KNOTTINGLEY
SELECT VESTRY RIOTS, 1874
by TERRY SPENCER B.A. (Hons), Ph D.
The township of Knottingley became a semi-autonomous parish in 1789
following the ecclesiastical reorganisation of that period but remaining
under the patronage of the Vicar of Pontefract until it became an independent
parish in 1846. The reorganisation of 1789 however, meant that for the
first time the ratepayers of Knottingley were able to elect residents
of the town to administer parish affairs. (1)
By the early nineteenth century the parish meeting or vestry had evolved
from being a unit of ecclesiastical administration into a unit of civic
management, the business of the parish being undertaken by an elected
committee of twenty resident taxpayers of the town. The head of the
select vestry was the Chairman. The office of Chairman was both prestigious
and influential for apart from reflecting the respect and confidence
accorded by the majority of the local populace which voted him into
office at the annual Town meeting held each March, the position carried
a large degree of responsibility and authority. The incumbent was directly
responsible for supervising the work undertaken by parish officers such
as the Overseers of the Poor, Surveyors of the Highways, Parish Constable,
Workhouse Master and Parish Clerk. The Chairman presided over the regularly
held Vestry meetings throughout the year at which decisions concerning
the management of the town were taken, not least being the setting and
collection of rates in order to obtain the sums of money required for
civic administration.
For more than thirty years until his death in 1873, John Carter, a wealthy
landowner with local business interests in malting and brewing, was
the Vestry Chairman. Carter was a very able man whose ability was reflected
in his public position as Commissioner for Income and Property Tax and
also as Chairman of Knottingley Gas Company. Indeed, it was only the
fact that legislation prohibited those associated with the brewing industry
from being Justices of the Peace which prevented Carter’s appointment
as a magistrate. (2)
As one might expect where wealth formed the basis of education and social
position, an hereditary pattern characterised the composition of the
Select Vestry. Thus, an oligarchic strand is discernible throughout
the entire existence of the Select Vestry and particularly so prior
to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Family names such as
Gaggs, Carter, Moorhouse, Senior, Jackson, Smallpage and Atkinson are
only the most prominent of those which featured over the years, usually
disappearing only with the ultimate demise of the male line. From the
middle of the century however, a subtle change occurred in the social
composition of the Vestry. From that time, social, political, technological
and demographic factors engendered a gradual change in public attitudes,
standing in sharp contrast to and challenging the traditional outlook
which had previously underlain the socio-economic basis of Vestry membership.
Commercial developments of a general nature such as stabilisation of
the banking system and the introduction of limited liability were accompanied
by improvements in industrial technology and communications. The reorganisation
of fiscal administration resulting in large-scale abolition of the constraining
system of Excise Duty resulted in the widening of markets and business
opportunities, promoting the establishment of new industries and the
development of existing businesses. The town of Knottingley with its
maritime trade and its central geographical position lying adjacent
to the principal arterial route in the kingdom, its rural surroundings
providing scope for development and recruitment of labour, provide a
natural setting for business enterprise. It was not unnatural therefore,
that changing conditions had an impact on the town. A noticeable consequence
was the increase in the number of local people able to comply with the
property qualification which formed the basis of eligibility for Vestry
membership. The Reform Act of 1832 had engendered a degree of political
awareness on the part of the public which was further intensified by
the extension of the suffrage in 1864. Such awareness afforded a challenge
to the status quo and underlay an undignified and acrimonious struggle
for control of the Select Vestry in March 1874.
The figureheads in the factionalist struggle were George W. Carter,
son of the recently deceased Chairman John Carter, and Sydney Woolf,
son of Lewis Woolf who had established a pottery at Ferrybridge in 1850
and had served as a Vestry member during the years 1851-61. (3)
George W. Carter, M.A. was a qualified but non-practising barrister
who since the death of his father was the head of the family brewery
situated at Lime Grove, Hill Top, Knottingley. Carter had first served
on the Select Vestry in 1866 as a replacement for Edwin Moorhouse who
had died during his term of office. Elected in his own right the following
year, George Carter served successively there after until 1880. Sydney
Woolf first served on the Vestry committee for a single year in 1858.
