A Bradford poll of 1834
As we approach this year's local government elections for town and county council, Ivor Slocombe takes a look at a 200-year-old poll book that provides a fascinating 'mini-census' of Bradford in the early 19th century
Bradford on Avon seems to have a liking for referenda. There were, of course, the two national referenda about membership of the European Union: the first one in
1975 called by Harold Wilson on whether to stay within the EU and then the recent Brexit vote.
But there have also been three purely local votes, two of which are quite well known. In 1877 there was a proposal by the Trowbridge Water Company to supply water to Bradford. This was hotly opposed and was soundly defeated in a town vote by 647 votes to 75. Then in 2011 the plan for a new pedestrian bridge over the river was also defeated, by 1,356 votes to 561.
Now a third referendum in January 1834 has come to light in the Wiltshire and Swindon archives. At that time, Bradford was beginning to experience an economic depression and consequently the number of poor needing relief had increased hugely. An average of about £6,000 a year was being spent on nearly 3,000 people who needed reliet.
The Poor Law Guardians, who were responsible for an area which included not only Bradford but the surrounding villages, felt they could not cope with the demands. They proposed that the number of overseers should be increased to 20: four each for Bradford and Winsley, and two each for Trowle, Limpley Stoke, Leigh and Woolley, South Wraxall, Atworth and Holt. They also proposed to extend the franchise to all those who paid, on a pound rate, at least is od, with the most wealthy - who paid £2 or more - being given six votes. These electors were to have a greater say in the election of the overseers and in the decisions made about poor relief. But, to be implemented, such changes required a private Act of Parliament. This would be very expensive to obtain.
These proposals caused a huge debate in Bradford between those who opposed the proposal, mainly on the grounds of cost, and those who supported it. A vestry meeting was called but the attendance was so large it had to be adjourned to the church. In the end, it was decided that the only way to resolve the issue was to have a poll or referendum. The resolution opposing the Bill was proposed by Mr Saunders, a very well known and important person living at the Priory. An amendment supporting the Bill was proposed by Mr Boord, a Bath solicitor living at Batheaston who seems to have had property in one of the villages which gave him the right to vote. His main argument was that the Bill would give local people a much greater say in the decisions made by the Poor Law Guardians.
Polling took place at the Swan Hotel on 29 and 30 January 1834. Being before the secret ballot was introduced, voters had to appear in person, give their name and occupation, where they lived (i.e. in Bradford or one of the villages) and then whether they voted for the resolution or the amendment. This was recorded in a poll book. Voting started at 12 o'clock and continued until 4 o'clock, by which time the supervisors had had enough and the poll was adjourned to the next day. It then started at 11 o'clock and again went on to 4 o'clock. Altogether 370 people voted. The result was a resounding victory for the resolution by 375 votes to 221, a majority of 154, so the proposed Act was dropped. (The discrepancy between the total number of votes and the number of voters is explained by the fact that the larger landowners had more than one vote.)
“... the value of this poll book lies not in the niceties of Poor Law administration but in the fact that it gives us a mini-census of Bradford a clear seven years before the first full national census in 1841"
The voting pattern is rather difficult to explain. Of the 294 voters from Bradford, 281 voted for the resolution and only 13 for the amendment. The support for the amendment came largely from the local villages. Of the 86 voters, 65 voted for the amendment, with Atworth and South Wraxall 100 per cent for the amendment. It is also noticeable that the yeomen and farmers all supported the amendment. It seems that the villages saw this, as Mr Boord suggested, as giving them a greater say in affairs when previously Bradford had dominated.
For the historian, the value of this poll book lies not in the niceties of Poor Law administration but in the fact that it gives us a mini-census of Bradford a clear seven years before the first full national census in 1841.
A look at the occupations immediately shows how Bradford was dominated by the cloth industry. Of the 294 voters, 135 or nearly half, were employed in that industry: nine spinners, 86 weavers, 20 shearmen, six slubbers and 10 others with four clothiers. Bearfield at that time was virtually a separate community. It was particularly involved with the industry: of the 26 voters, 20 were weavers with two farmers, two gentlemen, a shopkeeper and a victualler. It is therefore no wonder how disastrous for Bradford was the collapse of the cloth industry in mid-century. No other significant industry appears. There was a wide range of artisans: masons, carpenters, cabinet makers, glaziers, plumbers, blacksmiths, bakers, butchers, tailors, cordwainers, chandlers, hairdressers, a watchmaker and a silversmith. Of the shopkeepers, a linen draper, a pawnbroker, a grocer and an earthenware dealer were specifically mentioned. Finally, there were 20 who described themselves as gentlemen.
When the electors cast their votes, they were unlikely to realise that the polling book so created would be of such value to historians some 200 years later.
