Newcastle-under-Lyme

Economic and social profile:

‘Pleasantly seated on a small stream that flows southward to the Trent’, nineteenth-century Newcastle-under-Lyme has been described as ‘a small crowded town virtually untouched by the economic buoyancy of the age’.W. White, History, gazetteer and directory of Staffordshire and the city and county of Lichfield (1834), 651; F. Bealey, ‘Municipal politics in Newcastle-under-Lyme, 1835-72’, North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 3 (1963), 68-77 (at 76). The town had ‘long been famous for the manufacture of hats’, especially felt hats, but the staple trade was in decline.White, History, 652. By the 1840s, hats were mostly prepared to be finished in London or elsewhere and by 1850 just nine hat manufacturers survived in the town.VCH Staffs., viii. 51-2. Other trades included silk manufacture, with two mills employing 396 hands in 1838; cotton, paper and pottery manufacture, which were carried on ‘to a small extent’; and nearby iron and coal mines.Parliamentary Gazetteer of England and Wales, 4 vols. (1840-44), iii. 474. In the days before the railway, Newcastle-under-Lyme’s position on the road between London and Birmingham and Liverpool and Manchester had made it a ‘great thoroughfare’.White, History, 651. Before the establishment of the Grand Junction Railway thirty-two coaches a day used to pass through the town; by 1853 this had declined to one.G. Long and G. Richardson Porter, The geography of Great Britain (1853), 356. Having once been a transport hub, it was a measure of the town’s marginalisation that its only railway link consisted of a connection to Stoke through a branch line of the North Staffordshire Railway.Handbook for travellers in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire (1868), 164. However, despite its relative decline Newcastle’s population remained stable and grew in the latter half of the nineteenth century as it became a ‘dormitory town’, housing inhabitants who worked elsewhere, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent.VCH Staffs., viii. 52.

Electoral history:

The independent politics of the freemen, who predominated among the electorate even after the admission of £10 householders in 1832, continued to shape the distinctive and vibrant political culture of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the reformed period. The borough had a reputation for venality and contestants were frequently rich outsiders, including businessmen from the north-west and others connected to the town’s hat trade. However, issues were just as important as money in securing the electors’ allegiances. The candidates, whether Liberal or Conservative, who tended to prosper were those who genuflected to local popular feeling, especially support for free trade and Protestant principles and hostility to the new poor law. Party labels were often loose and blurred. For example, some Conservative candidates in the 1830s and 1840s distanced themselves from their more orthodox colleagues and sought to curry favour with the freemen by emphasising their commitment to a revision of the corn laws. On other occasions, such as in 1847, four different candidates expressed similar views to appeal to the freemen. However, within such a climate of cross voting and tight contests, the more straightforward party votes could be decisive. Another enduring feature of Newcastle politics was the frequency of election petitions, although these were seldom successful and increasingly withdrawn after their presentation.

A freemen borough, with many electors employed as craftsmen in the local hatting trade, the constituency’s politics in the 1790-1832 period had been fashioned by the decline of the Trentham interest, headed by George Granville Leveson-Gower, 2nd marquess of Stafford (later the 1st duke of Sutherland), which had controlled the representation for much of the eighteenth century.HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 360-2; ibid., 1820-1832, iii. 14-20; H. Barker and D. Vincent, ‘Introduction’, in idem (eds.) Language, print and electoral politics, 1790-1832: Newcastle-under-Lyme broadsides (2001), pp. ix-xlii (at ix-xxvi); E. Richards, ‘The social and electoral influence of the Trentham interest, 1800-1860’, Midland History, 3 (1975), 117-48; S.M. Hardy and R.C. Baily, ‘The downfall of the Gower interest in the Staffordshire boroughs’, Collections for a history of Staffordshire (1954), 265-301. This was partly a result of the family’s gradual disengagement from Staffordshire politics.Barker and Vincent, ‘Introduction’, pp. xxi-xxiii; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 14-16. However, the Trentham interest had also faced an increasingly powerful challenge from the Independent party, known locally as the ‘Blues’.Barker and Vincent, ‘Introduction’, pp. x, xiv-xxii. The mantle of the ‘Pink and White’ Trentham interest was taken up by the corporation, who created freemen to maintain control.HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 14; PP 1835 (116), xxv. 543-52 (at 545, 551). Fierce competition between the Blues and Pink and Whites meant that there were no fewer than twelve contests between 1790 and 1832, which helped to create an open and participatory form of politics, much of which, as Hannah Barker and David Vincent have shown, was sustained by a deluge of printed broadsides and squibs.Barker and Vincent, ‘Introduction’, pp. xiv-xvi, xxxiii-xlii. The corporation’s influence was diminished by a series of expensive legal cases, which contributed to the return of two Independents in 1830 and 1831.PP 1835 (116), xxv. 544-5, 549, 551; Barker and Vincent, ‘Introduction’, pp. xxiv-xxvi; HP Commons, 1820-1832, iii. 18-20.

