POLITICAL HISTORY 



Mr. Payne, son of Sir Gillies Payne of Tempsford, but as soon as Calhoun's 

 election was safe the corporation supported Whitbread, and upon the return 

 of these two a convention was made between Whitbread and the Duke of 

 Bedford's party, now again identified with the corporation, according to 

 which the representation was to be divided between them, their united forces 

 being strengthened by occasional batches of non-resident freemen.*^^ In 1802 

 Lee Antonie succeeded Calhoun, and sat with Whitbread till 1812, when he 

 retired in favour of Lord George William Russell, who had attained his 

 majority. Whitbread died in 1 8 1 5, and was succeeded for the remainder of 

 that Parliament by his son-in-law the Hon. William Waldegrave, as a locum 

 tenens for William Henry Whitbread. From 18 18 till 1830 Russell and 

 W. H. Whitbread were returned regularly. So for forty years there was no 

 election, and there grew a feeling of resentment and revolt, which was 

 accentuated by the fact that neither member was assiduous in his attention to 

 parliamentary duties, Russell being absent from England on military duty, 

 and Whitbread busy with a dozen commercial undertakings at home. Matters 

 were brought to a crisis by the want of tact shown by Lord John Russell, 

 who signified his intention to stand upon his brother's retirement, in a letter 

 addressed to the corporation instead of to the electors. The revolt against 

 ' political thraldom ' was led by Mr. John Pulley and Mr. John Howard, who 

 procured a suitable candidate in Mr. Polhill of Howbury Hall. The election 

 lasted from 2 to 12 August 1830, and was carried on with great enthusiasm. 

 ' The Houses of Russell and Whitbread have absorbed us all,' said Mr. Pulley ; 

 ' the people of Bedford will now teach the house of Russell that they can and 

 will be free.' A strong protest was made against the non-resident vote : ' We 

 do not require persons to have votes in this borough who reside in Liverpool 

 and Norfolk, and elsewhere.' The final state of the poll was, Whitbread 

 515, Polhill 491, Russell 490.*'* 'Lord John Russell is not returned for 

 Bedford,' writes Lord EUenborough in his diary ; ' he is evidently very 

 indignant.'*'" Thus Bedford most honourably lost the honour of returning 

 to Parliament the very man who was to sweep away by the Reform Act of 

 1832 the grievances of which it justly complained. 



A word must be said of the attitude of the county upon the burning 

 question of the Repeal of the Corn Laws. In 1 843 Cobden announced a meet- 

 ing in Bedford by placard, and came down to address it, although he had no 

 friend or acquaintance in the town. Lord Charles Russell,*" 'who had 

 opposed Lord John's fixed duty as likely to throw two million acres out of 

 cultivation,' took the chair, and so many attended that it was found necessary 

 to adjourn from the Assembly Rooms to a field outside the town. There 

 Cobden's address was listened to impatiently at first, but with gradually 

 increasing interest, and at last, when the meeting had lasted, despite heavy 

 showers, from three o'clock in the afternoon till nine, the chairman reluctantly 

 declared the Free Trade amendment carried by a large majority. Cobden 

 declared that if they could persuade Bedfordshire, they could persuade anyone.*'* 



*" This account is from a contemporary pamphlet, ne Bedford Town Election o/" 1830, by Muggeridge. 

 Lord John was taunted with this convention when he stood for the borough in 1830 ; and as he made no 

 attempt to deny it, the account is presumably correct in substance. 



*" Muggeridge, op. cit. *™ Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, i, 155. 



*" Ixjrd John's half-brother, and the father of Mr. George Russell, M.P. for the Biggleswade Division of 

 Beds. 1892-5. *'' Morley, Life ofR. Cobden, i, 275-6. 



2 65 9 



