Staffordshire

Staffordshire did not go to the poll between 1747 and 1832, during which period it became an important manufacturing county: by 1818 one of its Members claimed to represent 14,000 freeholders and in 1820 another was credited with staking £100,000 on the defence of his seat—although he gave it up.Staffs. RO, Hatherton mss M/F/5/26, diary, 19 June 1818, 31 Mar. 1820. Expense apart, contests were discouraged by the smooth operation of a compromise after 1753. One seat was invariably held by the Leveson Gower family of Trentham, headed by the 1st and 2nd Marquesses of Stafford; and the other by the independent country gentry, in the person of Sir Edward Littleton, who was succeeded by his great-nephew and heir. Until 1801 the 1st Marquess of Stafford, who nominated his sons in turn, was a ministerialist and Littleton unobtrusive. The Earl of Uxbridge affected to believe that Littleton would retire in favour of his heir Lord Paget in due course and appease his jealousy of the Leveson Gowers: but this was a bogey, even if it haunted Littleton’s great-nephew in turn. The leader of the county Whigs, Thomas Anson, had an alliance with the Leveson Gowers to share the Lichfield seats, and when a county meeting hostile to the ministry was projected in 1797 it was thwarted.Ibid. M/F/5/10, Uxbridge to Walhouse, 27 May 1812; diary, 28 Nov. 1817; Morning Chron. 13 July 1797; Leveson Gower, i. 153; J. C. Wedgwood, Staffs. Parl. Hist. (Wm. Salt Arch. Soc.), iii. 4-5.

Rumours and threats of opposition made the 1st Marquess of Stafford sufficiently nervous to discourage his younger son Lord Granville Leveson Gower from vacating his seat to accept office in 1799 until the road was clear. It was Joseph Scott of Great Barr who was supposed to challenge Gower, aided by a subscription, but he declined.Leveson Gower, i. 229, 240, 242-4, 281; The Times, 7 July 1800; PRO 30/29/9/1, f. 130. A challenge was anticipated at the next general election and Walter Sneyd of Keele was to have been the candidate, but he disliked the expense and it came to nothing in 1802.The Times, 13 Aug. 1800, 30 Nov. 1801; PRO 30/29/8/2, f. 214; Hatherton diary, 21 Nov. 1820. Not even the political vacillation of the Leveson Gowers from 1804 onwards placed them in any real danger. In 1806 Lord Granville pacified the freeholders by assuring them that, had he not been on foreign service, he would have opposed the Grenville ministry over the iron duties: but he avoided political issues.Leveson Gower, ii. 319.

Littleton’s infirmity, therefore, became the chief hope of opposition. Before the Whigs produced a candidate, however, the Burdettite Staffordshire freeholders’ association (32 strong), pledged to safeguard the independence of the county and to procure reform, was formed in 1810. Its candidate was Charles Wolseley of Wolseley, heir to an encumbered estate, and its president George Tollet of Betley. Its sponsors included Josiah Wedgwood of Etruria, pioneer of the potteries.Wedgwood, iii. 30. Tollet contested Tewkesbury in 1797. The Whigs were stung into action and Anson backed Sir John Wrottesley, who in February 1811 applied successfully to Lord Grey for the interests of Lords St. Vincent and Darlington. In August 1811 Lord Granville Leveson Gower, though ‘perfectly secure’ himself, anticipated the trouble of a contest: ‘Wrottesley has made himself so unpopular that a great body (the magistrates) appear determined not to let him be their representative, and I fear he is of an obstinate nature and will persevere’. His anxiety proved unnecessary: Littleton died on 18 May 1812 and Wolseley made way for Wrottesley, on the latter’s undertaking to support reform of Parliament and of abuses in general. This put off such substantial supporters of Wrottesley’s as Lord Dudley; as George Tollet put it:

In this quarter Whiggism among the gentlefolks is at a very low ebb. To think liberally in politics is abomination and to make use of the word Reform is jacobinism and treason ... Sir John Wrottesley will be made a martyr to the candid and honest and manly avowal of his principles.

He added that ‘this county has been without a contest for so many years that the voters hardly know what it means and promise as a matter of course’.Hatherton diary, 3 Aug. 1818; Grey mss, Wrottesley to Grey, 19 Feb. 1811; Add. 48222, f. 211; Buckingham, Regency, i. 311; Wedgwood, iii. 31-34.

Wrottesley thought martyrdom dear at £30,000 and declined a contest with Littleton’s heir. Other names had been mentioned: Lord Dudley’s heir John William Ward would not bite, and Sir John Chetwode had some support, but an uncommitted youth—barely of age—was chosen. He pledged himself only to decline office and to oppose ‘profligacy and corruption’ wherever it might be found. Wrottesley’s last fling was a pledge to oppose the orders in council and sue for ‘peace with America’. It caused his opponents some anxiety, but they soon concluded that he ‘dare not go to a poll’. Even the 2nd Marquess of Stafford’s neutrality could not help Wrottesley, as his agents were not so impartial; the professed neutrality of the Staffordshire freeholders’ association was of less significance. At the general election in October, Wrottesley ignored pleas to come forward again and there was no contest.Hatherton mss M/F/5/10 (1812 election corresp.); Add. 48223, f. 7.

In the summer of 1814, a peerage for Lord Granville Leveson Gower being anticipated, the Stafford interest was offered informally to John William Ward: again he demurred—but not before the marquess had decided instead to put up his heir, Lord Gower. Gower had at first been ruled out; but Sir John Chetwode, who offered to step in, had to admit to the marquess that his own prospects were uncertain. The report that Wrottesley would be resurrected on the Whig interest, with Earl Grey’s endorsement, proved to be mere wishful thinking on the part of the gossiping Lady Crewe, but it made a formal denial by Grey necessary, as he was connected with Wrottesley through Lord Tankerville and had supported him in 1811: ‘Is not Lord Gower an opposition candidate?’, he asked.Brougham mss, Brougham to Grey [25 July 1814]; Ward, Letters to Bishop of Llandaff, 53, and Letters to ‘Ivy’, 262; Staffs. RO, Sutherland mss D868/11/69, 70, 72-78; HMC Fortescue, x. 392; Fortescue mss, Grey to Grenville, 17 Oct. 1814. A fine question when the Staffords had once more reverted to support of government by the time the vacancy arose. Gower was not opposed either then, or when he had to seek re-election because he took his seat without taking the oaths, though the Whig Morning Chronicle urged the freeholders to be unco-operative.Carlisle mss, Lady Sutherland to Lady Carlisle, 21 [Feb. 1816].

By 1818 Littleton felt reasonably secure. His attention to the county’s manufacturing interests had made him popular. If the Pagets tried to nudge him out, he would be justified in resisting them; Sir Charles Wolseley was still agitating, but lacked funds; Wrottesley was not amenable. No opposition candidate appeared. Littleton was aware of private criticism of his votes for Catholic relief, but in a county with numerous Catholics thought they did him no harm. His not opposing the property tax and his vote for the ducal marriage grants were criticized. At the nomination, Sir Charles Wolseley assailed both Members, without any intention of offering himself. Littleton came off best: he had only to deny that he aspired to a peerage and the largest coal owner in the county, Thomas Price of Bescote, spoke up for him.Hatherton diary, 15 Jan., 9, 13, 21, 23, 24, 25 May, 4, 13, 16, 17, 19 June 1818; The Late Elections (1818), 314. By 1820 he had come to regard the Staffords as unfit to provide him with colleagues: but their acquiescence in Lord Gower’s retreat that year came as a general surprise.Hatherton diary, 21 Mar. 1820.