The 1832 Reform Act disenfranchised non-resident freemen, a loss more than compensated for by the admission of £10 householders in Newcastle. As a result the ‘voterate’ of 850 (1831) expanded slightly to a registered electorate of 973 (1832), a modest rise of 16%.PP 1833 (189), xxvii. 190. Of the new electorate, 842 (86.5%) were freemen and just 131 (13.5%) were £10 householders.Ibid. The electorate rose to over 1,000 by 1840, by which time the freemen had declined to 749, but thereafter the structure remained essentially the same until the end of the period.PP 1837-38 (329), xliv. 646; 1840 (579), xxxix. 194; 1844 (11), xxxviii. 434; 1852 (8), xlii. 317; 1852-3 (863), lxxxiii. 411; 1859 session 1 (140), xxiii. 141. By 1865 the electorate stood at 1,181, of whom 718 (60.7%) were freemen.PP 1866 (81), lvii. 561. An 1866 parliamentary return classified 54.7% of electors as working class, the fourth highest total out of all parliamentary boroughs.PP 1866 (170), lvii. 48. Throughout the period around 10% of the population had the vote and participation levels were high. There was only one uncontested election in the period and turnout, especially in the 1830s and 1840s, was typically above 90%.1832: 96.7%; 1835: 93.4%; 1837: 88.9%; 1841: 94.1%; 1847: 93.7%; 1847 by-election: 81.6%; 1865: 75.4%.

The Independent incumbents William Henry Miller, a kinsman of Miller Christy the famous hat manufacturer, and Edmund Peel, brother of Sir Robert Peel, stood their ground on essentially Conservative platforms at the 1832 general election. Local Reformers brought forward Sir Henry Willoughby, who stood ‘as a friend to the Government’ after accepting a requisition.J.C. Wedgwood, Staffordshire Parliamentary History (1934), iii. 87; Staffordshire Advertiser, 17, 24 Nov. 1832; H. Willoughby, ‘To the free and independent electors … of Newcastle-under-Lyme’, 28 Aug. 1832, Keele University Library, K287, repr. Barker and Vincent, Language, print and electoral politics, 329-30. Despite his Conservatism, Peel advocated a ‘fixed and moderate’ duty on corn instead of ‘the present fluctuating scale’, and drew attention to his successful defence of the resident freemen franchise during the debates on the reform bill, which had earned him a grateful memorial from electors, 26 Feb. 1832.Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 Sept. 1832; ‘Address to Edmund Peel’, 26 Feb. 1832, Keele University Library, K286a, repr. Barker and Vincent, Language, print and electoral politics, 327-8. Shortly before the nomination Peel threatened to resign, complaining of the ‘grossest calumnies’, in particular that he had financially supported a local hatting firm which had ‘injured the trade by affecting prices’. Peel’s campaign manager, Dr. Mackenzie, denied these reports and got up a subscription to fund Peel’s candidature. This was probably just as well given that the Staffordshire Advertiser believed ‘that Mr Peel’s brief connection with Newcastle has not cost him less than 9,000l.’Staffordshire Advertiser, 24 Nov. 1832. During the campaign, Miller declared himself bored with the ‘stale’ issue of reform. Disapproving of the Reform Act as ‘far too extensive, and … very objectionable in many points’, he did, however, advocate freer trade, especially the opening up of Indian and Chinese trade.Staffordshire Advertiser, 1 Dec. 1832. The incumbents won the show of hands at the nomination, but Willoughby, who received 151 plumps, beat Peel to second place behind Miller by 100 votes in the poll. As a result of the subscription it was a cheap defeat for Peel at least, who apparently only contributed £50.Staffordshire Advertiser, 15 Dec. 1832.