(4) but the succeeded to his father’s place in 1862 and retained his
membership of that body until 1880. (5) Thus in terms of Vestry membership
Woolf was the senior and more experienced person. In the sense of social
status and the traditional exercise of privilege conferred by such status,
Carter was supreme.
Carter’s political opinion, in contrast to that of his father, favoured
the Conservatives. Carter therefore represented the views of the local
Anglican, land-owning Tories while Woolf represented the emergent class
of professionally motivated and largely self-made industrialists and
businessmen, Nonconformists in religion and Liberals in politics.
The genesis of the public aspects of the power struggle are to be found
in the Vestry meeting held on the 30th October 1873. The meeting was
the first one to be held following the death of John Carter. After a
sincere and eloquent tribute to the late Chairman by John Howard prior
to the formal commencement of the meeting, it was proposed by Howard
and seconded by Samuel Rhodes that G. W. Carter be elected to the Chair
for the remainder of the year as a mark of respect to his late father.
(6) The motion was carried unanimously, being fully supported by Woolf.
The extent to which George Carter regarded the motion as a preliminary
to his formal acceptance as permanent Chairman is problematical. However,
knowledge of events within the town during the two years preceding the
demise of the late Chairman indicates that the ensuing struggle for
the Vestry chairmanship was not merely centred on personal dignity arising
from notions of social status but was an essential precondition for
the implementation of political policy with far reaching consequences
for future generations of Knottingley citizens. Being at the centre
of events, Carter could hardly be unaware of the significance of the
situation and to that extent it seems likely that his bid to assume
the Chairmanship on a permanent basis was more a calculated bid for
political control of the Vestry (and ipso facto, the town) than the
naïve assertion of social superiority.
The single factor which most clearly defined the attitude of both parties,
socially and politically, was that of public education. The Education
Act of 1870 sought to bring basic education within the reach of all
children within the kingdom. To ensure fulfilment of its aim the Act
provided for the establishment of local boards of education financed
from the local rates in order to provide the necessary facilities. At
this time education in Knottingley was confined to a few small private
schools and the largely Church controlled National School. Sydney Woolf,
a Wesleyan and member of the Liberal Party which had been responsible
for the passing of the 1870 Act, claimed, with no little justification,
that the educational provision within the town was inadequate for the
needs of the children. Owing to the apathy of the local public, however,
nothing was done in the immediate aftermath of the Act and it was only
in February 1872 when the National School was closed as a result of
financial crisis, that the views of Woolf and his supporters became
fully apparent to the townspeople. (7) As a result an election took
place in July 1872 for the selection of members of a newly established
Local School Board. (8) To counter these measures, Carter, a prominent
member of the Anglican Communion, and therefore a supporter of the National
School, had recently taken the lead in the formation of a local Conservative
Association. The grouping of local supporters of the Conservative Party
was designed to make opposition to the formation of a Local School Board
more effective. In order to prevent the likelihood of a Local Board
being established the local Conservative Association sought to re-open
the National School as the sole vehicle, albeit an inadequate one, for
public education within the town. (9) It was considered that the general
attitude of indifference, indeed of hostility on the part of many of
the poorer townsfolk would lend support to the anti School Board group.
For such people the imposition of compulsory school attendance represented
a loss of potential earning power on the part of their offspring and
therefore a reduction in family income. This attitude, although somewhat
undermined in Autumn 1873 when the Agricultural Children’s Act restricted
the opportunity for the casual employment of school children, was nevertheless
strongly held by many within the town. A further factor allied to the
anti – School Board faction was the resentment of some ratepayers at
the prospect of subsidising the education of the children of the poor.
Such sentiment it was felt would ensure considerable support for Carter
and his adherents. (10)
Serious indications of the developing power struggle within the circle
of Vestry membership became evident at the annual Town’s Meeting held
on 24th March 1873, to elect members of the Select Vestry for the ensuing
year. John Carter was elected as the Chairman by unanimous approval.
