LOWTHER, John Henry (1793-1868), of Swillington Hall, Yorks. and 32 Grosvenor Square, London

Popular among York’s freemen, whose rights he defended, Lowther, ‘a staunch Conservative’, topped the poll for that borough in 1835, 1837 and 1841.[1]" class="link">[1] Despite voting against Peel on corn law repeal in 1846, he was unwilling to join the opposition to him thereafter, and retired at the dissolution in 1847, having made little impact at Westminster.

Lowther’s family had a long tradition of parliamentary service. His father John (1759-1844) had entered the Commons in 1780 for Cockermouth, and subsequently represented Carlisle, Haslemere and Cumberland. The owner of estates in North and West Yorkshire, including at Swillington, near Leeds, where Lowther was born, and Wilton Castle, near Redcar, he received a baronetcy from the Liverpool ministry in 1824.[2]" class="link">[2] Lowther’s uncle, William Lowther (1757-1844), who possessed electoral influence in Cumberland and Westmorland, had represented Carlisle, Cumberland and Rutland, and was created earl of Lonsdale in 1807.[3]" class="link">[3] Lowther joined his father on the Tory benches in 1816, when he was returned for Cockermouth, which he represented on his uncle’s interest until 1826, when he transferred to the Wigtown Burghs, before returning to Cockermouth in 1831. Like his father, he supported the Liverpool ministry, and divided against Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform.[4]" class="link">[4]

Lowther’s political relationship with his uncle was never easy: Lonsdale declined to put him forward for Cumberland in 1826 or 1830, although he did suggest him for other seats. In 1832 he ‘ceased to act with the Lonsdale Lowthers’, and instead sought election at York, where he had rejected a requisition to stand from 1,000 freemen in 1826.[5]" class="link">[5] His banners at the nomination, where he found it difficult to get a hearing, proclaimed him a ‘True Blue’ and ‘the Freeman’s Friend’. Despite facing Liberal opponents, Lowther claimed that none of his rivals was ‘more liberal than myself’. He denied being an enemy to parliamentary reform or the abolition of slavery, declaring himself ‘friendly’ to the latter, and proclaiming his support for extending the franchise and giving representation to large towns. A heckler, however, reminded the audience that Lowther had ‘voted against Birmingham been [sic] franchised’.[6]" class="link">[6] Despite securing more plumpers than his opponents, Lowther trailed in third place in the poll.[7]" class="link">[7] Recording his defeat, Disraeli, a personal friend, referred to Lowther as ‘a good fellow’.[8]" class="link">[8]

The death of one of the sitting MPs, Samuel Bayntun, in September 1833 created a vacancy, for which Lowther was invited to offer against John Charles Dundas, who had stood unsuccessfully as a Liberal in 1832.[9]" class="link">[9] However, Lowther was in France, and took no part in the contest.[10]" class="link">[10] Although his leading supporters discouraged it, a section of the freemen nominated him at the by-election that November, and George Hudson, the local Conservative treasurer, spoke in his support at a subsequent election meeting, arguing that Lowther would defend the freemen’s rights. Hudson admitted, however, that he had had no recent communication with Lowther, who had clearly not endorsed a contest. Although he won the show of hands, he was outpolled by Dundas.[11]" class="link">[11] That year saw the publication of some of his poetry, reviewed as ‘pleasing’ by the Court Magazine.[12]" class="link">[12]

Lowther stood again at York in 1835, when he was once more keen to dispel charges of his illiberality. In his hustings speech he emphasised that he had voted against the reform bill not because he opposed reform, but because its provisions were ‘inconsistent with the liberties of the people’ and its disfranchisement proposals had disproportionately affected Conservative seats. As the Reform Act was intended to be a final measure, he objected to further changes such as the ballot or shorter Parliaments. He endorsed Peel’s proposals for church reform, such as increasing the stipends of poorer clergy and reducing pluralities.[13]" class="link">[13] He topped the poll, with a Liberal taking the second seat, a situation repeated at his two subsequent returns.

However, Lowther’s electoral tactics were called into question by two petitions from York’s inhabitants, alleging that after the 1832 contest, Lowther ‘did pay, or cause to be paid’ £3 for every plump vote received and £1 for every split. Before the 1835 contest, electors were promised they would be ‘dealt with as before’, and once the period for presenting election petitions had expired, were sent two sovereigns for a plumper and one for a split.[14]" class="link">[14] The presentation of these petitions to the Commons, 14 July 1835, prompted Lowther’s first substantive contribution to debate.[15]" class="link">[15] He noted that only 108 people in total had signed them and defended York’s ‘respectable and independent freemen’. He claimed that he had instructed his agents to ‘discountenance’ any corrupt practices. However, a subsequent select committee inquiry found that extensive sums had been paid out on Lowther’s behalf in 1832 and 1835, but with no election petition, he escaped any consequences.[16]" class="link">[16] He joined two cousins in the Commons: William, Viscount Lowther, who represented Westmorland until 1841, and Henry Cecil Lowther, who sat for the same constituency until 1867.