Before the 1835 general election Peel wrote to his brother, who was now prime minister, that Willoughby and Miller were hoping

… to walk over at N[ew]castle, Miller is very unpopular in the town & if any third candidate offers, he must expend a very large sum to secure two seats. He could not poll more than 100 votes without having recourse to bribery. £1500 of his last election expenses remains unpaid. … [U]ntil I can be assured that the bribery system is discountenanced by the candidates or by the town I will have no part in the election. Had the petition been presented after the last election N[ew]castle would now be in the same position as Stafford is [i.e. facing disenfranchisement].Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 29 Dec. 1834, Add. 40408, f. 67.

Peel did eventually secure assurances about bribery and joined the incumbents in the field.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1835. The Morning Chronicle fairly commented that Willoughby and Peel were independent, although inclined towards Conservatism, while Miller was a ‘backbone Tory’.Morn. Chro., 7 Jan. 1835. In his address Willoughby described himself as a ‘moderate and a constitutional Reformer’, and emphasised his support for Dissenters’ causes and opposition to the new poor law in particular. He also highlighted his defence of the Liverpool and Hertford freemen who had been threatened with disenfranchisement.Sir H. Willoughby, ‘To the free and independent burgesses … of Newcastle-under-Lyme’, 29 Dec. 1834, Keele University Library, K297, repr. Barker and Vincent, Language, print and electoral politics, 331-2. At the nomination, Miller declared himself an opponent of the late Whig ministry, while Willoughby associated himself with Lord Stanley’s moderate faction, a position reflected in his speech. He criticised Whig Irish policy and the new poor law, offering a defence of outdoor relief, but commended the Whigs for cutting taxes and passing the Factory Act. He promised not to give Sir Robert Peel’s new Conservative government a ‘factious opposition’. Peel also condemned the new poor law, and voiced support for the repeal of malt duty to relieve the working classes. The show of hands favoured Peel and Willoughby over Miller by a slight margin, but the baronet lost ground after a good start in the poll and eventually withdrew, leaving Peel and Miller to be elected in first and second place respectively.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835. Willoughby attributed his defeat to his determination ‘not to pay money to the lower class of voters during the … poll’.‘An elector of Newcastle’, Morning Post, 14 Jan. 1835. His supporters implied that Miller had employed bribery, but no petition was forthcoming.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835.

Peel, who was seriously afflicted with gout, retired at the 1837 general election. The pottery manufacturer William Taylor Copeland, moderate reform MP for Coleraine, declined an invitation to stand, and was subsequently returned for Stoke-on-Trent as a Conservative.Morning Post, 4 July 1837. Other rumoured candidates included two Conservatives: James Bateman junior, of Knypersley Hall, and Edmund Buckley, a Manchester businessman.Staffordshire Advertiser, qu. in The Times, 28 June 1837. John Ayshford Wise, of Clifford Bank, offered as a moderate Liberal, but later withdrew as ‘I should not have the slightest chance of success, without descending to those illegitimate weapons, used without hesitation by the Tory party, but which, as a sincere and constitutional Whig, I am totally unprepared to employ’.Morning Post, 4 July 1837; Staffordshire Advertiser, 1, 8, 15 July 1837. Spencer De Horsey, of Glemham Hall, Suffolk, who promised to maintain the established church and constitution, came forward as a Conservative alongside Miller. Richard Badnall, of Cotton Hall, ‘a firm friend to reform principles’, offered at a late stage to prevent a Conservative walkover, particularly as another Reformer, J. Collett, had refused to stand. Whereas the Conservative candidates emphasised the defence of the Church, Badnall attacked the corn laws, and also hoped that females ‘would give their husbands a “nudge”’ to vote for him.Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 July 1837. He later complained of the ‘lukewarmness’ of local Dissenters.Staffordshire Advertiser, 29 July 1837.

Badnall reiterated his support for free trade at the nomination, which was notable for the Conservatives’ vituperative attacks on the Whig government in general and O’Connell’s influence in particular. The Irish leader was the ‘greatest boroughmonger’ in the kingdom, complained Miller. Badnall countered that the ‘cry of O’Connell and popery’ was a ‘trick of Toryism’ to distract electors from the pressing issue of the corn laws. However, Miller, who topped the poll, and De Horsey won an easy victory over Badnall, whose total of 292 votes included 163 plumps.Ibid. Badnall petitioned against Miller’s return, 23 Nov. 1837, alleging ‘divers acts of bribery and corruption’, and praying for the petitioner to be returned instead.CJ, xciii. 43-4. The election committee confirmed Miller’s election, 9 Mar. 1838, but noted that ‘it appears that a most objectionable practice has existed for many years … of distributing money after the election to the poorer voters’. Furthermore, the votes of electors were taken alphabetically, which had ‘a tendency to facilitate and promote bribery and corruption’.Ibid., 347.

