Latest News
The Shrewsbury 1796 Election and a puzzling jug
JANUARY 16, 2012
For a landlocked shire with dreamy landscapes and plenty of livestock, Shropshire has had a surprisingly colourful election history with many hard fought contests, none more so than the 1796 Shrewsbury event between two branches of the Hill family living at Hawkestone and Attingham respectively. This bitter and close fought battle provided the local porcelain industry with plenty of opportunity to sell its wares and leaves us a history in objects that hints at the long forgotten intensity of the feud.
It all began, perhaps, in the early 1790s when Sir Richard Hill, head of the Hawkestone Hills and John Hill’s elder brother, was alleged to have remarked that if one of the sons of Lord Berwick, head of the Attingham Hills and sitting Shrewsbury MP was to assume the seat upon coming of age, he was sure that John Hill would not be ‘the means of keeping him out’. These remarks were apparently made to one Edward Burton, a supporter of William Hill of Attingham who was ready to fight the seat in 1796. When the time came for the contest, Sir Richard is said to have denied any such comments and even published a rebuttal of the remarks entitled ‘Hard Measure’. The stage was set for a furious contest between John Hill of Hawkestone on one side and his cousin, William Hill of Attingham on the other.
The John Hill election jug alludes to a majority of 44 and would indicate to the unwary that the Hawkestone Hills had won the election and John was the new MP. The truth however was somewhat different. After the poll, which lasted eight days, the results showed that William Pulteney (Whig) had garnered 370 votes, William Hill (Tory) polled 242 and his cousin John came in with 155. The spoilt ballot papers showed 1514 for Pulteney, 854 for John Hill and 721 for William Hill. John Hill’s majority of 44 was claimed by adding together both his valid and invalid votes! This was a jug which owed more to wishful thinking than fact since William Hill held the office of MP for Shrewsbury between 1796 and 1812. The dispute with his cousin John only ended when John Hill became an MP in his own right in 1805.
In the midst of this election year meanwhile, John Rose was busily establishing his new porcelain factory at Coalport, whilst Thomas Turner of Caughley was hard at work producing porcelain in a factory which, by 1799, would fail with the moulds being taken over by Coalport. Although John Rose was certainly producing porcelain between 1795 and 1799, there is no real evidence as to how much was produced. However, the John Hill election jug illustrated here has sometimes been referred to as the first piece of dateable Coalport.
In his book ‘Coalport 1796-1926’, Michael Messenger discusses these rare jugs at length but there is still much debate about their origins. There are several different moulds which have been used for the ‘Majority of 44’ message and Messenger suggests that the Hills may have approached both Thomas Turner at Caughley and John Rose at Coalport for samples of the jug before making a final decision as to which factory would win their favour. Consequently it may be that both Caughley and Coalport made the jugs!
If you would like to see a version of this famous jug, there is a Coalport example in the Rowley’s House Museum, Shrewsbury and the example illustrated here was offered at Halls’ November auction when it sold for £3,600. It was one of four jugs, all with Shropshire connections, that sold for a combined total of £5,000 at the auction.
Contact Jeremy Lamond at Halls, Welsh Bridge, Shrewsbury or call 01743 284777.
A Coalport or Caughley Porcelain Blue and White Election Jug Jeremy Lamond
