Walsall

Economic and social profile:

‘Celebrated for the manufacture of saddlers’ ironmongery’, in which it stood ‘unrivalled both in the variety and excellence of its productions’, Walsall’s staple trade consisted of metal products such as buckles, stirrups and other items used for horses and coaches, accompanied by an ancillary industry in leather goods.W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire (1834), 415-16; M. Glasson, The Walsall leather industry (2003); P. Liddle, ‘Victorian Walsall: an economic and social study’, Univ. of London Ph. D. thesis (1988). In 1851 the trade employed 23.5% of the local workforce, mostly in smaller workshops, although many of the factors, merchants and dealers involved were ‘numerous and wealthy’.White, History, 416; P. Liddle, ‘The structure of industry in Victorian Walsall’, Staffordshire Studies, 4 (1992), 77-96 (figure at 82); VCH Staffs., xvii. 196. Integrated into the wider economic region encompassing the Black Country and Birmingham, the town also produced a variety of other metal goods and contained some iron and coal mines on its periphery which contributed to rapid population growth in the 1850s.Liddle, ‘Structure of industry’, 83; White, History, 416. The town’s road links developed in the second half of the eighteenth century, and it became connected to Birmingham by canal in 1799.F. Willmore, A history of Walsall and its neighbourhood (1887), 373, 377-80. Walsall was linked to Birmingham by rail following the opening of Bescot Bridge station on the outskirts in 1837; this was superseded in 1846 by the construction of the South Staffordshire railway and a station in the town centre.Willmore, History of Walsall, 426; VCH Staffs., xvii. 165-9. Local landowners such as Edward John Littleton and the earl of Bradford, the lord of the manor, helped develop the town in the 1820s, and an improvement commission was established in 1824.VCH Staffs., xvii. 143-6, 151; White, History, 415. The same period witnessed the construction of many new religious buildings including Anglican churches and Baptist (1833), Wesleyan Methodist (1829) and Unitarian chapels to join the older Congregationalist chapel (1790).White, History of Walsall, 412; VCH Staffs., xvii. 241-9. Walsall had no local newspaper until the 1850s when a spate of titles, many short-lived, were founded, although the Liberal Walsall Free Press (established in 1856), proved to be more durable.VCH Staffs., xvii. 252-3.

Electoral history:

After a series of tumultuous, fiercely fought elections in the 1830s and 1840s, Walsall became something of a safe seat for the Liberals, with the chief beneficiary being Charles Forster, MP from 1852 until his death in 1891. In the earlier period, the leader of local Conservatism had been Forster’s father Charles Smith Forster (1784-1850), a banker and MP 1832-7. The elder Forster was considered by the election agent Joseph Parkes to be a ‘timid Liberalish man between both parties’, rather than a ‘Tory’, which gave him some appeal to moderate voters.Joseph Parkes to Lord Hatherton, 7 Dec. 1848, Staffordshire Record Office, D260/M/F/7/5/27/18. On the Liberal side, the Whig Edward John Littleton (1791-1863), 1st baron Hatherton, who possessed property and personal influence in the borough, wrote in 1840 that ‘I do not affect to be the patron of the borough of Walsall’, but nonetheless took an active interest in its elections, and his approval was frequently sought by candidates.Lord Hatherton to Lord Lyttleton, 24 Dec. 1840, Hatherton correspondence, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. The 1841 by-election was notable for the intervention of the Manchester-based Anti-Corn Law League, but with the exception of 1847, the underlying tensions between local Radicals and Whigs, the latter represented by the Littleton family, were generally suppressed in the interest of Liberal unity.

