agents and steward.61Hereford Times, 20 Nov. 1858, 4 Dec. 1858. At the nomination, he declared to the crowd ‘I don’t think I can tell you how often it has been said to me, “Well sir, if you be as good a man as Lady Foley is a lady you will make us a good member”’.62Hereford Journal, 22 Dec. 1858. Noting that ‘all party distinctions now are very much softened down’, the nobleman declared his support for Derby’s government after criticising Palmerston’s truckling to Napoleon III over the conspiracy to murder bill. He also expressed himself willing to support an extension of the franchise to allow ‘an honest, industrious working man’ to get the vote, possibly through savings banks qualifications.63Ibid.

The representation remained divided between one Liberal and two Conservatives at the 1859 and 1865 general elections, both of which were uncontested. On the first occasion, Cotterell’s place was taken by another Liberal, Humphrey Mildmay, a Kent landed gentleman, whose uncle Lord Ashburton, owned land in the county.64W.R. Williams, The parliamentary history of the county of Hereford, 1213-1896 (1896), 68-9. A correspondent observed that Cotterell’s retirement was probably because he was unwilling to expend another £10,700 in contesting the county.65‘The Spirit of the Golden Valley’, letter, Hereford Journal, 13 Apr. 1859. The usual calls from the Hereford Times to put up a second candidate were ignored by local notables.66See the editorial and letter from ‘An Indignant Freeholder’ in Hereford Times, 16 Apr. 1859. The election was generally characterised by the mutual respect between the parties evident in earlier campaigns. The Hereford Times praised Graham’s address as ‘statesmanlike’, while the Hereford Journal admitted that Mildmay was a ‘very mild’ Liberal palatable to Conservatives.67Hereford Times, 9 Apr. 1859; Hereford Journal, 27 Apr. 1859. At the nomination both King and Graham defended Derby’s reform bill and criticised the factious behaviour of Lord John Russell. Mildmay emphasised the Conservative government’s inept foreign policy, alleging that the foreign secretary Lord Malmesbury ‘sympathised with despotic powers’. While Britain should maintain neutrality, ‘we ought not to hesitate boldly to declare our sentiments in favour of the oppressed nationalities’, such as in Italy, he added.68Hereford Journal, 4 May 1859.

Mildmay and Graham retired at the 1865 general election. They were replaced by Michael Biddulph, of Ledbury, son of the former MP for Hereford and high sheriff of the county, and Sir Joseph Russell Bailey, 2nd baronet, of Glanusk Park, Breconshire, and son of the former MP, who stood in the Liberal and Conservative interests respectively. Although John Joseph Powell, MP for Gloucester, was championed by some local Liberals, it was Biddulph who was the party’s representative at the nomination, when he was returned unopposed alongside the two Conservatives, Bailey and King.69Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 8 July 1865; The Times, 20 July 1865.

The 1867 Representation of the People Act left Herefordshire undivided but disenfranchised the urban freeholders in the county’s parliamentary boroughs, who accounted for a small proportion of the electorate in any case. It was no surprise, then, that politics followed a similar pattern after 1868, even though the electorate rose to 9,528. Contests became more frequent, but the representation remained divided. The Liberals fielded three candidates at the 1868 general election, two of whom were elected alongside a Conservative in second place. Two Conservatives and a Liberal were returned unopposed in 1874. In 1880 a Conservative topped the poll, but the Liberals secured second and third place, with another Conservative fourth.70McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 138. In 1885 the county was split into two single-member divisions. The northern or Leominster division (which absorbed the old borough constituency), was controlled by the Conservatives from 1886 until 1906, with Liberals winning narrow victories in 1885 and 1906. The Ross, or southern, division was held by the Liberal Unionists, from 1886-1906, 1908-10, and by the Liberals, from 1885-6, 1906-8.71Ibid., pt. II, p. 112.