Upon Carter Senior taking the Chair, his son George proposed the Reverend
Dr. Talbot, Vicar of Knottingley, as a candidate for Vestry membership.
The proposal was clearly designed to strengthen the hand of the pro-National
School element within the Vestry and was immediately interpreted as
such by the supporters of the Local School Board. Despite the fact that
in the past there had been several instances when local clergymen had
been elected to the Vestry, past precedent was cast aside when Septimus
Cordukes, a long serving member of the Vestry, formulated a resolution..
“That it is undesirable that any clergymen or minister of religion
should be elected to a seat on the Select Vestry”, and the resolution
was carried by a large majority. (11)
At this point one may digress to consider the moral dilemma of the Vestry
Chairman, John Carter. As a leading Anglican in the town Carter must
have felt a sense of duty to the ‘Church’ party, led by his son George.
As a Liberal in political outlook however, John Carter, a humane, sensitive
man with a paternalistic sense of noblesse oblige engendered by a social
distinction and decades of public service, must also have realised the
desirability, indeed the necessity, of supporting the aims of the pro-
School Board faction to give practical reality to the educational policy
of the Liberal Party. Carter’s unenviable position must have been emphasised
by the events which had taken place in the months immediately preceding
the annual Town’s Meeting.
At the centre of events in the recent months was the attempt of the
pro-School Board group to obtain the premises which had housed the defunct
National School and use the site to establish the town’s first Board
School. Apart from the saving in time and money such an acquisition
had the additional advantage of weakening the resistance of the anti-Board
faction by depriving them of the venue for their proposed revival of
the National School. In furtherance of this policy a public meeting
had been convened on the 17th November 1872, at which the townspeople
had given overwhelming support to Sydney Woolf’s resolution, “That
the inhabitants of Knottingley in Public Meeting assembled, having heard
that the School Board has applied for use of the late National Schools,
deem it both desirable and expedient that the School Board be allowed
the use of them.” (12)
In order to thwart the measure, efforts had been made which had resulted
in the reopening of the National School on Monday 9th December 1872.
The School Board was therefore faced with the problem of finding an
alternative site on which new premises could be erected, thereby increasing
the burden on the town’s ratepayers, which prospect supporters of the
National School hoped would cause a public reaction in their favour.
To mitigate the prospects of reaction the local Liberals launched a
public appeal for donations or loans to the School Board. Hugh Childer’s
Liberal M.P for Pontefract was called upon to address a public meeting
held in Knottingley Town Hall on the 30th January 1873, to stress the
value of universal education. (13) Within a month of the meeting, the
board had sufficient funds to rent accommodation in the Holes to be
utilised as an infants school. It was not until June 1874 however, that
the School Board received approval from Whitehall for the purchase and
conversion of property situated in Chapel Street, Knottingley, as a
Board School and Schoolhouse. (14) The subsequent struggle by the local
School Board to provide free and adequate education in Knottingley has
been chronicled elsewhere. (15) It is obvious however, that the issue
was central to the subsequent struggle for control of the Select Vestry.
The ensuing power struggle was in fact further reflected by the political
swing towards Disraeli’s Conservatives in February 1874. This was apparent
at local level where the ongoing work of the Conservative Association
resulted in an increase in the share of the vote for their candidate
in the February election and although Childer’s managed to retain the
Pontefract seat for the Liberals his majority was reduced. (16) Thus
at the Town’s Meeting convened in the Town hall on the evening of 25th
March 1874, battle lines were clearly drawn.
