The Election of 1868 in Merthyr Tydfil: A Study in the Politics of an Industrial Borough in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Abstract

A T THE GENERAL ELECTION of 1868 in the two-member constituency of Merthyr Tydfil, Austin Bruce, who was shortly to become home secretary in Gladstone's first administration, was returned at the bottom of the poll, being beaten by the nonconformist radical, Richard, and a local ironmaster, Richard Fothergill.1 Bruce's return for one of the seats had been confidently pre(licted on the basis not merely of his acknowledged eminence within the Liberal party and his popularity in the country at large,2 but also by reason of his standing in the constituency itself, which he had represented continuously since 1852.3 Many had argued that, whereas in comparable borough constituencies the extension of the franchise introduced an unknown factor into the calculations of electoral agents and party managers, in Merthyr Tydfil, which now, by reason of the Second Reform Act, had become a predominantly working-class constituency, Bruce's association with such Radicals as John Bright, John Stuart Miill, G. J. Goschen, J. D. Coleridge, and W. E. Forster-the vanguard of the Liberal Party 4-made him peculiarly acceptable to the new class of voter, so that the franchise changes would operate in his favor. Moreover, it was pointed out, Bruce enjoyed the advantage of being a local man, interested in the industrial life of the constituency not only as a senior trustee of the great Dowlais iron works but also as a substantial landowner controlling extensive and lucrative mineral rights.5 These factors, it was believed, made him well-nigh invincible. In the event, Bruce polled less than one-third of the votes cast, being defeated by a total outsider in the person of Richard, whose politics had been confined to the activities of the Peace Society and of the Liberation Society, and by the local ironmaster, Richard Fothergill, who had been a political nonentity. Contemporaries saw in these unlooked-for results evidence of the massive strength of nonconformity and of the perpetuation of local influence and connection into the new order of things.6 But these factors, while accounting satisfactorily for the victory of Richard and perhaps for the return of Fothergill, do not explain the rejection of Bruce, since the nonconformists of the constituency were by no means antipathetic to him, and he enjoyed the 1 Richard polled 11,683, Fothergill 7,139, and Bruce 5,776 votes. The official returns are given in Great Britain, Parlianmentary papers, 1868-69 (hereafter cited as P.P.), Vol. L (Accounts and papers [hereafter cited as A.P.], Vol. XVII), Cmd. 424. 2 See Grant Duff, Henry Austin Bruce, first Baron Aberdare (after 1873), Dictionary of national biography, Supplement 1, p. 322. ' W. R. Williams, The parliamentary history of . . . TVales (Brecknock 1895), p. 111. 4 Daily News, Nov. 17, 1868. 5 P.P., 1874, Vol. LXXII (A.P., Vol. CCCLXXXII), Cmd. 1097, Return of owners of land, 1872-73, sub. Lord Aberdare, Glamorganshire. 6Morning Star, Dec. 4, 1868, analyzed the significance of the swing to liberalism in Wales and attributed it to the strength of nonconformity. The Daily News, Nov. 18, 1868, stated that, next to the defeat of John Stuart Mill at Westminster, that of Bruce was the most to be deplored. See alson Unnrb,o t'r Guardian. Nov. 18. 1868.