FFOLKES, Sir William John Henry Browne, 2nd bt. (1786-1860), of Hillington, King’s Lynn, Norf. and 30 Cavendish Square, London, Mdx.

The Ffolkes family had acquired Hillington, near King’s Lynn, in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and Ffolkes’s father, Martin Browne, served for over 31 years as MP for King’s Lynn on his wife’s interest.1HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 118. Hillen records that ‘The family name was originally Fowke (1438) then Folkes (1695) and now Ffolkes’, H. J. Hillen, History of the Borough of King’s Lynn (1907), ii. 561n. Ffolkes inherited his father’s title and estates in 1821 but failed in his attempts to succeed him at King’s Lynn, where he was defeated in 1822, 1824 and 1826. Nominated in absentia there in 1830, he was again defeated in a token poll, but was instead returned for Norfolk as a Whig, and re-elected in 1831.2HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 118. He gave steady support to the reform bill, although he backed Chandos’s successful £50 tenant-at-will clause, having found that the Norfolk yeomanry, ‘many of whom are great and opulent, were likely to be excluded from having a vote’.3Norfolk Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1832; HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 118. When the county was divided by the 1832 Reform Act, Ffolkes deemed it ‘natural’ that he should aspire to represent the western portion, where his family’s interests lay.4Norfolk Chronicle, 17 Jan. 1835. He was elected unopposed alongside his fellow Whig Sir Jacob Astley, following his nomination by the influential Thomas Coke of Holkham. Although classified by the Norwich Mercury as a ‘sound Whig’, Ffolkes preferred to set himself in his father’s image as a ‘straightforward’, ‘consistent and disinterested’ country gentleman, advocating principles of reform, economy and retrenchment.5Norwich Mercury, 28 Mar. 1860, 2 May 1835; Norfolk Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1832, 3 Jan., 17 Jan. 1835; Ipswich Journal, 17 Jan. 1835; The Poll for Two Knights of the Shire for the Western Division of the County of Norfolk (1837), xi; Hillen, King’s Lynn, ii. 561. Throughout his time as member for West Norfolk, often in rebuttal to slurs that he was Coke’s lackey in a ‘closed borough’, Ffolkes was at pains to remind the electorate that it was in response to their own solicitations, following a county-wide requisition, and not from his own ‘device’, that he had first come forward in 1830, renouncing his ‘private life’.6Norfolk Chronicle, 22 Dec. 1832, 15 Jan., 17 Jan., 24 Jan. 1835; Norwich Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837.

In the opening months of the first Reform parliament, Ffolkes voted with the government in upholding naval and military sinecures, 14 Feb., opposing Attwood’s distress motion, 21 Mar., and removing clause 147 of the Irish temporalities bill, 21 Jun. 1833. However, he divided against the ministry in favour of Chandos’s motion seeking agricultural relief, 26 Apr. 1833, and later that same evening was amongst the slim majority in a thin house which passed Ingilby’s motion for halving the malt tax. Only four days later, however, in a move which prompted considerable consternation in Norfolk, Ffolkes decided not to vote upon Althorp’s retaliatory motion successfully rescinding the malt tax resolution.7Morning Chronicle, 2 May 1833. Explaining his actions at the 1835 election, Ffolkes described his initial vote as ‘hastily…done’: subsequent reflection on the finalised nature of the budgetary arrangements for 1833 had led to his ‘firm conviction that had the question been carried, the resignation of Ministers and a Repeal of the Corn Laws would have been the consequence’.8Norfolk Chronicle, 3, 17 Jan. 1835. However, he consistently backed measures favourable to the agricultural interest, including repeal of the malt tax, throughout the remainder of his parliamentary tenure, as well as serving on select committees on agriculture, sale of corn, and county rates.9PP 1833 (612) v. 2; PP 1834 (517) vii. 2; PP 1834 (542) xiv. 2, 52. Ffolkes also served on the Lincoln election petition committee: CJ, lxxxviii. 335.