Walsall’s enfranchisement in 1832 had owed much to Littleton, who was then MP for Staffordshire. He did not initially lobby the Grey ministry on the issue, but after hearing of the inclusion of the comparable Gateshead in the first reform bill, ‘insisted on the claim of Walsall’.Memorandum on ‘Number of Members to be given to the Potteries’, 1831, Hatherton correspondence, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/7. Local support for enfranchisement was led by Charles Smith Forster, who emphasised Walsall’s long history as a municipal borough and as one of the most important of the ‘second class of unrepresented towns’.Willmore, History of Walsall, 407. While Forster rallied local respectable opinion, popular support was mobilised by the Walsall Political Union, whose secretary was Joseph Hickin, a humble-born licensed victualler and a protégé of Parkes.Ibid., 405-10. Littleton successfully resisted Lord John Russell’s call for him to ‘give up Walsall’ in March 1832, and the constituency was enfranchised as a single member borough by schedule D of the Reform Act.Littleton Journal, 6 Mar. 1832, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/7.

Forster declared his candidacy in June 1832, and at the first parliamentary election held that December he was opposed by George De Bosco Attwood, son of the Birmingham Political Union leader Thomas Attwood, who was strongly backed by local Radicals.Willmore, History of Walsall, 410. While Forster complained of the interference of Birmingham merchants and bankers in the election, Attwood argued that his opponent sought to turn the constituency into a ‘close borough’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 13, 20 Oct. 1832. Forster’s supporters accused the Radicals of intimidation, while Attwood’s party claimed that their opponent had used his commercial connections to ensure that local employers, particularly in the staple trade of saddlers’ ironmongery, deployed their influence against them.Birmingham Journal, qu. in Morn. Chro., 5 Dec. 1832; Morning Post, 29 Nov. 1832, 12 Dec. 1832. As a result both sides utilised exclusive dealing.PP 1835 (547), vii. 106. After his unopposed return for Birmingham, Thomas Attwood and his Radical followers came to the Walsall nomination, their banners including one inscribed ‘Cheap bread, cheap government, cheap religion’.Morning Post, 15 Dec. 1832. Forster stressed his local credentials and claimed credit for the borough’s enfranchisement, but his party allegiance remained ambiguous, prompting one Radical to say that he had been a Whig, a Tory and was now a ‘Non-descript’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832. De Bosco Attwood denied that he was a ‘revolutionist’, but attacked the heavy burden of taxation.Ibid.

The nomination was distinguished by skirmishes between rival partisans over banners and space.Willmore, History of Walsall, 411-13. Order was partially restored by the intervention of infantrymen who drew their bayonets on the crowd, according to some reports, without reading the Riot Act.The Times, 15 Dec. 1832. The Attwoods objected that it was ‘illegal and unconstitutional for a military force to remain in a borough during an election’, but the mayor, an ally of Forster, took no notice.Ibid. The poll then proceeded peacefully until a troop of cavalry appeared with swords drawn at the behest of two magistrates, but not the mayor.The Times, 15, 21 Dec. 1832. Fearing another Peterloo massacre, the Attwoods withdrew from the town to avert bloodshed, and Forster was elected by 73 votes.Willmore, History of Walsall, 413-15. The Attwoods fulfilled their promise to challenge the election through a petition, 2 Apr. 1833, complaining of the ‘unconstitutional interference’ of the military and requesting that the election be declared null and void.Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 20 Dec. 1832; CJ, lxxxviii. 250. However, it seems to have progressed no further after its initial presentation.

No opposition was expected to Forster prior to the 1835 general election, and so it proved.Staffordshire Advertiser, 20 Dec. 1834; The Times, 20 Dec. 1834. The only rumoured challenger was Stubbs Wightwick, the son-in-law of Richard Fryer, MP for Wolverhampton, 1832-5, who possessed extensive property in Bloxwich, in the foreign of the borough.Morn. Chro., 6 Jan. 1835; The Times, 5 Jan. 1835; Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835. A supporter of civil and religious liberty, repeal of the corn laws, triennial parliaments, the ballot and municipal reform, Wightwick canvassed but withdrew before the nomination.The Times, 5, 8 Jan. 1835; Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835. Following his unopposed return, Forster declared that he ‘would not become the tool of government, nor would he attach himself to the tail of a party’, with his Conservative partisanship implied rather than spelled out.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835. Nevertheless, Parkes considered Walsall to be a promising constituency for Reformers, whose chances were boosted by municipal reform.Joseph Parkes to Lord Durham, 23 Oct. 1835, Lambton MSS, in P. Salmon (comp.), ‘Letters of Parkes’, transcript. Since 1832 Walsall Radicals had complained that the corporation had behaved in an increasingly partisan way, acted partially as magistrates and established a police force to cow their opponents.PP 1835 (116), xxv. 644-5. After the publication of the commissioners’ report on municipal corporations in March 1835, Walsall’s mayor became a supporter of reform.VCH Staffs., xvii. 217. The first elections after municipal reform in December 1835 resulted in a ‘large majority’ for the Radicals.The Times, 29 Dec. 1835.

