LIDDELL, Henry Thomas (1797-1878), of 8 Arlington Street, London, Mdx. and Eslington House, Northumb.

Liddell, the eldest son of one of north-east England’s leading coal owners, became a popular hero in the region when, following two extremely bitter and expensive contests, he defeated two Whigs to become Tory member for Northumberland in 1826.1W.A.J. Archbold, ‘Liddell, Henry Thomas, first earl of Ravensworth (1797-1878)’, rev. H.C.G. Matthew, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com. Liddell was defeated at the Northumberland by-election of February 1826, necessitated by the death of the Tory Charles Brandling, but he topped the poll for the county at the general election in June 1826. He spent £50,000 on both elections. HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 768-70. In the pre-Reform parliament he gave his qualified support to the duke of Wellington’s administration and championed Catholic emancipation, but was noticeably equivocal on franchise reform, first opposing it before accepting that some extension was necessary.2HP Commons 1820-32, vi. 114-7. His ambiguity prompted the Whig James Abercromby to suggest that ‘Liddell has plenty of words, but very few thoughts’ while William Henry Ord, MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, believed that his parliamentary speeches were regularly tailored to ‘suit both’ sides.3Castle Howard mss, Abercromby to Carlisle, 22 Nov. 1826; Ord is quoted in HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 117. This sense of political ambiguity resurfaced at a number of points in his parliamentary career. At the dissolution in 1830 he stood down owing to a lack of funds, and arrangements to start him as a Conservative candidate for county Durham in 1831 and for Northumberland North in 1832 and 1835 were abandoned.4Ibid.

At the 1837 general election Liddell was brought forward by Lord Londonderry for Durham North. He declared that it was the duty of the electors to rally round ‘the existing institutions of the state – the Throne, Lords, Commons and the Established Church’ and following an acrimonious contest he was returned in second place.5Newcastle Courant, 4 and 11 Aug. 1837. A regular presence in the division lobbies, he supported Peel on most major issues and voted against the Melbourne government’s Irish tithes bill, 15 May 1838, Villiers’ corn law motion, 18 Mar. 1839, and the equalisation of the borough and county franchises, 4 June 1839.

A frequent speaker, the majority of Liddell’s contributions in his first Parliament reflected his vehement opposition to the new poor law. He was particularly critical of the ‘bastardy clauses’ which saw children taken into the workhouse, and as a member of the select committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, he assiduously pressed witnesses on bastardy, revealing that he had undertaken his own inquiries into the issue.6Hansard, 12 Dec. 1837, vol. 39, cc. 1011-22; 20 Feb. 1838, vol. 40, cc. 1389-92; 20 July 1839, vol. 49, cc. 554-7. For example see the 34th report of the select committee: PP 1837-38 (414), xviii. Pt. II. 521. Liddell subsequently stated that ‘from many material portions of the report of the committee, [I] most conscientiously dissent’: Hansard, 20 July 1839, vol. 49, cc. 554-7. His undoubted dislike of the ‘cruel privations’ of the law, though, could lead to hyperbole, and following his allusion to ‘strong and dark rumours’ of two hundred infants being found dead in Sunderland after having been denied relief, 27 Nov. 1837, he was sharply rebuked by the local board of guardians and criticised in the House by Hedworth Lambton, his fellow MP for Durham North, who stated that Liddell was ‘decidedly culpable’ of making unsubstantiated claims, 12 Dec. 1837.7Mirror of Parliament (1838), i. 671; Hansard, 12 Dec. 1837, vol. 39, cc. 1011-22. Liddell reserved his scorn for the poor law commissioners, warning against any extension of their tenures, 20 July 1839, 8 Feb. 1840, and stating that ‘he was sick of hearing that relief was to be administered on just principles, because what were called just principles frequently led to unjust practice’, 29 Jan. 1841. A staunch defender of the established church, he attacked, at great length, Lord John Russell’s proposals for reforming church leases, 3 May 1838, and, in common with all of Durham’s members, he opposed the ecclesiastical duties and revenues bill, protesting that it would unfairly appropriate the revenues of the (extremely wealthy) Durham diocese, 6 Apr. 1840. During the debate on Peel’s motion of no confidence in the ministry, he launched a withering attack on the ‘imbecility’ of Melbourne’s ministry, which he believed was ‘one of the worst and weakest governments that ever had held the reins of power’, 27 May 1841.

Returned unopposed at the 1841 general election, he supported Peel on most major issues, but his desire to remain simultaneously loyal to his family’s commercial interests and the ministry saw him equivocate on Peel’s plan to impose a duty on the export of coal. He looked with ‘great anxiety’ to the ‘financial experiment’, but gave the plan his qualified support, 14 June 1842, and during a debate on the budget, he maintained this position even though he believed the duty to be ‘an injudicious and impolitic tax’, 3 May 1843. Dividing against Peel, he was in the minority for the appointment of a select committee to investigate the effects of the coal duty on exports, 12 June 1843, but, following taunts from the opposition, insisted that he was perfectly consistent in supporting a duty that was only required because of the ‘blunders and bungling policy’ of the previous administration, 4 June 1844. Unsurprisingly, he congratulated Peel for subsequently abolishing the duty, 14 Feb. 1845. Liddell also focused his attention on the issue of animal cruelty, introducing a bill to counter dog stealing in the metropolis, 9 July 1844, 11, 25 June 1845, and chairing the select committee on the issue.8PP 1844 (549), xiv. 292. Liddell was particularly keen to impose heavy sentences on offenders. See Hansard, 25 June 1845, vol. 81, cc. 1187-8. His proposals formed part of the subsequent Cruelty to Animals Act, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 47, which was commonly referred to as the Dog Stealing Act.

