Gorton by-election, 1889

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

The Gorton by-election, 1889 was a parliamentary by-election held on 22 March 1889 for the British House of Commons in the Gorton Division of Lancashire.

Vacancy

The seat had become vacant on the death of the sitting Liberal MP Richard Peacock on 3 March 1889. Peacock had held the seat since the 1885 general election.[1]

Candidates

The Liberal Party selected William Mather a 50-year-old industrialist, the head of an engineering firm in Salford and the former MP for Salford South.

The Conservatives, who were backed by their Liberal Unionist allies, selected Ernest Hatch. Hatch was aged 29, a wine merchant from London but had been active in the Gorton constituency for his party since June 1888.[2]

Issues

The principal issue of the by-election was Irish home rule. Indeed, Mather declared it was the only question to be settled in the contest and hoped that the electors would not be influenced by any side issues. The Irish and Roman Catholic communities in the area had their own political organisations. While they were solidly behind the Liberal Party, they valued their independence and campaigned separately. During the by-election, they set up their own election committee on behalf of Mather and canvassed in their own end of the constituency.[3] Even the local priests were out campaigning for him.[4] For his part, Hatch stated the Irish had no cause for grievance and strongly defended the Irish policies of the government of Lord Salisbury.[5]

Despite Mather’s plea, it was not possible for all other political questions to be excluded from the campaign. Trade, foreign affairs and the naval building programme also intruded [6] as did the issue of temperance with the main temperance organisations supporting Mather and the brewers backing Hatch.[7]

The result

Mather held the seat for the Liberals with a slightly increased majority of 846 as opposed to Peacock’s 457 at the 1886 general election.[8] This may nevertheless have been something of a disappointment. In the course of the Parliament so far the Liberals had gained nine seats from the Conservatives or Liberal Unionists and one from the Irish Parliamentary Party. They had lost only one seat to the Liberal Unionists (at Doncaster by a very narrow margin).[9] It was reported that the Liberals had been confident of a much larger majority for Mather and that as the numbers of Irish electors in the division was about 1100, without that sectional support the seat might well have been lost.[10]

Mather went on to hold the seat at the 1892 general election with a reduced majority of 222.[11] At this election the Liberals came back to government under Mr Gladstone. Perhaps Mather's disappointing majority at the by-election had been something of a portent however. His own majority was down and nationally the party, which had expected to win an outright majority in the House of Commons, was in effect a minority government governing with the support and consent of the Irish MPs.[12]

Votes

22 March 1889 by-election: Gorton[13]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Liberal William Mather 5,155 54.5 -
Conservative Ernest Hatch 4,309 45.5
Majority 846 9.0
Turnout 88.7
Liberal hold Swing

References

  1. The Times, 4 March 1889 p6
  2. The Times, 9 March 1889 p12
  3. James Moore, The transformation of urban Liberalism: party politics and urban governance in late 19th century England; Ashgate Publishing, 2006 p81
  4. The Times, 19 March 1889 p10
  5. The Times, 11 March 1889 p7
  6. The Times, 11 March 1889 p7
  7. The Times, 13 March 1889 p11
  8. F W S Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results: 1885-1918; Macmillan, 1974 p317
  9. F W S Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results: 1885-1918; Macmillan, 1974 p434
  10. The Times, 25 March 1889 p6
  11. F W S Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results: 1885-1918; Macmillan, 1974 p317
  12. H C G Matthew, Gladstone, 1875-1898; Clarendon Press, 1995 p328
  13. The Constitiutional Year Book, 1904, published by Conservative Central Office, page 147 (171 in web page), Lancashire South East