At the 1837 general election Forster was ousted after a close contest by the Radical Francis Finch, of Great Barr, who had twice contested Lichfield. Forster was unable to return to the constituency until a late stage of the campaign, which allowed Finch and his supporters, including Hickin, to criticise his voting record and change of party allegiance. Forster denied that he had changed his views, claiming that it was ‘his constantly avowed determination to support the monarchy, the peerage, and the church’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837. Finch endorsed radical reforms of the political system and the church, but denied accusations of ‘deism and infidelity’ at the nomination, when he won the show of hands. He defeated Forster by 20 votes in the subsequent poll.Ibid. Privately, Hatherton expressed a preference for a Whig MP instead of ‘an ill-conditioned Radical’, but admitted that Forster deserved to be ejected for ‘his very shuffling political conduct both in & out of Parl[iamen]t’.Hatherton journal, 25 July 1837, Staffs. RO, D1178/1. A petition against Finch’s return was presented, 27 Nov. 1837, alleging that ‘many illegal votes were received and recorded’ for the Radical, whose agents also employed ‘bribery and corruption’.CJ, xciii. 62-3. Parkes and Hickin took up Finch’s case and the select committee appointed to consider the petition confirmed the Radical’s election, 19 Mar. 1838.Ibid., 368; T. Falconer and E.H. Fitzherbert, Cases of controverted elections determined in committees of the House of Commons, in the second parliament of the reign of Queen Victoria (1839), 357-62; Joseph Parkes to Lord Hatherton, 17 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14.

However, financial difficulties prompted Finch to resign from Parliament, 19 Dec. 1840, shortly before he fled the country to avoid creditors.Parkes to Hatherton, 17 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Given the Whig government’s already slender parliamentary majority, on hearing the news the premier Lord Melbourne beseeched Hatherton to find a candidate capable of holding the seat.Lord Melbourne to Lord Hatherton, 18 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. After seeking Parkes’ advice and considering Wightwick, Hatherton brought forward Captain Spencer Lyttleton, brother of Lord Lyttleton and nephew of Lord Althorp.Parkes to Hatherton, 17 Dec. 1840; Spencer Lyttleton to Hatherton, 17 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Parkes considered Lyttleton to be ‘the best & moderate candidate’, but added the following proviso: that if the canvass was unfavourable

[I]t will be a silly policy to go to the poll. A walkover by the enemy will best cultivate the future. Really for you [Hatherton] to begin a local nuisance to yourself, by playing patron to the Walsall Liberals, or spending unknown cost on the boro’ would be an absurd idea of the Government.Parkes to Hatherton, 17, 19 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14.

