Politics in Bristol, 1865–86 by RICHARD WOODBERRY
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 130 (2012), 241–277 Politics in Bristol, 1865–86 By RICHARD WOODBERRY Whilst Bristol’s status as a port, its economic history and reasons for decline have been meticulously and widely studied for the mid to late Victorian period, its politics have been sadly ignored. The perception that the city’s great days had gone, that Liverpool hugely surpassed it as a port, Manchester was an alternative capital city, Birmingham had evolved as the hub of a great industrial hinterland and Leeds as a dynamic regional centre, all contributed to the historical neglect. No major national political figure emerged from Bristol in the period. For the Liberals the party leadership was either in the north, or in the House of Lords, or when in Birmingham was by- passed; for the Conservatives the centre of gravity remained in the counties in general, though not necessarily the southern ones, or Lancashire in particular, and London, where urban Toryism of a reform, if not a democratic, nature, grew.1 Disraeli’s famous Act of 1867 had a major effect on the structure of Bristol’s politics, almost doubling the electorate, modernising the parties, opening up new techniques of seeking political favours and broadening the nature of debate and discourse. Nevertheless, it did not alter the outcome of the city’s election results, which had been, and continued to be, Liberal. Apart from one fleeting by-election victory in April 1868 (overturned in Nov.), no Conservative was returned for Bristol from 1852–85.2 In terms of the size of its population by the 1860s Bristol had fallen from second place (as achieved in the previous century) to tenth due to industry sweeping production and people northwards.3 The comparative figures for both population and size of electorate are detailed below: 1. In order to see the city in context, the three following introductory surveys provide interesting comparisons and points of reference: R. McWilliam, Popular Politics in Nineteenth-Century England (1998), R. Price, British Society, 1680–1880: Dynamism, Containment and Change (1999), and J. Vernon, Politics and the People: A Study in English Political Culture, c. 1815–67 (Cambridge, 1993). It is noted that no mention of Bristol is made in either index or text of these volumes. The place of publication is London, unless otherwise stated. 2. The overall picture can be seen in H.J. Hanham, The Reformed Electoral System in Great Britain, 1832– 1914 (1968). The national effect of 1832 is best approached via M. Brock, The Great Reform Act (1972). The exemplary studies of 1867–8 are all from the 1960s: R. Blake, Disraeli (1966), M. Cowling, 1867: Disraeli, Gladstone and Revolution, The Passing of the Second Reform Bill (Cambridge, 1967), F.B. Smith, The Making of the Second Reform Bill (Cambridge, 1966) and J. Vincent, The Formation of the British Liberal Party, 1857–68 (1966), though see the second edition, 1976, for ‘Afterthoughts’. A useful modern synthesis is K.T. Hoppen, The Mid-Victorian Generation, 1846–86 (Oxford, 1998). 3. By 1881, Bristol had fallen one place further to 11th, being overtaken by Belfast, whose statistics were: 1861; 121,602; 1881; 207,671. 241-278 - Woodberry COLOUR.indd 241 19/02/2013 12:17 242 richard woodberry Borough/City Population, Population, Electorate, 1865 Electorate, 18614 1881 1868 1) London5 2,500,517 3,245,429 150,629 249,887 2) Liverpool 443,398 601,050 20,618 39,645 3) Glasgow 394,864 487,968 16,819 47,854 4) Manchester 357,979 393,676 21,542 48,256 5) Birmingham 296,076 400,757 14,997 42,042 6) Dublin 254,803 273,164 10,847 12,5606 7) Leeds 207,165 259,212 7,217 39,244 8) Sheffield 185,172 284,508 8,557 29,955 9) Edinburgh 168,121 228,190 10,343 20,779 10) 7 4567 Bristol 154,093 206,874 11,303 21,153 Rather than comparing Bristol to cities which had surpassed it in population terms, a greater sense of relevance can be gained by looking for similarities elsewhere. Norwich and Newcastle upon Tyne, respectively the regional capitals of East Anglia and the North East; Nottingham, the only other city and county where the borough freeholders voted within the city itself; Kingston upon Hull, where the ancient port’s patterns of trade were somewhat similar; Bradford and Wolverhampton, industrial centres nearest in size of population; all offered an alternative mode of comparison.8 Borough/City Population, Population, Electorate, Electorate, 1861 1881 1865 1868 1) Wolverhampton 147,670 164,303 4,830 15,772 2) Newcastle upon Tyne 109,108 145,228 6,630 18,557 3) Bradford9 106,218 180,459 5,189 21,518 4) Kingston upon Hull 97,661 161,519 5,566 17,146 5) Norwich 74,891 87,843 4,817 13,296 6) Nottingham 74,693 111,631 5,934 14,168 9 4. Population figures are based on the relevant censuses, the Parliamentary Papers (Electoral Returns) for 1865–6 and the Boundary Commission Report for 1885. The electorates also come from the second of the above and Dod’s ‘Parliamentary Companions’ for the two election years cited. 