LASCELLES, Hon. William Saunders Sebright (1798-1851), of Harewood House, Yorks.; later of Bute House, Campden Hill, Kensington, London, Mdx.

A younger son of the second earl of Harewood, Lascelles ‘entered the Navy young’, before transferring to the army for a brief career. Described by the Whig Thomas Creevey as being ‘of the most Tory cast’, he was returned on the family interest at Northallerton in 1820, but made way for his older brother in 1826, instead coming in for East Looe. Returned again at Northallerton in 1831, he opposed the reform bill, although he had supported Catholic emancipation.1M. Leconfield & J. Gore (ed.), Three Howard sisters (1955), x; HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 43-4. In 1823 Lascelles had married Lady Caroline Howard, daughter of the sixth earl of Carlisle and granddaughter of the fifth duke of Devonshire, and being ‘far from affluent’, they lived at Harewood for some years after their marriage.2Leconfield & Gore, Three Howard sisters, 32. Perhaps due to his wife’s influence, he ‘was less extreme in his political views’ than his father or older brother, but nevertheless had some heated exchanges with his brother-in-law, Lord Morpeth.3Leconfield & Gore, Three Howard sisters, 70; HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 43.

The Harewood interest chose not to challenge for the enlarged Northallerton seat in 1832, a decision which angered Lady Caroline, who believed that her father-in-law might have brought Lascelles in.4Leconfield & Gore, Three Howard sisters, 255. It is unclear whether it was William or his brother who was pressed to contest Pontefract in 1832, but he was certainly talked of as a candidate for Halifax.5HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 44; The Politician: a series of dialogues, conversations, essays, and letters concerning the connexion of individuals with the state of which they are members [?1832], 11. Rumours that he had been invited to contest Wakefield were said to be false: The Times, 4 June 1832. However, it was not until 1835 that he sought a return to the Commons, accepting a requisition from Wakefield’s Conservatives. He declined an invitation to stand at Ripon, having accepted the Wakefield candidature the previous day, but urged the merits of Thomas Pemberton, whom he subsequently assisted on his canvass.6Hull Packet, 12 Dec. 1834, 26 Dec. 1834. Like his brother Edwin he also turned down an approach by Leeds Conservatives to stand for the West Riding, where Morpeth was one of the incumbents.7D.D. Olien, Morpeth. A Victorian public career (1983), 119. Lascelles’ initial address at Wakefield announced his ‘deep and conscientious attachment to the Church of England’ and to established institutions, promising to support any reform ‘which, by increasing their efficiency, may add to their stability’.8Report of the proceedings before a committee of the House of Commons, on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842 (1842), 9-10. Having canvassed, he issued a further address declaring that he would be ‘unshackled by the trammels of party’.9Ibid., 10. Despite his family’s influence in Yorkshire, he was beaten by the incumbent Liberal MP, Daniel Gaskell.

At the May 1835 West Riding by-election, Lascelles proposed John Stuart Wortley, who stood unsuccessfully against Morpeth.10Hampshire Telegraph, 11 May 1835. Later that year he commanded the Harewood troop of the Yorkshire Hussars for Princess Victoria’s visit to Harewood.11The Times, 16 Sept. 1835. Speaking at a Conservative dinner at Halifax in November 1836, he praised Peel as a ‘great statesman’, reading at length from one of his speeches.12Hull Packet, 11 Nov. 1836. The following month, in ‘a forcible and striking speech’ to the recently established Wakefield Conservative Association, he denied that those who had opposed the reform bill would not support other reforms. He attacked appropriation and the Whigs’ Irish church proposals, and defended the House of Lords, which he argued was ‘for all real national reforms, but not for the Reforms of the Radical and movement description’.13The Times, 7 Dec. 1836, 8 Dec. 1836. Contesting Wakefield again in 1837, he reiterated his support for ‘progressive improvement’, particularly a measure which would provide ‘increased stability’ to the Church.14Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition, 13-14. Conservative organisational efforts paid off, and Lascelles ousted Gaskell, a victory which local Conservatives celebrated by commissioning his portrait.15Hull Packet, 25 May 1838. Lascelles in 1838 attended a West Riding meeting to form a diocesan church building association, and addressed the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.16The British Magazine (1838), xiv. 486; Northern Star, 8 Sept. 1838. He made donations to the Wakefield Mechanics’ Institute, and was a vice-president of the Yorkshire Geological Society and the West Riding Proprietary School.17P. McCann & F.A. Young, Samuel Wilderspin and the infant school movement (1982), 288; Proceedings of the Geological and Polytechnic Society of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1839-42, i. pg. iii; Leeds Mercury, 16 June 1838.