Although the borough was represented by two Conservatives, there was a good deal of anti-corn law feeling in the town, which regularly produced petitions for repeal.Select Committee on Public Petitions (1839), Reports, 191; ibid., (1840), 217; ibid., (1843), I, p. 869. The corn laws were a key issue at the 1841 general election, and one which the Liberal challenger, John Quincey Harris, a Southwark hat manufacturer, sought to exploit. However, the incumbents’ return was considered ‘certain’ by the Times, and even after De Horsey retired to stand elsewhere and his place was taken by Edmund Buckley, the Morning Post thought that the ‘Conservatives are too strong to be beaten, and too closely united to be torn asunder’.The Times, 2 June 1841; Morning Post, 28 June 1841. Yet there were subtle differences between the two Conservatives. Miller strongly defended the corn laws and contended that their repeal would depress wages.Staffordshire Advertiser, 19 June 1841. Styling himself as a ‘Liberal Conservative’, the popular Buckley stood on ‘independent ground’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 5 June 1841. He favoured the modification of the corn laws and offered strong opposition to the new poor law. ‘A decided enemy to all monopolies’, Harris condemned the power of the commissioners and the restriction of outdoor relief but not the principle of the new poor law.Staffordshire Advertiser, 12, 19 June 1841. He also advocated triennial parliaments, a national system of education and the abolition of church rates.Staffordshire Advertiser, 12 June 1841. Harris declared, unwisely perhaps, ‘let his opponents bribe’, advising poor electors to take his rivals’ money and then vote for him.Staffordshire Advertiser, 19 June 1841.

During the campaign, Buckley employed Charles Wilkins, a Manchester barrister who had spoken on behalf of the Conservative candidate at the Walsall by-election in February, to give protectionist lectures. In one speech, Wilkins attacked the Anti-Corn Law League for hiring lecturers to ‘preach in favour of the New Poor Law’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1841. At the nomination, Harris noted that there was little difference between his views and those of Buckley, who had stressed his long connection with the local iron trade.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1841. During the polling Harris’s party advised supporters to plump for their candidate until he was safe and then split with Buckley. The strategy proved to be effective, as Harris was elected in second place behind Buckley after Miller was forced to retire.Ibid.; Northern Star, 3 July 1841. Harris’s total of 565 votes included 233 plumps and 312 splits with Buckley, but only 20 with Miller. Buckley topped the poll, despite having received comparatively few plumps, because of the splits with Harris and also the 394 shared votes with Miller, which may be counted as Conservative party votes. Miller’s unpopularity was indicated by his reliance on shared votes with Buckley: he received only 23 other votes. Buckley and Harris had successfully appealed beyond their parties; Miller had not.Newcastle-under-Lyme poll book (1841), 5. The Whig grandee Lord Hatherton hailed Harris’s return as part of a general Liberal recovery in Staffordshire and a rebuff to the pretensions of the ‘high & blustering’ Conservatives.Hatherton Journal, 30 June 1841, Staffordshire Record Office, D260/M/F/7/5/26/22.

However, there had been rumours of bribery during the election, notably that money was being paid to voters through a ‘hole in the wall’ at the Devonshire Arms.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1841. A petition against Harris’s return, 7 Sept. 1841, alleged bribery and also that he did not possess the requisite property qualification.CJ, xcvi. 548-9. A committee was appointed, 11 May 1842, and after finding evidence that electors had been bribed with sums typically ranging between £2 15s. and £5, but in one case £8, Harris was unseated, 11 May 1842.CJ, xcvii. 279, 342; A. Barron and A. Austin, Report of cases of controverted elections, in the fourteenth Parliament of the United Kingdom (1844), 436-53; PP 1842 (250), viii. 4. In a number of cases the sums had been paid to the wives and daughters of electors.PP 1842 (250), viii. 4. The committee also noted that there had long been a practice of paying the freemen ‘market’ or ‘dinner money’ after the election.CJ, xcvii. 279; PP 1842 (250), viii. 74-5, 83. Although Harris had been unseated and a by-election called, some thought this insufficient punishment for a borough that was ‘notoriously corrupt’. Issuing a new writ merely allowed ‘candidates and electors to play over again their foul and demoralising game’.Bradford Observer, 9 June 1842.