Liddell praised the ministry for the poor law amendment bill, which ‘removed most of his objections’, 18 July 1844, and staunchly defended Peel’s Irish policy, arguing that Russell’s motion for an inquiry into distress in the country would not solve its problems, 14 Feb. 1843. Having backed the ministerial plan for the corn laws (the sliding scale), 14 Feb. 1842, he continued to oppose free trade in corn, 24 June 1842, 3 Feb. 1843, and in one of his lengthiest known speeches, he criticised Peel’s decision to repeal, declaring that he ‘should never present himself to his constituents as an advocate for popular favour by supporting measures of which he did not approve’, 27 Jan. 1846. After further similar interventions, 23 Feb., 3 Mar. 1846, he divided against repeal, 15 May 1846. In the first year of Russell’s subsequently formed ministry he maintained his protectionist instincts, arguing against repeal of the navigation laws, 22 Jan., 9 Feb. 1847. Appointed to the select committee on the issue, even though he had opposed its formation, he insisted that his presence ‘would be a guarantee to the country of a fair investigation of the subject’, 16 Feb. 1847. He subsequently pressed Russell to be free from ‘all representations as to a fanciful analogy between laws giving protection to agriculture and laws affording security to British shipping’, 2 July 1847.9PP 1847 (232), x. 2.

At the 1847 general election Liddell stood down as MP for Durham North. His earlier insistence that it was his duty to consider the feelings of ‘the large and independent portion of the constituency’ had soured his relationship with Londonderry, who felt that, as his patron, he should be answerable only to him.10Liddell to Londonderry, 27 May 1841. Quoted in T.J. Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms in reformed England: case studies from the North-east, 1832-74 (1975), 75. Londonderry was therefore determined to bring forward his eldest son for the seat, forcing Liddell, who protested that ‘in these days it was impossible to expect that a great county could be handed over from one individual to another at any man’s bidding’, to reluctantly retire.11A. Heesom, ‘“Legitimate” versus “Illegitimate” influences: aristocratic electioneering in mid-Victorian Britain’, Parliamentary History, 7, pt. 2 (1988), 298; Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 75. Defeated at South Shields at the 1852 general election, Liddell offered in 1853 for Liverpool where there was a double by-election, necessitated by the previous contest being declared void. Unconnected to the constituency, it was his unwavering defence of the shipping interest which prompted the local Conservatives to bring him forward, although his previous support for the Maynooth grant troubled the local party.12Liverpool Mercury, 24 June 1853. Again, Liddell’s political ambiguity was evident. Declaring that he would defend the established church ‘to the very last drop of my blood’, he insisted that, on Maynooth, it had been ‘with the greatest reluctance that I yielded to [Peel’s] arguments’, and highlighted the fact that he had previously never supported the grant.13Ibid., 28 June 1853. Liddell was absent from divisions on Maynooth: 23 June 1840, 20 July 1842, 19 July 1844, 3 Apr. 1845. He voted with Peel in favour of the grant, 18 Apr. 1845. His description of himself as ‘Liberal, but Conservative’ was also attacked by the local press, who cited his consistent opposition to free trade as evidence that his professions of liberalism were insincere.14Liverpool Mercury, 25 June 1853. Nevertheless, following a bitter contest, he was returned in second place.

In his brief tenure as member for Liverpool Liddell was a zealous advocate for the British shipping interest. Although he conceded that the repeal of the navigation laws had not precipitated the economic ruin of British shipping, 12 July 1853, in a debate on the address, he argued that an unpredicted consequence of repeal was that the rise in foreigners employed on British ships had compromised the efficiency of crews, and was therefore contributing to the recent ‘grievous losses’ at sea, 31 Jan. 1854. He subsequently opposed the opening up of the coasting trade to foreign vessels, warning that ‘in our eager search after gain we might lose, in the decay of the discipline and efficiency of our men, the main element of our national strength’, 3 Feb. 1854.15Liddell sat on the 1854 select committee on emigrant ships: PP 1854 (349), xiii. 188. In a similar vein, he criticised the Aberdeen ministry’s enlistment of foreigners bill, citing an example of German emigrants bringing cholera to Liverpool to argue that it was foolish for the ‘United Kingdom to fall back upon’ such men as a reserve, 20 Dec. 1854.

In March 1855 Liddell succeeded his father as second baron Ravensworth. In the Lords he continued to speak frequently on the coal and shipping interests. A staunch opponent of the disestablishment of the Irish church, he was created earl of Ravensworth and baron of Eslington for services to the Derby and Disraeli ministries, 2 Apr. 1874.16Archbold, ‘Liddell, Henry Thomas’; The Times, 1, 2 Apr. 1874. He was also a talented poet and scholar. In addition to his epic Wizard of the North (1833) and Poems (1877), he published translations of the Odes of Horace (1858), Carmina (1865), Virgil’s Ænid (1872) and contributed several studies for Archaeologia Aeliana.17HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 117. He died at Ravensworth Castle in March 1878, predeceased in 1856 by his wife. He was succeeded in turn by his sons Henry George Liddell (1821-1903), MP for Northumberland South, 1852-78, and Atholl Liddell (1833-1904) on whose death without issue the earldom became extinct. Liddell’s correspondence with Londonderry is located at Durham record office and his letters to Derby, Disraeli and Peel are held at Liverpool record office, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the British Library respectively.18Dur. RO, D/Lo; Liv. RO, 920 Der 14, box 138; Oxf. Uni. Bodleian library, MSS Disraeli; BL Add Mss. 40391-600 passim.