5. London’s borough constituencies were, in 1865: City, Finsbury, Lambeth, Marylebone, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster, to which were added Chelsea and Hackney three years later. 6. There were separate Acts in 1868 affecting the franchise for both Ireland and Scotland. The 1865 figure for the electorate is based on the returns for 1862. 7. The 1865 figure evinced a sharp decline from the highest total reached between the First and Second Reform Acts of 12,929 in 1859. 8. Neither the Disraelian borough creations of 1868, nor the electoral divisions of London both before and after 1867–8, have been included. The former offer no real method of comparison; the latter were ‘sui generis’. 9. The town, being so very different, provides an interesting contrast and it can be studied via D.G. Wright, ‘Politics and Opinion in Nineteenth-Century Bradford, 1832–80’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, (Bradford, 1968). For a more general comparison, see D. Fraser, Urban Politics in Victorian England: The Structure of Politics in Victorian Cities (1976). 241-278 - Woodberry COLOUR.indd 242 19/02/2013 12:17 politics in bristol, 1865–86 243 Bristol’s population by 1865–6 did not quite justify an additional third MP in 1867.10 There were attempts made to increase the city’s representation. Laing had proposed in June giving one extra member to the six, largest, English, non-metropolitan, boroughs but this plan and a subsequent try by the sitting, senior Liberal for the city, Berkeley, also failed.11 The issue divided the local parties. The Liberals wanted a third MP; the Conservatives would only accept the increase if it was accompanied by the minority vote principle.12 The ideal Tory solution was the creation of Clifton as an entirely separate parliamentary constituency and as Gravesend was the only new, southern, English, seat created in 1867 outside London, there was a clear case to be made.13 With regard to the city’s redistribution, significant changes had been proposed by the Tory leaning Boundary Commission adding 20,000 people from the surrounding county seats. The additions were to be: County Division Area Population 1) Gloucestershire, West Bishopston 5,000 2) Gloucestershire West St George 12,500 3) Somerset, East Bedminster 2,500 Total 20,000 Whilst Bishopston (which included a part of both Horfield and Stapleton) should be regarded as Tory, St George’s to the east of the city included radical mining villages and Bedminster was a working-class suburb south of the River Avon.14 However, Bristol was one of the 33 constituencies called in by the Liberal-dominated Commons’ Select Committee in 1868. After ‘investigation’ 15 mainly large boroughs were not permitted any extension to their boundaries, of which the city was one.15 Spofforth, a member of Disraeli’s ‘Kitchen Cabinet’, had written to all the affected seats so referred asking for their views as to whether or not the obvious gerrymandering should be contested in the Commons. The local Tory chairman wrote back saying that he had consulted 10. Of the English cities outlined above, this only happened to Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester. 11. Laing’s motion was defeated by 247–239, Berkeley’s by 235–136; Sheffield, also, by 258–122. Laing’s was a national motion involving important principles of redistribution; Berkeley was acting as a local M.P., hence the difference. The figure decided upon was 250,000 population as at 1861 (Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester), to which was added during debate, Leeds, in order to enhance Yorkshire conservatism in particular, and ‘Justice to the North’, in general. Samuel Laing; MP (Lib.) Wick burghs 1852–7, 1859–60, 1865–8; Orkney and Shetland, November 1873–85; junior office 1859–60; finance minister, Council of India 1860–5; chairman, Crystal Palace Railway Company 1852 onwards; barrister; member of the Liberal ‘Cave’ 1866–7, regarded by Disraeli as the ‘second ablest’ after Lowe. 12. ‘At a meeting yesterday of the Conservative Working Men’s Association it was resolved that steps be immediately taken to secure for Bristol a 3rd, or minority, Member … when the vacant seats are about to be disposed of’, S.V. Hare to Disraeli, July 1, 1870, Hughenden Papers [hereafter H.P.], Bodleian Library, Oxford, Ref. B/XXII/B/5. For Hare, see later. The ‘vacant seats’ were: Beverley, Bridgwater, Cashel and Sligo, all disfranchised for corruption in 1870. (Although after the 1867–8 Acts, the view expressed is representative of that period).