At the by-election, the new Conservative candidate, John Campbell Colquhoun, formerly MP for Dumbartonshire and Kilmarnock burghs, voiced support for Peel’s financial policy.Morning Post, 8 June 1842. Ignoring the committee’s verdict, Harris stood again, and had the ‘mob in his favour’ as well as a number of ‘influential’ Conservatives whom he had induced to switch sides by placing large orders with their firms. He also courted local Chartists, potters and colliers.The Times, 10 June 1842; Morning Post, 11 June 1842. The mayor warned Harris at the nomination that he would be disqualified if elected. The Liberal declared (inaccurately) that he had supported Peel’s revised corn law of 1842 as a step towards free trade and regretted not petitioning against Buckley, who he thought was equally guilty of bribery at the 1841 election. Colquhoun emphasised his votes for Villiers’s anti-corn law motions in 1839 and 1840, and drew the crowd’s attention to ‘certain obnoxious clauses in the Whig-Radical Poor Law Bill’.Morning Post, 14 June 1842.

During the campaign there were reports of bribery using the ‘old practice’ of paying electors through holes in walls.Morn. Chro., 15 June 1842. On the pretext of preventing such corrupt methods, Harris’s supporters conducted nightly patrols and later attacked Conservative pubs and houses.The Standard, 15 June 1842. Harris was victorious by 20 votes, but two petitions argued that he was ineligible to stand and had employed bribery, intimidation and violence during the campaign, 21, 23 June 1842.CJ, xcvii. 408-11, 418-21. Despite Harris’s counter-petition, 1 July, the election committee ruled that the hatter was disqualified from standing at the by-election, and declared Colquhoun duly elected, 22 July 1842.The Times, 23 July 1842; Morning Post, 22 July 1842; CJ, xcvii. 446-7, 506, 518; Barron and Austin, Cases of controverted elecctions, 564-84.

There were a ‘host of new candidates’ at the 1847 general election after the retirement of the sitting members. Lord Edward Howard, son of the duke of Norfolk, offered, but withdrew as his Catholicism was not a vote-winner in a borough characterised by ‘strong Protestant feeling ... amongst all classes’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1847. Miller considered, but eventually decided against, standing again, and Dissenters were reported to be bringing forward their own candidate.Morning Post, 24 July 1847; Morn. Chro., 9, 28 June 1847. Four candidates went to the poll: William Jackson, of Birkenhead, Cheshire, a wealthy businessman; William Greig, a London merchant; Samuel Christy, of Poynton Park, Cheshire, who, like Miller, was a relation of Christy the famous hat manufacturer; and George Granville Francis Egerton, viscount Brackley, son of the earl of Ellesmere and nephew of the duke of Sutherland, whose Trentham interest had once controlled the constituency.Morning Post, 24 July 1847.

Party labels were blurred throughout the campaign, as candidates expressed similar views in the hope of appealing to the freemen. Jackson and Greig were Liberals, while Christy was a Free Trade Conservative. Brackley stood as a Liberal, but his father was a Peelite, and he had been linked with South Lancashire and North Staffordshire as a Liberal Conservative and protectionist respectively. As Hatherton dryly remarked the nobleman ‘has sided with all parties in his attempts to get into Parl[iamen]t’.Hatherton Journal, 10 Aug. 1847, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/7/5/26/42. All the candidates deferred to local Protestant feeling by promising not to vote for any increase in the Maynooth grant and to oppose any further endowment of Roman Catholicism. Support for free trade was another common theme, and Brackley, Christy and Jackson voiced criticism of the new poor law. Christy, who was particularly keen to associate himself with cheap bread, told electors that ‘the principles of Free Trade were … not one iota more the property of the Whigs and Radicals than they were of the Conservatives’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 17 July 1847. Brackley, who sported the old ‘Pink and White’ Trentham colours, expressed support for Russell’s Whig government. Christy emphasised his family’s long connection with the local hat trade, while Greig publicised his role in marketing the town’s staple manufacture abroad.Ibid. By contrast, Jackson bluntly told inhabitants that the prosperity of the town would be best served by a general increase in the country’s commerce rather than him holding out false hope of reviving the declining hat trade.Ibid.