In Parliament, Lascelles was more active in the committee-rooms than in the chamber. He served on the inquiry into election petition fees, which recommended the abolition of various charges in order to lower petition costs.18PP 1837-38 (50), x. 24. He was a member of the committees on the Maldon election petition and on the rating of tenements, although he was absent when the latter report was drafted.19Essex Standard, 6 Apr. 1838; PP 1837-38 (209), xxi. 2; PP 1837-38 (440), xxi. 278. He also served on the committee on the fresh fruit trade, which concluded that the existing duty on apples provided sufficient protection to domestic growers, and that on inland warehousing, which recommended that the privilege of bonded warehouses be extended to inland towns, a matter of interest to his constituents, and for which he expressed support in debate, 19 July 1839.20PP 1839 (398), viii. 378; PP 1840 (464), v. 476. In 1839 he was appointed as a commissioner to inquire into the state of roads in England and Ireland, with the ensuing report making suggestions for the improved management of turnpike trusts and highways, and consolidation of the law.21PP 1840 [256], xxviii. 1ff.

A very infrequent speaker, Irish questions prompted the bulk of Lascelles’ contributions, an interest which perhaps reflected Morpeth’s position as chief secretary for Ireland. He initially divided generally with the Conservative party, opposing ministers on their motion for an inquiry into the pension list, 8 Dec. 1837, and on Irish tithes, 15 May 1838, stating on the latter that he was ‘decidedly opposed’ to appropriation. He was, however, one of two Tory rebels against Peel’s amendment to fix the Irish municipal franchise at £10 clear of all deductions, 11 June 1838, and a week later defended the ‘painful necessity of voting against his friends’, because this amendment would have made the Irish franchise higher than that of Scotland or England. The following year, claiming not to have voted against Russell so far that session, as the Conservatives supported the government conscientiously when they could, he reluctantly divided against ministers on the government of Ireland, 19 Apr. 1839, a vote criticised by the Leeds Mercury for its ‘great inconsistency’.22Leeds Mercury, 20 Apr. 1839. Lascelles’ speech in the debate on this question was 16 Apr. 1839. He also divided with his party on the Jamaican constitution, 6 May 1839, education, 24 June 1839, and Yarde Buller’s confidence motion, 31 Jan. 1840. He spoke and divided in favour of the Maynooth grant, 23 June 1840. He was a consistent opponent of the ballot and further electoral reform. However, he changed his stance on free trade, opposing Villiers’ motion for going into committee on the corn laws, 18 Mar. 1839, but supporting it, 26 May 1840, having signalled in a speech earlier that year that he was not favourable to the corn law, 30 Jan. 1840. He spoke against the second reading of Morpeth’s parliamentary voters (Ireland) bill, feeling that a £5 franchise went too far, 25 Feb. 1841. He divided with ministers for reduction of the sugar duties, 18 May 1841, although deprecating that this had been brought forward as a party manoeuvre, but rallied to Peel to support his confidence motion, 4 June 1841. He was not a particularly assiduous attender, voting in 35 out of 109 divisions in the 1841 session.23Leeds Mercury, 10 July 1841.