An infrequent speaker, Lowther made brief comments during discussion of the municipal corporations bill in defence of the freemen, 16 and 17 July 1835. He also testified to their ‘general integrity’ when backing the freemen’s admission bill, 26 Apr. 1837, which proposed to remove the tax on admission. His only other contribution to debate was against the ecclesiastical courts bill, 27 July 1835, against which he had presented a petition three days previously.[17]" class="link">[17] He served on the committees on the Windsor and Carlow election petitions.[18]" class="link">[18] Although not particularly active in the chamber or the committee rooms, he was a more regular attender in the division lobbies, and it was reported in 1836 that ‘close attention to parliamentary duties’ had affected his health.[19]" class="link">[19] He backed Peel’s ministry on the speakership, 19 Feb., the address, 26 Feb., and the Irish church, 2 Apr. 1835. While he had put party loyalties first in voting against Chandos’s motion on the malt tax, 10 Mar. 1835, he supported his subsequent motion on agricultural distress, 27 Apr. 1836. He consistently opposed the Melbourne ministry on the Irish church and Irish municipal reform. He divided in the minority for a Sabbath observance bill, 18 May 1836.

Seeking re-election in 1837, Lowther was reportedly ‘determined to continue the system of paying no longer’.[20]" class="link">[20] On the hustings he ‘said very little about his politics’, and instead ‘relied strongly on his attention to the local interests of the place’, but faced ‘awkward questions’ about Irish corporations, Orange lodges and the ballot.[21]" class="link">[21] Following his return, he stated that he was opposed to the ballot, but endorsed the commutation of tithes, which ‘would remove the unpleasant feeling between the clergy and their parishioners’.[22]" class="link">[22]

Lowther appears to have been a silent member thereafter, but was one of Yorkshire’s more assiduous attenders in the division lobbies, voting in 64 out of 109 divisions in the 1841 session, and presented numerous petitions.[23]" class="link">[23] He generally divided with the Conservatives, consistently opposing the ballot and Charles Villiers’s anti-corn law motions, and joining them in confidence votes, 31 Jan. 1840, 4 June 1841. He voted for the immediate cessation of slave apprenticeships, 30 Mar., 28 May 1838. He again backed a Sabbath observance bill, 20 June 1838, and voted against Sunday opening for the British Museum and National Gallery, 14 July 1840. Although he backed the second reading of the poor law amendment bill, 8 Feb. 1841, he was subsequently in the minority to limit the appointment of poor law commissioners to the end of 1843, 22 Mar. 1841. He served on committees on the Waterford and Carlow election petitions, and the Faversham rectory bill.[24]" class="link">[24]

At the 1841 election Lowther’s votes on the poor law came under scrutiny. On the hustings he defended himself against charges that he had failed to oppose its objectionable clauses. While he had divided for the bill, believing it necessary to protect the poor, he insisted that he had paid careful attention to its details and ‘voted seven or eight times when many individuals went away to amuse themselves and to get their dinners’. He emphasised his ‘truly independent principles’, while also indicating his support for Peel and criticising the Melbourne ministry, particularly its mishandling of national finances. Hudson, who proposed him, praised his ‘great attention to the business of the city, both of the poor as well as the rich’. He again topped the poll, asserting at the declaration that he would ‘not consider the cry of cheap bread, cheap sugar, or cheap timber’, but would aim ‘to confer the greatest benefits on the people at large’.[25]" class="link">[25] That September he proposed the Hon. Octavius Duncombe for a vacancy for the North Riding.[26]" class="link">[26] He supported a range of causes at York, including the restoration of York minster, the York grand regatta, an archery club and the York Institute of Popular Science and Literature.[27]" class="link">[27] He was also involved with the construction of the De Grey rooms in 1842.[28]" class="link">[28]