At the nomination, Jackson, who stressed his humble origins, sought to claim the mantle of the popular Buckley, as did Christy. The most partisan address came from Greig, who quoted the Times’s description of Jackson as a Liberal, Brackley a Peelite and (mistakenly) Christy a protectionist. Greig also challenged the other candidates to invest £1,000 ‘for the permanent benefit of the town, either by founding schools or a hospital’. Christy topped the poll, finishing five votes ahead of Jackson, with Brackley forty votes behind in third place. Greig, who finished bottom with 101 votes, blamed broken promises and bribery for his poor showing.Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847. The election was marked by strong patterns of cross-voting between the three leading candidates. The splits for Christy-Jackson, Brackley-Christy, and Jackson-Brackley were 205, 236 and 210 respectively. In such a tight contest, however, the more straightforward party votes proved to be decisive. Christy secured 118 plumps and Jackson benefited from 71 shared votes with Greig, which gave them the edge over Brackley, who perhaps paid the price for his ambiguous party allegiance.H. Stooks Smith, The parliaments of England (1850), iii. 278.

Although Greig had singled out Christy’s party for bribery, a petition was presented, 7 Dec. 1847, accusing Jackson of ‘gross, extensive, systematic and notorious bribery, treating and corrupt practices’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 31 July 1847; CJ, ciii. 97. It alleged that Jackson’s agents had offered financial inducements to abstain as well as vote for their candidate. The petitioners, who called for Jackson to be unseated, also claimed that the Liberal did not possess the requisite property qualification and had benefited from votes from people not entitled to be on the register.Ibid., 97-8. The petition was withdrawn, 3 Feb. 1848.Ibid., 158. Before this, there had been an unexpected by-election in December 1847, occasioned by Christy’s resignation as there had been some doubt over whether he was a government contractor when he was first returned. However, Christy was comfortably re-elected ahead of Thomas Ross, a local Liberal.The Times, 10 Dec. 1847.

The Newcastle-under-Lyme Liberals endorsed Jackson before the 1852 general election and mooted bringing forward a second candidate. Some favoured Edward Buller of Dilhorne Hall, former MP for North Staffordshire and Stafford, some preferred Ross, while others were ambivalent about having a second candidate, fearing that it would endanger Jackson’s return.Staffordshire Advertiser, 22 May 1852, 19 June 1852. In the event Ross challenged Christy, who stood as a Free Trade Conservative, expressing support for the extension of the franchise, shorter parliaments, the ballot and general retrenchment, and declaring himself an opponent of the Maynooth grant.Staffordshire Advertiser, 5, 12, 19 June 1852; The Standard, 2 July 1852. Buller visited the constituency at a late stage, but decided against standing.Staffordshire Advertiser, 3 July 1852. At the nomination Christy admitted that he had given ‘general support’ to the Derby ministry, but promised to strenuously oppose any attempt to reverse free trade. ‘No party man’, Jackson declared himself a ‘practical commercial man’ not ‘a disciple of the Manchester school’ or a ‘mere theorist’. He favoured religious liberty and free trade, and called for further economic expansion, especially of the railways and telegraphs. Ross’s speech was similar, but with a more populist edge, claiming that ‘the rich man made the laws, and took care not to tax himself’. The show of hands favoured the Liberals, but Ross trailed throughout the poll and retired early, although some electors then demanded that the mayor continue the poll. Jackson and Christy were elected in first and second place respectively. The election was notable for the lack of ‘open houses, scarcely any treating, very little intoxication, not a single squib has issued from the press’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 July 1852.