His parliamentary conduct, particularly his vote on the sugar duties, prompted some Wakefield Conservatives to sign a memorial expressing dissatisfaction with Lascelles.24Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1841. The Hull Packet hoped that he would be defeated at the 1841 contest, as ‘we dislike all trimmers’.25Hull Packet, 28 May 1841. The paper complained in a later report that Lascelles ‘could never be depended upon, and… voted with the ministers against his party on several important questions’: Hull Packet, 16 July 1841. Lascelles’ address highlighted Conservative efforts to maintain the established Church and uphold the reform settlement against further change, and advocated a ‘complete revision of the Tariff, with a view to a temperate and judicious modification of restrictive duties’, regretting that this had become a party issue.26Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition, 15-16. Richard Monckton Milnes, a local resident, blamed Lascelles’ subsequent defeat on the fact that Wakefield’s Tories believed that he had deserted his political principles ‘and would take no pains about his return’.27Cited in N. Gash, Politics in the age of Peel (1953), 400. However, Lascelles was seated on petition, 21 Apr. 1842, after the victorious Liberal was disqualified on the grounds that he was technically the returning officer.28Report of the proceedings on the Wakefield election petition, 176. The following month, a large public meeting in Wakefield called upon Lascelles to resign, as it was ‘a direct breach of the spirit of the British constitution’ to sit in the Commons without a majority, and in private life it would be ‘dishonourable, if not dishonest’ to take advantage of such ‘legal subtlety’. Lascelles declined, emphasising that he had given ample notice of his opponent’s disqualification, but that the Liberals had declined to find an alternative.29The Times, 25 May 1842. A later report claimed that the borough refused to recognise Lascelles as its member, not sending him any petitions for presentation and entrusting local business to other MPs.30Daily News, 16 Apr. 1849. Although there was some truth in this – a local meeting against the factory bill in April 1843 rejected the suggestion that its petition be sent to Lascelles, amidst ‘great uproar, and cries of “no, never, never” – “He does not represent us”’ – the following month Lascelles was entrusted with petitions from the Wakefield Mechanics’ Institute and Wakefield’s solicitors.31Leeds Mercury, 29 Apr. 1843, 27 May 1843; Bradford Observer, 25 May 1843.

Lascelles resumed his active committee work after 1842, serving on Roebuck’s inquiry into alleged compromises on election petitions.32PP 1842 (458), v. 77. He served on the committee on gaming, which recommended updating the law and deprecated ‘the establishment of Gambling-booths on race-courses’.33PP 1844 (297), vi. 2. (Betting was said to have been Lascelles’ own ‘chief weakness’, although he also enjoyed shooting.34Leconfield & Gore, Three Howard sisters, 54-5.) He took a leading part in preparing the report of the committee on medical poor relief, which investigated alleged irregularities in Kensington.35PP 1844 (312), ix. 2; PP 1844 (387), ix. 34; PP 1844 (531), ix. 93. In addition to service on various railway bill committees, he sat on the 1845 committee on atmospheric railways, and, reflecting his earlier role as a commissioner on roads, on the 1847 inquiry on the highways bill.36The Times, 25 Mar. 1846; PP 1845 (252), x. 182; PP 1847 (683), viii. 183. He spoke again on Irish affairs, 7 July 1843 and 20 Feb. 1844, arguing in the latter speech that the Irish Church’s anomalous position needed to be addressed, but declined to support Russell’s motion to consider the state of Ireland. He divided for the dissenters’ chapel bill, 6 June 1844, and the Maynooth grant, 21 May 1845. On factory reform, he consistently opposed a ten hour day, dividing against it in 1844, and was in the minority of 87 against the second reading of the factory bill, 17 Feb. 1847. Although his brother, who had succeeded as third earl in 1841, was the leader of West Riding protectionism, Lascelles maintained his support for free trade, speaking in support of a reduction in the duty on wool, 8 June 1842, and accompanying a West Riding deputation on that subject the following year.37J.T. Ward, ‘West Riding landowners and the corn laws’, EHR, 81 (1966), 260; Leeds Mercury, 18 Mar. 1843. Lascelles was clearly not averse to opposing his family interests, telling the 1842 meeting of the African Civilisation Society that ‘I belong to a family who... have the misfortune to possess West India property’, and encouraging fellow West India proprietors to contribute ‘to the education and enlightenment, and prosperity of the persons under their charge’, thereby ‘repaying to the Africans and to Africa, that debt of duty which I think history tells them they owe’: Report of the Committee of the African Civilization Society to the public meeting of the Society, held at Exeter Hall on...the 21st of June, 1842 (1842), 90-1. He continued to divide with Villiers on the corn laws, and voted with Peel for repeal in 1846, when he made his last substantive Commons speech, 9 Feb., arguing that he had never considered a restrictive commercial policy ‘as the test of the Conservative party’, and referring to the painful but necessary task of ‘break[ing] those party ties which so often cemented private friendship’.