As chairman of the Freebridge Lynn union, he was a stalwart supporter of the new Poor Law, believing that it would ‘produce a greater feeling of independence among the labouring classes and… tend… to the improvement of their moral character’.10Poll for Two Knights, xi; PP 1837 (546-I) xxxi. 249. Ffolkes, a keen Fenland proprietor, was highly attentive to local matters, presenting countless petitions and concerning himself with numerous private bills, relating particularly to the road and turnpike network, and to marshland drainage.11For examples of the local legislation with which Ffolkes was involved, see CJ, lxxxviii. 99, 107, 199, 304, 454; lxxxix, 54, 122, 175; Bury and Norwich Post, 27 May 1835. In his only known contribution to parliamentary debate, Ffolkes, an Anglican, pressed unsuccessfully for the second reading of the Upwell tithes bill, 19 July 1834, a measure which he had co-drafted.12CJ, lxxxix. 481. Proposing to secure an annual stipend of £4,500 to the rector in place of tithe payments, several newspapers berated the bill as an example of ‘clerical rapacity’.13The Examiner, 13 Jul. 1834; Morning Chronicle, 16 Jul., 23 Jul. 1834. Ffolkes himself claimed the measure was ‘as much for the benefit of the parishioners as the rector’.14Hansard, 18 Jul. 1834, vol. 25, c. 127. The second reading of the Upwell Tithes bill was lost by 45 votes to 60. He was not an adept speaker: The Times complained in 1835 that ‘not a sentence’ of a petition which he read could be heard in the gallery, ‘owing to the low tone of his voice’.15The Times, 26 May 1835.

Despite concerns that Ffolkes, who had a reputation for parsimony, would be ‘driven off by the fear of expense’ from contesting the 1835 election16Morning Chronicle, 30 Dec. 1834; Norwich Mercury, 2 May 1835; HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 118. Ffolkes supported the successful third reading of the county elections polls’ bill, 29 Jul. 1836, a primary purpose of which was to diminish the expense of such elections., he topped the poll, promising to vote for ‘any measure’ he judged to be beneficial to the public welfare, ‘by whatever party they may be proposed’.17Norfolk Chronicle, 3, 17 Jan. 1835. However, Ffolkes’s support for the amendment to the address, 17 Feb., and Abercromby as speaker, 19 Feb., demonstrated his firm Whig loyalties, as did his votes for Russell’s Irish church resolutions, 2, 7 Apr. 1835. Later, Ffolkes criticised the ‘torrents of abuse with which he had been assailed’ for having supposedly reneged on his pledge of independence by opposing the Peel ministry in such divisions, citing the Conservatives’ failure to address agricultural matters and Lord Londonderry’s appointment as Russian ambassador as clear signs of their unfitness to govern.18Norfolk Chronicle, 14 Feb. 1835, 30 May 1835; Norwich Mercury, 2 May 1835; Morning Chronicle, 12 May 1835.

Ffolkes was a keen advocate of ecclesiastical reform, but criticised the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission appointed by Peel, asking ‘could they expect that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, or the Bishop of Gloucester would Reform the Church?’19Norwich Mercury, 16 May 1835; Norfolk Chronicle, 14 Feb. 1835. In May 1834, Ffolkes had divided against the Christchurch rectory bill, a measure which some saw as sanctioning pluralities and non-residence, and he voted in favour of the established Church bill, 27 Jul. 1836. He presented a number of petitions calling for intervention in the ‘hard case’ of Mr. Childs of Bungay, who had been imprisoned in Ipswich gaol for refusing to pay his church rates.20The Times, 26 May 1835. See also J. P. Ellens, Religious Routes to Gladstonian Liberalism, the Church Rate Conflict in England and Wales, 1832-1868 (1994), 51-2. He advocated the commutation of tithes, believing that it would ‘place the property of the Church on a more solid foundation’, and backed ministerial proposals for abolition of church rates, 23 May 1837.21Poll for Two Knights of the Shire, xi. Municipal corporation reform, both in England and Ireland, received Ffolkes’s steady support.