The local Conservatives swiftly put up John Neilson Gladstone, son of the deep-pocketed Liverpool merchant John Gladstone, rather than Forster, the former MP.J.N. Gladstone, ‘To the electors of Walsall’, 24 Dec. 1840, J.B. Smith election papers, Greater Manchester County Record Office (GMCRO), MS 923.2 S336, V, f. 48. Hatherton noted with alarm that ‘Gladstone’s friends are everywhere at work’, and sent Lyttleton’s campaign team £300, but added that if they could not raise £1,000, they should abandon the attempt as he was not prepared to bear the entire cost.Hatherton to Parkes (copy), 24 Dec. 1840; Hatherton to Spencer Lyttleton, 25 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Lyttleton eventually withdrew after his canvass in late December.B. Daniels, ‘Repeal of the corn laws in Staffordshire, 1838-1850’, Univ. of Keele Local history diploma diss. (1971), 29, William Salt Library, Stafford. Parkes complained that the captain had begun on ‘too narrow ground’ and his canvassers had included too many ‘neutrals’ and ‘tepid persons (few in number & often overvalued in influence)’.Parkes to Hatherton, 26, 28 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Lyttleton’s moderate opinions, especially his refusal to pledge support for the repeal of the corn laws, had failed to rally committed Liberals and Radicals.Willmore, History of Walsall, 416; Staffordshire Advertiser, 2 Jan. 1841; Anti-Corn Law Circular, 31 Dec. 1840, 14 Jan. 1841. Hatherton believed that these problems could be surmounted by money, but was warned by Parkes that

[T]o introduce extensive treating in Walsall (where neither party hitherto has used that modus operandi) is as respects this as well as future contests a ruinous system to the Liberals. For every 1/- the Liberals spend the Tories always go 2/6 … I am not a purist, where treating exists as a Dry Rot; but I know wherever … introduced in the … [new] constituencies it has invariably been ruin to us - vide Kidderminster, & other northern boro’s.Parkes to Hatherton, 28 Dec. 1840, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14.

Gladstone continued to campaign after Lyttleton’s retirement, emphasising his commercial antecedents and criticising the Whig government to different audiences, including Conservative operatives. He also received the backing of the still influential Forster.Staffordshire Advertiser, 2 Jan. 1841. Some Liberals got up a requisition for Forster’s son and namesake, but he declined to come forward.Ibid.

Shortly afterwards the Anti-Corn Law League, whose lecturer James Acland had been agitating the borough, entered the fray, and put up its president John Benjamin Smith, a Manchester merchant, as a candidate.Staffordshire Advertiser, 2, 9 Jan. 1841. Contesting a parliamentary election, especially outside their Lancashire heartland, was a departure from the League’s existing strategy of educating and mobilising public opinion through lecture tours, the mass dissemination of printed propaganda and petitioning campaigns. Although they did not shift to an electoral strategy until 1843, the League had good reasons for contesting Walsall. Even if they lost, the League’s leader Richard Cobden reasoned, ‘it will at all events have the moral effect of terrifying other bread-taxers’ into thinking that the pressure group had ‘a whole regiment of candidates ready to fight’.Richard Cobden to J.B. Smith, 1 Jan. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, V, f. 50. The election would generate considerable publicity, and Charles Pelham Villiers, Liberal MP for Wolverhampton, considered that victory would achieve ‘more than 2 years agitation’.Charles Pelham Villiers to Cobden, n.d., J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, V, f. 92. Money was ‘the only thing wanted to win the election’ thought Cobden, who immediately set about raising funds in Manchester, telling Smith ‘were I in your place I would spend £2,000 rather than lose’.Cobden to Smith, 24, 5 Jan. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, V, ff. 58, 55. While Acland and other lecturers agitated the borough through daily public meetings, Villiers, Parkes and even Lord Melbourne appealed to Hatherton’s influence, and other local notables such as Wightwick and Fryer were also contacted.Cobden to Smith, 27 Jan. 1839, Villiers to Smith, n.d., Parkes to Smith, 13, 16 Jan. 1841, V, ff. 60, 76, VI, ff. 100, 105. However, Parkes advised the League’s scribes to tone down their language and attacks on the ministry if they wanted to appeal to Hatherton and other moderates.Parkes to Smith, 13 Jan. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, VI, f. 100. The League also published a special election newspaper, the Walsall Letter-Bag.The Walsall Letter-Bag consisted mostly of supportive addresses from other anti-corn law associations and excerpts from various newspapers rather than original content. The issues for 9, 16, 28, 29 Jan. 1841 survive in Smith’s election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, ff. 136-9.