The meeting opened with a proposal that Sydney Woolf be elected as Vestry
Chairman. (17) An amendment in favour of George W. Carter was then introduced
and following a show of hands Woolf was declared the representatives
choice. (18) The decision was immediately disputed by Carter’s supporters
as the division of opinion had been so close. The objection was the
subject of such intense and passionate debate that the only way to ensure
the continuation of the meeting and a satisfactory resolution of the
problem was to nominate a mutually acceptable Chairman, pro-term. The
person selected was Joseph Senior, a farmer at Darrington Leys. In keeping
with oligarchic tradition, Senior had served as a Vestry member following
the death of his father in 1850. (19)
Upon taking the chair, Senior requested the withdrawal of all non-ratepayers
and then proposed that the supporters of Woolf should leave the assembly
hall via the right-hand side door of the chamber while Carter’s supporters
should exit from the door to the left side of the room. No attempt was
made to count the respective groups as it was apparently considered
that a majority pattern would be revealed by the system of egress. The
assembly was so evenly divided however, that the Chairman was unable
to decide which party had a majority. It was then proposed that the
same procedure be followed accompanied by a formal count of heads. Carter’s
supporters filed out and were found to number 164. For some unknown
reason, Woolf’s supporters declined to be counted. One can only conject
that the probable explanation is that they felt their man had been fairly
elected to the chair at the start of the meeting and considered that
further participation in subsequent events was tantamount to condoning
disreputable and undemocratic conduct on the part of Carter’s supporters.
Such an assumption however, begs the question why the supporters of
Woolf agreed to participate in the earlier( i.e. uncounted) exit from
the hall. The failure of Woolf’s partisans to submit to a formal count
resulted in the Chairman declaring Carter to be elected to the Vestry
Chairmanship by default. (20)
The business of the meeting then formally commenced with nominations
for the offices of Overseers of the Poor and Highway Surveyor. Following
the election of the parish officers the Chairman proposed that as so
much time had been lost in the initial wrangling over the Chairmanship
the meeting should be adjourned until 10 o’clock the following morning.
(21) The proposal meant that examination and approval of the current
years accounts and the selection of Vestrymen for the ensuing year,
together with the nominations and election of the Parish Constable and
three members of the Burial Board would have to await the reconvened
meeting. The proposal of the temporary Chairman was most unwelcome to
the bulk of the assembled townsfolk who from the necessity to attend
work would be excluded from the proceedings of the morrow. As the majority
of the townsfolk had endorsed the policies advocated by Woolf at the
meeting held the previous November it is perhaps understandable that
Joseph Senior’s suggestion was greeted with suspicion. To propose recommencement
at 10 a.m. instead of 6 p.m. of an evening which was the usual time,
was seen as a subtle method of ensuring control of the Vestry for the
Carter faction. The majority of Carter’s supporters were men of business
or independent means whose circumstances permitted attendance while
those of the bulk of Woolf’s supporters, being of a more humble nature,
would deny them attendance. Furthermore, the same considerations applied
to the non-ratepayers within the town who, although not having a direct
vote in the election of parish officials exercised a customary right
of observance at the annual Town Meeting. The exclusion of the general
public from the events of the previous evening had enabled a situation
to arise whereby it was automatically denied mass representation at
the reconvened meeting. It is easy therefore to see the reasoning which
underlay the suspicion of many townspeople. The suspicion was further
compounded by the knowledge that Senior was a known supporter of Carter
and a kinsman by marriage. (22) The meeting therefore concluded;
“…under great and excited feelings…there nearly having been a riot.”
Irate townsfolk crowded onto the platform in order to recriminate with
the Chairman and beret each other, smashing the platform table in their
passion. (23)
At the reconvened meeting the following morning the dispute concerning
the Chairmanship was revived. Sydney Woolf was again proposed and seconded
and the nomination carried by a large majority. George Carter however,
fortified in his position by the legitimacy of his election on the previous
evening “…persisted in taking possession of the chair” which
Woolf also demanded. (24) A renewal of the previous turmoil ensued during
which, to quote the Vestry clerk, “There was such a crowding of the
platform that it was all but impossible to write – almost a riot.”
