General elections in Three Rivers district in the past

Readers will have noticed that there’s been an election recently. So many parties, so complicated the issues, so much information...It’s happened before, of course – but how did our forefathers get on?

General elections didn’t exist until 1801, and even then the number of electors was small and all-male. Hertfordshire had two MPs, Hertford two and St Albans two, in the first Parliament to represent the whole of the UK after the Act of Union of 1800. The idea of ‘parties’ and ‘majority’ didn’t really arrive until later, but the Prime Ministers were of either the Whig or the Tory faction.

After 1832 the county had three MPs, but Hertford and St Albans still two each. Voting was ‘open’, and shaky - in 1852 the corruption in St Albans was so bad that the town was simply struck off and never came back, and all candidates spent (and had to report) huge ‘expenses’. After 1867 the electorate was greatly increased, and from 1885 new divisions (constituencies) were formed with one member for each: what’s now Three Rivers became part of the Watford division. Until 1918 polling took place over several weeks.

Diary page - November 19, 1868. Image: Three Rivers Museum

But of course, with so few people (all men) able to vote, a general election had very little impact on daily life, and ordinary people will have paid very little attention. The Hertford Mercury tended to carry more comment than many on policies, parties and candidates, but still not for a wide audience.

We know a bit about this from one who was there and voted. John White recorded his voting in many of these elections. He was a Tory voter, presumably because most of the party had supported the Corn Laws by which the price of grain was kept high enough to keep farmers in business – in theory. But in 1846 they were abolished anyway, and White noticed the effect on his prices – down 10 per cent even before the Act was passed – although he didn’t record voting that year.

We don’t have the diary volumes for 1852, 1857 or 1859, but on July 21, 1865, ‘Election: in the middle of the day to poll for the Conservatives’.

On November 19, 1868, after hustings at the Swan in Rickmansworth reported by the Watford Observer, ‘Called at Watford to vote, it being the election for the county. Voted for Smith and Surtees, the two Conservative members, but I am fearful we shall not return both – the two Liberal members are Cowper and Brand.’ And indeed, Henry Surtees lost out – by 14 votes in 3400. At least the Observer could report that “there was very little excitement … beyond a few fights among the roughs…”

John White, at least, was consistent. On February 10, 1874 he ‘went first thing to give my vote to the Conservative candidates Smith and Halsey in the General Election.’ These people were wealthy but local: the family of Abel Smith was, and still is, very well-known in Hertfordshire as land owners and supporters of local causes, and Frederick Halsey was from one of the most prominent Hertfordshire families of the century.

On November 27, 1885 he wrote, … ‘half an hour to go to the Polling Booth to record my Vote in favour of Mr Halsey, this being the day for the election of a Member of Parliament for this division of the Land, the Candidates being Mr Halsey, Conservative, and Mr Faudell Phillips, Liberal.’

Diary page - July 13, 1892. Image: Three Rivers Museum

John White didn’t record voting in 1886, but he did note the issue which led to the defeat of the government and the calling of the ballot after only a year - on April 8, ‘Mr Gladstone brings forward his Irish Home Rule Bill tonight.’ On July 13, 1892, ‘Polling to day for this division of Herts; the candidates Halsey & Marnham. I poll’d early this morning for Halsey & hope he will be elected (he was). The Elections for the Counties are now in full swing & great excitement thereby’. Excitement: but in 1895 there wasn’t even a contest – no-one stood against Mr Halsey!

Then, just as now, there was comment in local and national papers about the issues of the day, which were less complex than today but still challenging. There were a few posters, as in our photo, and a fair amount of dirty dealing and false information in hand bills and rumour. So as a voter (one of the few), you’d read the papers to hear the candidates’ (there were only two) positions, go to a public meeting of which there were plenty, consider the comments - and do as you chose.

24-hour news, masses of candidates, social media, opinion polls, door-to-door calling and leafleting - all that was to come.