How election leaflets used to look: Skipton 1885

As a follow up to my City of London election leaflet from the 1930s, here is a single-sided Conservative general election leaflet from 1885 for the Skipton Parliamentary constituency:

Skipton 1885 Conservative leaflet

The name handwritten in the bottom left corner is that of the voter to whom the leaflet was delivered, the handwriting not so much an attempt at personalisation as a reflection of the lack of alternative ways of individually addressing leaflets at the time. Indeed, overall the letter is far less personal than an equivalent is (or should be) today, with both the “Dear Sir” and the letter being from the agent rather than the candidate.

The lack of strong promotion of the candidate’s name in the literature echoes the 1930s example, and that of other old election leaflets in my collection. Candidate names were not hidden by any means, but they did not get the repeated mentions that are required in the rather different information environments of today.

The Conservative candidate lost in the election to Matthew Wilson, a man who was an MP four times (twice for Clitheroe, once for the West Riding and once for Skipton) and – in a reflection of the very different expectations of MPs then – is only recorded as having spoken in Parliament five times.

For some other historical comparisons between election campaigns then and now see my article Continuity and change in election campaigns: the 1910 and 2010 election campaigns.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url for Twitter and emails.


  • What’s interesting is that, even then, they’re using canvass results to encourage voters out. Do you think that if they could have, they’d have put a graph in with “it’s a two horse race!”

  • Did he win?

  • Nice to see someone using a semicolon.

  • And forget comment number 2, I’d only skim-read the article… sorry!

  • Peter Chegwyn 29th Nov '10 - 12:31pm

    Seems like the Conservative canvass returns were a tad optimistic. You couldn’t trust the Tories even then!

    But as KL says, it’s interesting that the ‘spinning’ of canvass returns to forecast victory is a tactic that’s some 125 years old.

  • Is it just me or does it say

    “The result of this canvas shews…”

    Looking at other “O”s and “E”s in the text, it’s clear that there is a misspelling. Amusing, really.

  • canvass*


  • Ed Thompson 29th Nov '10 - 1:33pm

    spelling then was different guys, as no doubt it will be in the future.

    Glad to know that nothing really changes, or should that be depressed.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 29th Nov '10 - 2:13pm

    Yes, “shews” was a common alternative spelling then.

    Shews how little young people read these days.

  • Ed Maxfield 29th Nov '10 - 2:13pm

    The canvass was a much more significant element of 19th century elections when electorates were small and (until just a few years before this leaflet was published) the ballot was open, not secret. It seems to have been the main focus of local party activism and an essential element of decision making about whether the spend any money on the election campaign itself. I wonder if the expansion of the franchise for the 1885 election led to the Tories deceiving themselves about the likely outcome…

  • I formally apologise for my ignorance on nineteenth century literature.

  • This is not a leaflet, it’s a target letter.

    Tony Greaves

  • Where’s the imprint!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Hellyer 30th Nov - 4:55pm
    @Jonathan Brown As noted elsewhere, Farron's Condition 4 cannot be achieved – saying that the Government should be “absolutely clear on what Syria and...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 30th Nov - 4:52pm
    Sorry, I mean Cameron should be given tough limits, just to clarify. The real propaganda blow comes from civilian casualties. People don't hold up signs...
  • User AvatarThomasS 30th Nov - 4:37pm
    @expats I didn't say a worse disaster I said sooner - i.e. for the parliamentary party.
  • User AvatarToby Fenwick 30th Nov - 4:34pm
    @Martin: any attack would have to show that the harm caused was proportionate to the military advantage gained, and the Geneva Conventions bans any attack...
  • User Avatardavid thorpe 30th Nov - 4:30pm
    I usually agree with Nick-but not this time
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 30th Nov - 4:27pm
    I think as long as Cameron isn't given a blank cheque and tough limits it should be fine. The threat of terrorism can never be...