Amidst great confusion the Surveyors accounts were passed, being signed
by George Carter and promptly countersigned by Sydney Woolf as a measure
of protest at Carter’s assumption of authority. (25) In order to expediate
the business of the meeting George Carter next declared that with two
additions, Mr. J. Ellis and Mr. W.B. Wilcock, the latter being substituted
for the late John Carter, the existing Vestry members re-elected to
serve for the following year. Incensed by Carter’s action, Woolf immediately
instituted what was in effect a purge of the Carter supporters represented
on the Select Vestry. Woolf’s ‘declaration’ was that J. Bagley, T. Brown,
W. Johnson, T. Poulson and J. Balance should replace G. W. Carter, J.
Senior, W. Holmes, J.W. Bagley and the late John Carter. (26) The situation
was repeated with regsard to the composition of the town’s Burial Board.
Membership of this body was on a rotational basis with three sitting
members retiring each year. In normal circumstances the retiring members
were automatically re-elected if they so desired. However, on this occasion
there was much bickering concerning the membership of the Board. Carter
declared the three retiring members re-elected in accordance with custom
but Woolf nominated E. Wood, W. Worfolk and R. Garlick, the two latter
as replacements for John Howard and the late John Carter, with Edwin
Wood apparently being acceptable to both camps. (27)
Shortly before the end of business Woolf appended the words “The above
is utterly illegal.” To the accounts passed by Carter. (28) At the meetings
conclusion a petition of protest signed by Woolf and other ratepayers
was submitted for due consideration by the local magistrates on whose
authority confirmation of the annual appointments to the Select Vestry
depended. (29)
The Pontefract Advertiser’s report of the events which took place during
the two sessions of the meeting is most interesting for its skill in
presenting the facts yet at the same time minimising the degree of disruption
and the part played by the Carter faction in the ensuing disorder. The
pro-Tory paper whilst informing its readership that “A very hot contest
took place for the chairmanship meeting…” and also reporting
“…considerable amount of tumult and uproar..” at the resumption
of the adjourned meeting, implied that the blame lay with Woolf and
his friends who it was stated were hustled from the platform. The paper
presented the outcome of the meeting as one of orderliness and general
satisfaction. (30) The newspaper’s account of the proceedings contrasts
considerably to the tenor of the Vestry Minute Book even though the
latter is restricted by formality of its content. Comparison of the
two sources therefore emphasises the distinction between impartiality
and political bias, revealing in the process that media manipulation
is not a recent phenomenon.
It is interesting to note that the men who gave support to Sydney Woolf
were for the most part self-made, small businessmen such as John Bagley,
John Wild, partners of J. W. Bagley at the Knottingley glassworks of
Bagley and Wild and Thomas Brown and Thomas Poulson, both of whom were
shortly to be associated with potteries standing adjacent to Woolf’s
Australian Pottery at Ferrybridge. Also William Worfolk, shipbuilder,
who whilst a representative of a longer established industry within
the town and owner of manorial rights at Knottingley, was nevertheless
a man of independent mind and basically in agreement with the policies
of the new bourgeoisie. Such men, although resident within the area
for several years were regarded as incomers by the more established
and xenophobic elements within the town. (31)
It was fully expected that the Carter nominees would be objected to
at the Special Sessions held at Wentbridge Magistrates Court on Monday
30th March 1874. Despite the attendance of a substantial body of Knottingley
ratepayers at the courthouse however, no objection was raised. (32)
The magistrates noted the erasure of Woolf's words regarding illegality
on the Overseer’s Accounts but passed them as a true and accurate record.