Using a variety of euphemisms, Parkes hinted that the League should employ bribery to secure victory in what he correctly predicted would be a close contest:

It is whispered about here that if lost it will be for want of a little more of the “essential oil”. I hope you will leave no stone unturned to win – a little money judiciously employed works wonders – much more than ten times the sum spent in treating.Parkes to Smith, 16, 25, 28 Jan. 1841, GMCRO, MS 923.2, S336, VI, ff. 103, 106, 107 (qu.).

However, Cobden, who urged Smith to display ‘liberality’ in treating, became ‘more & more convinced that we ought not to buy illegally a single vote to save the election’, as it would tarnish the League’s reputation.Cobden to Smith, 12, 29 Jan. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, V, ff. 56 (first qu.), 62 (second qu.) According to Villiers, Hickin, who was the main election agent during the campaign, ‘refused to countenance’ bribery.Villiers to Smith, 16 Feb. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, V, f. 80.

Although ‘popular sympathy is all on the side of Mr. Smith’, Gladstone had the backing of most of the local metal merchants and factors, as well as Lords Dartmouth and Bradford, who possessed property in the borough.Anti-Corn Law Circular, 14 Jan. 1841; Staffordshire Examiner, qu. in Anti-Corn Law Circular, 11 Feb. 1841. At the nomination Gladstone defended the sliding scale on corn, and argued that cheap bread would mean lower wages. Smith’s speech, which described the corn laws as ‘impolitic, unjust, unrighteous, and unchristian’, was the sort of free trade lecture he had given many times before.Anti-Corn Law Circular, 11 Feb. 1841. The show of hands overwhelmingly favoured Smith, but Gladstone won the poll by 27 votes. While the League hailed the result as a moral victory, Parkes and Hickin prepared a petition against Gladstone’s return, alleging bribery, treating, intimidation and undue influence, which was presented 15 Feb. 1841.CJ, xcvi. 54; Parkes to Smith, 16 Feb. 1841; Joseph Hickin to Smith, 21 Feb. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, VI, ff. 108, 125. Cobden described the election committee as a ‘rascally affair’ and Gladstone was declared duly elected, 30 Mar. 1841.Cobden to Smith, 24 Mar. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, VI, f. 132; CJ, xcvi. 180; PP 1841 (219), ix. 105-8; Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Mar. 1841, 3 Apr. 1841. However, the committee’s report noted that there did appear to be a ‘system of considerable treating’ employed during the by-election, but ‘the doubtful nature of the evidence’ meant that it could not be clearly connected to Gladstone or his agent.CJ, xcvi. 180.

Local Conservatives rejoiced at the rejection of the petition, but their opponents redoubled their efforts and mobilised local anti-corn law sentiment through numerous public meetings and petitions, including tea parties organised by female activists.Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 Apr. 1841; Anti-Corn Law Circular, 11 Mar. 1841; Select Committee on Public Petitions, Reports (1841), 313-15, 373-7, 599, 795, 798, 859, 876-8.; David Stanley to Smith, 11 Feb. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, VI, f. 118. A new registration society was also formed following a meeting of Liberal electors, and Hickin, the newly-appointed secretary, predicted ‘we shall put about 160 on the register this year’.Joseph Hickin to J.B. Smith, 12 Mar. 1841, J.B. Smith election papers, GMCRO, MS 923.2 S336, VI, f. 127. As a result of all this activity the bitterness and political fall-out from the by-election was still very much in evidence at the general election in June 1841.Morning Post, 12 June 1841.