Following a hustings speech in which he extolled the reductions in taxation under the Melbourne government, Ffolkes was defeated in third place at the 1837 election, 39 votes behind the Conservative William Chute.22Norwich Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837; Bury and Norwich Post, 2 Aug. 1837. With his Whig colleague also losing his place to the opposition, the result represented a watershed in Norfolk politics: ‘Be it proclaimed with a shout… “Norfolk is free!”’, exclaimed one paper.23The Times, 5 Aug. 1837. Another, whilst highlighting the damage done to Ffolkes by the Conservatives’ harnessing of anti-Poor Law sentiment, added regretfully that ‘had only a proper degree of activity been exerted’ by the reformers in their electioneering campaign, the outcome would have been different.24Bury and Norwich Post, 9 Aug. 1837; Morning Chronicle, 22 Aug. 1837. Nevertheless, the Norwich Mercury reflected that a ‘more sensible… attentive, upright, stainless Member never sat in… Parliament’.25Norwich Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837. For a further brief description of Ffolkes’s praiseworthy character, see T. Cross, The Autobiography of a Stage-Coachman (1861), iii. 111. In June 1841, only a month after announcing his willingness to stand again for West Norfolk, Ffolkes withdrew from the field, citing his unwillingness to continue supporting the existing corn laws.26Norwich Mercury, 8 May, 19 Jun. 1841; The Times, 27 May 1841. He also rejected a requisition to stand for King’s Lynn.27Ipswich Journal, 12 Jun. 1841. Later, in somewhat bizarre circumstances, whilst sojourning in Frankfurt, Ffolkes discovered to his ‘great surprise’ that he had come third in the 1841 East Norfolk contest, polling 1,378 votes, following his sudden and evidently unsanctioned nomination at the hustings by a Whig opposition apparently seeking to raise a ‘sham contest’ in retaliation for a similar Conservative ploy at Great Yarmouth.28Norfolk Chronicle, 7 Aug 1841; Norwich Mercury, 10 Jul., 17 Jul. 1841; The Times, 12 Jul., 16 Jul. 1841; Ipswich Journal, 17 Jul. 1841. Ffolkes declined a requisition to stand for East Norfolk in 1847, and although he was among the names considered as candidate for West Norfolk that year – with the earl of Leicester said to favour him as a running mate for his brother, Edward Coke – he never offered again.29HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 119; Norwich Mercury, 8 May 1847; Norfolk Chronicle, 14 Aug. 1847; Norf. RO MC50/74/17, 19, 20, 22. He did, however, remain involved with elections in the latter constituency, nominating the successful Liberal candidate in 1859.30The Times, 29 Mar. 1860.

As chairman of the Norfolk estuary company, Ffolkes turned the first sod of that body’s land reclamation scheme in front of a ten thousand-strong crowd in 1850.31Morning Chronicle, 11 Nov. 1850. The esteem in which he was held by the King’s Lynn mercantile community was shown by the naming of a vessel after him in 1852, with the figure-head said to be ‘an excellent likeness’ of him.32Newcastle Courant, 27 Aug. 1852. Remembered as an ‘indefatigible’ Swaffham quarter sessions chairman, Ffolkes was also active in the railway interest, chairing the Lynn and Ely company, in which he invested £20,000, and sitting on the committees of the Northern and Eastern, and Ely and Bury St. Edmunds lines.33Norfolk Chronicle, 31 Mar. 1860; HP Commons, 1820-32, v. 119; King’s Lynn, ii. 597; John Bull, 30 Oct. 1847, 689; The Times, 26 Sep. 1835; PP 1846 (504) xliii. 181. Upon his estates, ‘he was a liberal encourager of agricultural improvements’, whilst his ‘deep interest’ in the ‘welfare of the labourer’ ensured that his workers’ cottages were model specimens.34Norfolk Chronicle, 31 Mar. 1860. His amicable relations with his tenantry were reflected in their presentation of a portrait to him in October 1858.35Norfolk Chronicle, 23 Oct. 1858. Whilst ‘distinguished for his classical acquirements’, Ffolkes was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, of which his great-uncle, Martin, had served as president in the mid-eighteenth century, and was involved with local and national agricultural bodies.36Norwich Mercury, 28 Mar. 1860; The Record of the Royal Society of London (London, 1901), 324; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 11 (1860-62), 1; Martin F(f)olkes, ODNB; Ipswich Journal, 28 Jul. 1849; The Times, 20 Jul. 1850. He died in March 1860 after a ‘somewhat short illness’, leaving a personal estate of £12,000 to his family.37Norwich Mercury, 28 Mar. 1860; The Law Times, 21 Jul. 1860. As his eldest son, Martin, had predeceased him, struck by lightning whilst fishing in July 1849,38Daily News, 27 Jul. 1849; C. Mackie, Norfolk Annals (1901), i. 478. Ffolkes was succeeded in his baronetcy by his grandson William Hovell, who later served as Liberal MP for King’s Lynn, 1880-85.39The Times, 10 May 1912; Hillen, King’s Lynn, ii. 589. The Ffolkes family papers are held at Norfolk Record Office.