(33) The removal of Woolf’s protestation suggests that as the result
of informal and obviously unrecorded discussions, more sober counsels
had prevailed and a compromise had been formulated in advance of the
Special Sessions. The likelihood is substantiated by the fact that the
list of Vestrymen presented to the magistrates contained the names of
both Carter and Woolf and their respective adherents. (34) A further
indication of an agreement is the fact that at the first meeting of
the new Vestry held in the Town Hall on Thursday 7th May, Carter and
Woolf were both nominated as Chairman. In an orderly vote the issue
was resolved in Carter’s favour by eleven votes to six. (35) The election
of the Vestry Chairman in this manner rather than the automatic occupancy
of the chair by the person appointed at the recent Town’s Meeting is
suggestive of a ‘peace formula’. The fact that the following year saw
Woolf’s unopposed nomination and acceptance as Chairman may also be
indicative of an accommodation whereby the runner up in the 1874 election
was guaranteed the Chairmanship the following year. A caveat must be
entered here however, for Woolf was in fact the Vestry Chairman for
three successive years from 1875 and it may well be that his appointment
arose as a result of changes in social composition of the Select Vestry
arising in part as a consequence of the extension of the franchise in
1867. (36) Indeed, the possibility is supported by examination of the
list of Vestrymen for 1875 which shows no less than six members who
had not previously served. (37)
It is of passing interest to note that as a result of the confusion
arising from the public meeting of March 1874, two people, William Johnson
and Thomas Brown, presented themselves at the first meeting of the Vestry
in May believing themselves to have been elected following nomination
by Woolf. Both men were objected to and had to withdraw from the deliberations
of the newly constituted Vestry. (38) It seems that both nominees were
casualties of the probable compromise reached prior to the submission
of names to the magistrates but that nobody had informed them of their
‘demotion’. It is interesting to speculate whether as a result of such
insensitivity a breach arose between the two men and Mr. Woolf for although
both were nominated as Overseers of the Poor the following year, albeit
unsuccessfully, neither served as Vestry members or in any other official
capacity during the years of Woolf’s ascendancy to high office. (39)
The case of William Johnson is particularly indicative of a rupture
in his personal relationship with Woolf. Johnson was the person who
had nominated Woolf for the Chairmanship at the reconvened Town’s Meeting
on the morning of 26th March and, as noted above, had been nominated
as a substitute together with Brown, for candidates proposed by George
Carter. (40) It is perhaps of some significance that William Brown did
serve on the Select Vestry during the years 1881-91, his period of office
commencing the year following Woolf’s withdrawal from that body. (41)
Between 1878 and 1888, the Vestry Chairmanship was shared by John Michael
Bentley, a member of the local firm of solicitors, auctioneers and valuers
– and Mark Stainsby, a partner in the Aire Tar Works of Stainsby & Lyon.
Both men were prominent Anglicans and Conservatives who gained increasing
political influence within Knottingley during the following decade as
a result of working class support following franchise reform of Gladstone’s
second ministry in 1884. (42) Bentley who had first been elected to
the Vestry in 1862 and had served intermittently until 1868 when his
membership became regular. Stainsby served on the Vestry continuously
from his election in 1878 until his death in 1886. As a representative
of a family with a long record of Vestry service and prominent churchman,
Bentley was automatically Tory and supportive of George W. Carter. The
business affairs of the Bentley family were however, increasingly geared
to the growing number of people with business and professional interests
within the neighbourhood of Knottingley. In social terms, Bentley was
acceptable to both factions within the town and therefore the ideal
compromise candidate for the Chairmanship of the Select Vestry, a fact
which doubtless explains his tenure of the Vestry Chairmanship for eleven
years until his death in 1888 (43) when from the same considerations
the Vestry Chairmanship was occupied by another member of his family,
J.W. Bentley. (44)
Carter and Woolf both continued to serve on the Vestry during the early
years of J.S. Bentley’s Chairmanship, both ceasing to be members in
1880. In that year Woolf was elected as Liberal M.P. for the Borough
of Pontefract, a position he held until 1885. In 1883 Woolf relinquished
his ownership of the Australian Pottery, Ferrybridge, and other associated
potteries. (45) Carter seems to have concentrated on his business interests
following his withdrawal from civic affairs. In 1892 however, the Carter
connection with Knottingley Brewery ceased in all but name when the
family shares in the concern were sold and George Carter left the district.
(46) Joseph Senior, the longest serving Vestry member in the second
half of the nineteenth century, retired from the Select Vestry in 1885
but remained active in other aspects of public life for some years beyond
that date. (47)
In 1894, with the adoption of a Local Board, the functions of the Select
Vestry were assumed by the newly created body and in 1895 following
the implementation of the Local Government Act, Knottingley Urban District
Council was created as the governing authority. The K.U.D.C. became
defunct as a result of further Local Government legislation in 1974.
©Dr. Terry Spencer
|