As part of cross-party negotiations between local magnates to share the representation of South Staffordshire, viscount Ingestre, Conservative MP for that division, attempted unsuccessfully to bluff Hatherton into leaving Walsall undisturbed at the general election.Viscount Ingestre to Lord Hatherton, 12 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Hatherton replied that ‘I have heard nothing from … Walsall which induces me to suppose that the Liberal party there would consent to any arrangement for the purpose of leaving that seat uncontested’.Hatherton to Ingestre, 13 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/14. Even so, a number of Conservative newspapers incorrectly predicted that Gladstone was ‘safe’.The Times, 12 June 1841; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 17 June 1841; Morning Post, 14, 28 June 1841. Smith and the League did not involve themselves in the election and as Wightwick declined a requisition, the Liberal candidate, announced at fairly late notice, was Robert Scott, a Black Country landowner.Staffordshire Advertiser, 19 June 1841; Morning Post, 29 June 1841; The Examiner, 20 June 1841. He benefited from the influence and financial support of Hatherton and was aided throughout the canvass by the nobleman’s son and heir Edward Richard Littleton, who might have stood himself but for his unwillingness to pledge support for the total repeal of the corn laws.Hatherton Journal, 21, 22, 26 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/22. On the other side, Forster, described by Hatherton as ‘a cunning, clever, active, managing man, exerting all the influence of his shop’, was instrumental in the Conservative campaign for Gladstone’s re-election.Hatherton Journal, 29 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/22.

Upon entering the town, Scott staked his campaign on free trade and declared himself confident of victory as ‘he knew that a large majority of electors had actually petitioned Parliament since the last election for a total repeal of the corn laws’.Morn. Chro., 23 June 1841. Conservatives questioned Scott’s soundness on Church issues given his Unitarianism, criticised the ‘marked influence’ of Hatherton, and also alleged that their opponent was seeking to exploit his chairmanship of the Birmingham canal company for electoral purposes.Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1841. The nomination produced the usual tumult, with Gladstone largely inaudible due to the uproar from the crowd. Scott voiced strong criticism of the sliding duty on foreign corn and of Sir Robert Peel, won the show of hands and defeated Gladstone in the poll by a narrow margin.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1841. Gladstone polled 51 fewer votes than at the by-election, which Conservatives attributed to Radical intimidation of their voters, some of whom were pelted with mud and missiles, while others were prevented from polling.The Times, 1, 2 July 1841; Morning Post, 1 July 1841. However, the Liberals did not have a monopoly on electoral malpractice, and as Hatherton noted, ‘every act [was] resorted to, to warp or drive away voters, [who were] made drunk & locked up, carried off in flies at night’, prompting each party to organise ‘patrols all night to prevent kidnapping’.Hatherton Journal, 29 June 1841, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/22. Scott’s victory, however, was also part of a general swing towards the Liberals in Staffordshire. The popularity of free trade was a key factor in this, and helped to transform Walsall into a relatively secure Liberal seat after three bitter and closely fought elections in four years.

Scott retired at the 1847 general election, partly because he and the Littleton family had fallen out over their competing canal and railway interests.See Edward Richard Littleton to Lord Hatherton, 3 Aug. 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/27. The new Whig candidate was Hatherton’s son Edward Richard Littleton. He was opposed by another Liberal, Charles Forster the younger, who was not supported by his father, who expressed ‘annoyance and regret’ to Hatherton that his son ‘had been put forward as a candidate by that party of low Radicals which had on former occasions caused so much mischief and tumult in this borough’.Charles Smith Forster to Lord Hatherton, 29 Mar. 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/17. A third candidate was William Cooke, an ‘ultra-Conservative’, who, like Forster, was a barrister on the Oxford circuit.Morning Post, 24 July 1847; Birmingham Journal, qu. in Morn. Chro., 9 June 1847; Morn. Chro., 24 July 1847; Northern Star, 12 June 1847. Although Cooke had no chance of winning, Littleton commented that his entry ‘drew away many of my [Conservative] supporters who from a personal knowledge of me would have supported me’.Edward Richard Littleton Journal, 28 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/99. See also E.R. Littleton to Lord Hatherton, 26 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/17. Furthermore, Hatherton noted, ‘it became evident that Cooke had been brought there solely to aid Forster’.Hatherton Journal, 29 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/43. Not only did Cooke peel off Conservative votes from Littleton, but his canvassers urged electors to vote for Forster if not for their candidate.Ibid., 23 July 1847.