The incumbents stood their ground at the 1857 general election, at which Edward Wood, of Leghorn, declined to come forward, as did the aged, but still popular Buckley.The Examiner, 21 Mar. 1857; Derby Mercury, 25 Mar. 1857. John Riley, a barrister of ‘ample means’ who issued his address from the University Club, offered as a Liberal, and was the candidate of the ‘movement party’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Mar. 1857. He declared himself ‘an upholder of the British constitution’, against the ballot, supportive of the established church, and, in view of the failings exposed by the Crimean War, in favour of ‘public competition’ in the civil service and reform of the army bureaucracy.Ibid. Riley’s statement that he would have voted against Palmerston over Canton placed him at odds with Jackson, whose support for the premier on the issue was ‘highly approved’ of by constituents.Staffordshire Advertiser, 14 Mar. 1857. Jackson thought Palmerston’s ‘policy and character are thoroughly English’.Staffordshire Advertiser, 21 Mar. 1857. Christy opposed Palmerston over Canton, advocated economy and remission of taxation, and objected to the re-imposition of income tax and ‘centralisation’.Ibid. At the nomination Jackson made a strongly Palmerstonian speech and also praised liberal commercial policy for opening up new markets. Riley shifted his position, defending Palmerston on Canton and declining to say whether he would support Derby or Palmerston. Riley, however, was easily defeated, finishing behind Christy, who topped the poll, and Jackson.Staffordshire Advertiser, 28 Mar. 1857. The result was challenged by no fewer than three petitions, two from Riley, one against Jackson and one against Christy and Jackson, and there was another against Christy’s return, 21 May 1857.The Times, 25 May 1857; Derby Mercury, 27 May 1857; CJ, cxii. 167. However, they were all withdrawn, 29 May 1857, 4 June 1857.Ibid., 184, 189.

The general election in 1859 was the only uncontested election in the period, at which Jackson was returned alongside William Murray, a Conservative London lawyer, who replaced Christy. However, at the beginning of the campaign a contest had seemed likely due to the presence of Gwyn Jefferies, a South Wales landowner with mining interests, who offered as a ‘thorough Conservative’. The Conservatives warned electors that the reform schemes of Russell and Bright would disenfranchise Newcastle-under-Lyme, with Jefferies invoking Russell’s past attempts to tamper with the freemen franchise.Birmingham Daily Post, 26 Apr. 1859; The Standard, 27 Apr. 1859. Jefferies defended church rates and opposed the ballot, but sought to blend party labels, declaring himself a ‘Conservative Liberal, [who] … like a skilful gardener, pruned his fruit trees … to render his trees more fruitful’, rather than uprooting them like Radicals.The Standard, 27 Apr. 1859. However, Jefferies withdrew before the poll, leaving Jackson and Murray to be returned unopposed.

Jackson and Murray retired at the 1865 general election, the former to be returned for North Derbyshire.Birmingham Daily Post, 19 June 1865. Several candidates entered the field including Edmund Buckley, the illegitimate son of the former member, and two Liberals, William Shepherd Allen, of Woodhead Hall, and John Ayshford Wise, the latter of whom had offered in 1837 and subsequently represented Stafford.Birmingham Daily Post, 28 June 1865. A Mr. Huddleston, a Conservative barrister on the Oxford circuit, issued an address but his campaign ‘had a very short existence’.The Standard, 5 July 1865; Birmingham Daily Post, 7 July 1865. A Liberal Conservative, Buckley opposed the ballot and lowering of the franchise, but denied that his party ‘were stand-still politicians’. Allen favoured non-intervention in foreign affairs, reduced taxation and expenditure, the extension of the franchise and abolition of church rates. Wise brought on to the hustings a large key as a prop, which he said he would use to ‘unlock the door of the borough’. However, he finished a poor third behind Allen and Buckley, elected in first and second place respectively, with 282 and 315 plumps.Birmingham Daily Post, 12 July 1865; Newcastle-under-Lyme poll book (1865), [n.p., p. iii].

The 1867 Representation of the People Act expanded the electorate of Newcastle-under-Lyme to 3,038, but the representation remained split between the Liberal and Conservative parties.PP 1868-9 (419), l. 111; McCalmont’s parliamentary poll book, ed. J. Vincent and M. Stenton (8th edn., 1972), 211. After being reduced to a single member in 1885, the constituency was held by the Liberals, 1885-6, 1892-1900, and the Liberal Unionists 1886-92, 1900-6. From 1906 to 1942 the borough was represented by Josiah Clement Wedgwood, a Liberal then Labour MP and founder of the History of Parliament.Ibid., pt. II, p. 178; F. Bealey, J. Blondel and W.P. McCann, Constituency politics: a study of Newcastle-under-Lyme (1965), 56-76. It was later written that ‘in the 1930s Wedgwood came to personify the constituency to such a degree that it became a sort of twentieth-century feudal fief’.Ibid., 405. The town’s political life in the later twentieth century was extensively analysed in Frank Bealey, J. Blondel and W.P. McCann’s Constituency politics (1965), a classic of post-war political science.F. Bealey, J. Blondel and W.P. McCann, Constituency politics: a study of Newcastle-under-Lyme (1965).