Lowther continued to vote largely along Conservative lines, opposing the ballot and further electoral reform, supporting Peel’s sliding scale on corn and his reintroduction of income tax in 1842, and routinely dividing against Villiers’s anti-corn law motions. However, his minority votes on certain issues demonstrated that his hustings professions of independence were more than merely rhetoric. He divided against the Maynooth grant, 20 July 1842, and endorsed John Walter’s motion to make the poor laws ‘conformable to Christianity, sound policy, and the ancient Constitution’, 23 Feb. 1843. He voted with the bulk of his party against John Roebuck’s motion on non-denominational education, 18 May, against the abolition of Anglican oaths at Oxford and Cambridge universities, 25 May, and for the Irish coercion bill, 31 May 1843. He attended less regularly than before, apparently due to ill health, and was not present to vote on the Dissenters’ chapels bill or the Maynooth grant in 1844, but presented a petition from York for inquiry into the latter, 16 Apr. 1844.[29]" class="link">[29] Although he voted with Peel in support of the Maynooth grant at its first reading, 3 Apr. 1845, he opposed him on its second and third readings, 18 Apr. and 21 May 1845. He subsequently divided against repeal of the corn laws, 27 Mar., 19 May 1846, but abstained from the critical division on the Irish coercion bill, 25 June 1846. Although silent in the chamber, Lowther was involved with railway legislation, bringing in bills relating to the York and North Midland railway in conjunction with Hudson (now MP for Sunderland) in February 1846.[30]" class="link">[30] The first of this company’s engines was named ‘Lowther’ in his honour.[31]" class="link">[31] That summer, according to Hudson, Lowther informed him that he wished to retire from Parliament, on health grounds and in order to devote more time to managing his family affairs. (He had succeeded to the baronetcy and Yorkshire estates on his father’s death in May 1844.) Hudson, however, persuaded him to continue.[32]" class="link">[32]

Tellingly, when Lowther stepped down at the dissolution in 1847, his retiring address focused on the ‘political grounds’ which prompted this, revealing that his relationship with Hudson and the York Conservatives had soured. Lowther explained that he could not with ‘consistency’ remain in Parliament, being unwilling either to join the ‘undefined hostility’ to the late Peel ministry, to express ‘confidence in untried men’ or to give ‘systematic opposition’ to the Russell ministry, which had taken office ‘under circumstances of the greatest difficulty’. Given the staunch support of many York Conservatives, notably Hudson, for the protectionists, this placed him in a difficult position, notwithstanding his continued desire ‘to afford due protection to our Native Industry’, and he recognised that he could no longer represent the party’s ‘unanimous opinions’.[33]" class="link">[33] The Times observed that Lowther had evidently ‘become too Liberal for a batch of old Tories who have hitherto given him their support in this city’, and reported that Hudson would introduce ‘a fitting Conservative’ to replace him.[34]" class="link">[34] Hudson, however, was keen to dispel the notion that his ‘undue influence’ had caused Lowther’s resignation, noting that he had tried to persuade Lowther to reconsider, telling him that he had the constituency’s ‘full confidence’, but ‘the state of his health, and various domestic considerations, rendered his decision imperative’. Hudson insisted that he had left Lowther to pursue his own course with regard to the corn laws, ‘feeling it would be wrong for him to interfere with him in any way as to his parliamentary duties in this particular’, but admitted that he had reminded him of local feeling against the Maynooth grant.[35]" class="link">[35] Although the York Herald accepted Hudson’s assurances that Lowther’s retirement had been ‘a voluntary act’, the feeling that he had been forced out prompted two electors to nominate him at the hustings. This created further controversy when the sheriff refused to accept this nomination without a deposit towards the costs of the poll, and duly declared the other two candidates elected.[36]" class="link">[36] Lowther was not involved in these proceedings and never sought a return to Westminster.

Instead he occupied himself with the management of his estates, including the development of an ironstone seam discovered at Wilton in 1850.[37]" class="link">[37] He continued to play a part in Yorkshire’s public life, serving as high sheriff in 1852 and lieutenant-colonel of the 1st West Riding militia until December 1852.[38]" class="link">[38] A ‘devoted member of the Established Church’, he was patron of the livings of Wilton, Swillington and Arkengarthdale, and a generous benefactor to many local charities.[39]" class="link">[39] He supported the successful Conservative candidature of his nephew, James Lowther, for York in 1865, appearing alongside him on the hustings.[40]" class="link">[40] Like his nephew, he took a keen interest in the Turf.[41]" class="link">[41]

Lowther, who never married, died at his London residence, 9 Park Street, Grosvenor Square, in June 1868,[42]" class="link">[42] and was buried in the family vault at Swillington church.[43]" class="link">[43] He left a personal estate of under £140,000, the bulk of which passed to his blind younger brother Charles Hugh (1803-94), who also succeeded to his landed estates and the baronetcy, and inherited Lowther’s shares in the Aire and Calder navigation.[44]" class="link">[44]