At the nomination Cooke’s speech was almost entirely devoted to attacking the Littletons, while Forster, who called himself a ‘most unflinching reformer’, declared that ‘it was to the interest of both Conservative and Radical that they should return him’ instead of a Whig nominee.Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847. Littleton received a rough reception at the nomination, later complaining that the ‘dirty blackguards Forster & Cooke amused themselves & the mob by vilifying me, my party & my family’.E.R. Littleton Journal, 29 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/99. He did, however, shrewdly note the slipperiness of Forster’s political views, and was boosted by the arrival of a group of Hatherton’s tenants, whose banner was then attacked by the crowd.Ibid.; Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847.

Throughout the campaign, Forster displayed his father’s talent for ruthless and unscrupulous electioneering by his extensive use of treating and Hatherton recorded that during the poll ‘his party were … locking up Edward’s voters, stealing their shoes – carrying them away, intimidating them’.Hatherton Journal, 29 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/43. On Forster’s treating see also Littleton to Hatherton, 26, 27 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/17. Cooke distributed a notice to every elector going to poll, warning them not to vote for Littleton as he would be unseated for bribery.Hatherton Journal, 29, 30 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/43; Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847. Littleton was elected, seven votes ahead of Forster, with Cooke a distant third. Although Forster was deprived of victory, Hatherton noted that he had ‘polled 50 more than we had expected’, including ‘all the “doubtfuls” & half the “Neuters” on Edward’s list’.Hatherton Journal, 29 July 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/43.

A petition against the return, 7 Dec. 1847, alleged that Littleton’s majority included people not entitled to vote, and that Littleton and his agents had employed bribery, treating, undue influence over tenants, and that his supporters had abused their position as trustees of public and municipal charities for electoral purposes.CJ, ciii. 98-9. However, Parkes reassured Hatherton that ‘it is most inexpedient [that the] Walsall return should be opened’.Parkes to Hatherton, 26 Dec. 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/17. Littleton presented a petition objecting to the original petitioner’s recognizances, 20 Dec. 1847, which provoked a counter-petition, 18 Feb. 1848.CJ, ciii. 137-9, 235. Littleton’s petition said that the recognizances (that is sureties provided by election petitioners) did not take the specific form required by law. By this time, the election petitions relating to Walsall and other constituencies had been referred to a select committee to consider the recognizances issue.E.R. Littleton Journal, 10, 22, 28, 29 Feb. 1848, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/100; PP 1847-48 (114), xi. 1. The petition against Littleton’s return was withdrawn, 24 May 1848.CJ, ciii. 235.

Much less interested in politics than his father, Littleton announced in March 1852 that he would retire at the dissolution.Morn. Chro., 24 Mar. 1852; Staffordshire Advertiser, 20 Mar. 1852. The previous month Littleton had advised his father that Robert Aglionby Slaney, Whig MP for Shrewsbury, who had approached him about standing for Walsall, ‘would be just the candidate for us – as he would be likely to get the support of the lower class of voters, having during the last session frequently spoken in favour of the interests of the Working Classes – & he wants no pecuniary assistance’.Littleton to Hatherton, 21 Feb. 1852, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/24. However, shortly afterwards Littleton reported that ‘I am afraid that Slaney could not get such support at Walsall as would justify him in standing against Forster’, who, a newspaper noted, had ‘received the undivided support of all sections of the Liberal party’ in the constituency.Littleton to Hatherton, 26 Feb. 1852, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/24; Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 Mar. 1852. Walsall had never been a pocket borough of Hatherton’s, although he possessed some property in it. His influence rested on his personal standing and considerable electoral experience, and was never enough to impose a candidate on the local Liberal party, even if he had wanted to.

Forster was returned unopposed at the 1852 general election after declaring support for free trade, the abolition of church rates, and the ‘complete revision’ of the Irish church, but opposing the abolition of the Maynooth grant while other religious endowments remained.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1852. Prior to the nomination, however, there had been numerous rumours that someone would be sent down from the Carlton club, and a succession of Derbyite and Peelite lawyers appeared in the constituency, including James Grattan and Henry Marshall, but none went to poll, with the latter withdrawing at a very late stage.Daily News, 28 June 1852; Morn. Chro., 28 June 1852; The Times, 3 July 1852; Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1852.