Facing the ‘deep wrath’ of his Conservative supporters, for whom he ‘had grown too liberal’, and with the circumstances of his seating on petition in 1842 meaning that he could not expect ‘a friendly hand’ from Wakefield’s Liberals either,38Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849, 16 Apr. 1849. Lascelles instead stood on the free trade interest at Knaresborough at the 1847 election,39Bradford and Wakefield Observer, 5 Aug. 1847. becoming ‘a constant supporter’ of the Liberal government thereafter.40Preston Guardian, 5 July 1851. Despite their differing political viewpoints, Lascelles’ candidature had his older brother’s ‘cordial concurrence’, contrary to opposition claims, and he topped the poll.41The Times, 2 June 1847. Shortly before, Lascelles’ conversion had been rewarded by Russell with his appointment as a privy councillor and comptroller of the royal household, and his only Commons’ contributions thereafter were formulaic speeches in this official guise.42Preston Guardian, 5 July 1851. His official position prompted greater assiduity, and he was present for 125 out of 219 divisions in the 1849 session.43Hampshire Telegraph, 20 Oct. 1849. He divided with Liberal ministers on removal of Jewish disabilities, 17 Dec. 1847, for repeal of the navigation laws, 12 Mar. 1849, and in support of Palmerston on the Don Pacifico question, 28 June 1850. He came round to factory reform, supporting efforts to prevent the relay system, 6 June 1850. However, he remained an opponent of further electoral reforms, voting in the minority against the equalisation of the county and borough franchise, 20 Feb. 1851. He served on the committees on medical registration and on divorce bills.44PP 1847 (620), ix. 284; PP 1847-48 (210), xv. 271; PP 1847-48 (402), xv. 414; PP 1847-48 (644), xvi. 185.

Lascelles died in harness in July 1851 at his Kensington residence, ‘from an affection of the brain, which from the first symptoms defied all medical skill’.45Freeman’s Journal, 5 July 1851. Morpeth’s diary charts his brother-in-law’s decline from the spring of 1851: C. Lascelles (ed.), Extracts from journals kept by George Howard, earl of Carlisle [1871?], 151-4, 159. His funeral was held at Harewood church.46Leeds Mercury, 12 July 1851. He bequeathed all his real and personal estate to his wife.47HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 44. His oldest surviving son, Claude, was an artillery officer.48Gent. Mag. (1851), ii. 194. Another son, Frank, had a distinguished diplomatic career, while Henry served in the navy and the rifle brigade before acting as private secretary to the marquess of Hartington whilst he was secretary at war, 1882-5.49V. Chirol, rev. Z. Steiner, ‘Lascelles, Sir Frank Cavendish’, Oxf. DNB [www.oxforddnb.com]; The Times, 4 Aug. 1913. Although none of his sons followed their father into the Commons, three daughters married Liberal MPs, with two of Lascelles’ grandsons subsequently entering Parliament.50Georgiana Caroline married Charles William Grenfell, MP Sandwich 1847-52, Windsor 1852-9, and their son, William Henry Grenfell was MP Salisbury 1880-2, 1885-6, Hereford 1892-3, and Wycombe, 1900-6. Henrietta Frances married William George Cavendish, MP Peterborough, 1847-52, and Buckinghamshire, 1857-63. Emma Elizabeth married Lord Edward Cavendish, MP East Sussex 1865-8, North Derbyshire 1880-5, West Derbyshire 1885-91, and their son Richard Frederick was MP North Lonsdale, 1895-1906. His youngest daughter, Beatrice, married Frederick Temple, archbishop of Canterbury. Lascelles’ younger brother Edwin was Conservative MP for Ripon, 1846-57, and his nephew Egremont briefly represented Northallerton, 1866-8.