Forster stood his ground at the 1857 general election as an independent supporter of Lord Palmerston, and was again returned without opposition.Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 Mar. 1857. At the nomination Forster praised the premier’s handling of the Crimean War, and emphasised his votes for the ballot, the equalisation of the borough and county franchises and the abolition of church rates.Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857.

By contrast, Forster faced no shortage of challengers at the 1859 general election. Edward Southwell Ruthven, Repeal MP for county Kildare 1832-7, offered as a ‘Radical Reformer’, but took no further part in the campaign.The Times, 29 Apr. 1859. Henry Marshall re-appeared in the constituency promising to vote against the Maynooth grant and for the repeal of duties on tea, sugar, tobacco and hops.The Times, 11 Apr. 1859. However, when Marshall had abruptly withdrawn from the town and the election in 1852, he had done so without paying his printer’s bill. On his return to the constituency, the printer’s solicitor asked him for the money owed, and when this was not forthcoming, the hapless candidate was sent to Stafford gaol, after which no more was heard from him.Nottinghamshire Guardian, 28 Apr. 1859. A much more formidable contender was Charles Bagnall, who hailed from a family of Black Country ironmasters, and offered as a Liberal Conservative after accepting a ‘very influential and numerously signed requisition’.The Times, 20 Apr. 1859; Morning Post, 21 Apr. 1859; Birmingham Daily Post, 22 Apr. 1859. Bagnall claimed that he was ‘not an avowed Tory – not an enemy to progress’.Birmingham Daily Post, 20 Apr. 1859. He expressed support for an £6 or £8 borough franchise and the abolition of church rates, but not the ballot.Ibid. Although the ‘great majority’ of non-electors backed Forster, a breakaway minority sided with Bagnall, which led to ill-feeling and skirmishes at a number of public meetings.Birmingham Daily Post, 25, 26 Apr. 1859.

Forster, who had good reason to be worried, sought Hatherton’s endorsement, which the nobleman refused to give. Hatherton would not back a supporter of Lord Derby such as Bagnall, but noted ‘otherwise I should prefer any one to Forster’.Hatherton Journal, 20 Apr. 1859, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/81. He maintained his neutrality even when Lord Granville and Parkes urged him to aid Forster in the wider interests of the Liberal party.Lord Granville to Lord Hatherton, 21 Apr. 1859; Joseph Parkes to Hatherton, 19, 24 Apr. 1859, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/27/34. Despite anticipations of a close contest, Forster opened up a significant lead early during the poll and secured a comfortable victory. During the polling, police from Birmingham and Wolverhampton were called out after some disturbances, and after they were hit with stones and mud, the Riot Act was read and they drew their cutlasses before the crowd.Birmingham Daily Post, 2 May 1859. In defeat, Bagnall’s supporters complained of the conduct of Forster’s committee, but no petition was forthcoming.Birmingham Daily Post, 3 May 1859.

Forster was unopposed at the 1865 general election. Although he criticised the Liberal government’s failure to pass a measure of parliamentary reform he highlighted their ‘other important reforms’ such as the Anglo-French commercial treaty, Gladstone’s remission of indirect taxes and reduction of income tax.Birmingham Daily Post, 11 July 1865. Despite the government’s shortcomings, Forster argued that ‘Lord Derby would have been a poor exchange for Lord Palmerston’. He called for Walsall’s representation to be enhanced in any scheme of reform.Birmingham Daily Post, 13 July 1865.

The 1867 Representation of the People Act increased Walsall’s electorate from 1,296 to 6,047, but it remained a single-member constituency.PP 1866 (170) lvii. 50; 1868-69 (419), l. 111. Forster represented Walsall until his death in 1891, after which the constituency was keenly contested by the Liberal and Conservative parties, changing hands no fewer than five times in the next twenty years.McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 300; ibid., pt. II, 244.