ANDERSON PELHAM, Hon. Charles Anderson Worsley (Lord Worsley) (1809-1862), of Brocklesby, Lincolnshire

Member profile:

Heir to the earldom of Yarborough, Pelham, who was known as Lord Worsley after 1837, was the leading protectionist Whig of the 1840s.1Illustrated London News, viii. 396 (20 June 1846). He has received little attention in the secondary literature on early Victorian reformism, perhaps because the Pelhams were unconnected to the circle of families which constituted the ‘Grand Whiggery’. Judged by their immense landholdings, however, the Pelhams were undoubtedly among the great Whig magnates of their day. The Brocklesby estate, comprising over 60,000 acres, was concentrated in northern Lincolnshire, a wheat-growing region and protectionist stronghold. This context helps to explain Pelham’s distinctive position on the corn laws. His role in local politics, as representative and subsequently as electoral patron, has been explored in detail by R.J. Olney in Lincolnshire Politics, 1832-1885 (1973).

Pelham’s father Charles Anderson Pelham (1781-1846), a Whig, represented Great Grimsby, 1803-7, where the family also possessed influence, and sat for Lincolnshire thereafter until succeeding as 2nd baron Yarborough in 1823.2HP Commons, 1820-1832, iv. 63-4. His heir was elected for the family pocket borough of Newtown (Isle of Wight) in 1830 when he was only just of age and the following year he was returned unopposed for Lincolnshire.3Ibid., 64-5.

Pelham was elected for the new constituency of North Lincolnshire, which was dominated by the Brocklesby estates, in first place at the 1832 general election (along with another Reformer).4Dod’s electoral facts, 1832-1853, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 188; R.J. Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 1832-1885 (1973), 13, 94-6. Thereafter he topped the poll whenever challenged. In Parliament, Pelham, who was generally silent at this time, offered general support to Grey’s ministry, opposing radical political reforms and endorsing the new poor law. He resisted the motions of the Attwood brothers for currency reform in 1833, but the following year backed the call of his colleague, Sir William Ingilby, for the repeal of malt tax, 27 Feb. 1834.

Pelham again topped the poll at the 1835 general election, but Ingilby’s defeat meant that he was returned alongside a Conservative.5Ibid., 97-8. Pelham voted with the Whigs in all the key party votes of the subsequent session, but in 1836 he expressed regret that Melbourne’s government had proposed no policies to relieve the agricultural interest.6Hansard, 15 Mar. 1836, vol. 32, c. 381. Thereafter Worsley (as he was now called following his father’s promotion to an earldom in 1837) became much more active.

Perhaps influenced by his membership of the 1835 select committee on bribery, Worsley came out for the ballot at the 1837 general election, when he was returned unopposed, and in 1839 seconded the ballot motion of the Radical George Grote, 18 June 1839.7PP 1835 (547), viii. 2; Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 34; Hansard, 18 June 1839, vol. 48, cc. 450-5. The nobleman argued that the ballot was the only way of preventing intimidation of all kinds, but that it would ‘not diminish the legitimate influence of the aristocracy’.8Ibid., 452-4 (at 454). In 1837 and 1838 Worsley introduced three bills aimed at facilitating the enclosure and improvement of commons, but they were either defeated, withdrawn or ran out of time.9PP 1837 (248), i. 523-6; CJ, xcii. 301, 509; PP 1837-38 (34), i. 423-6; 1837-38 (135), i. 427-32; CJ, xciii. 194, 255, 263, 381, 410. He backed the bonded corn bill of 1838 and warned agriculturalists, especially those in Lincolnshire, against a ‘factious’ opposition to the measure.10Hansard, 9 May 1838, vol. 42, c. 1032. If people thought that farmers resisted ‘justice towards other interests’, he cautioned, demands for the repeal of the corn laws would grow.11Ibid.

Worsley’s defence of agricultural protection, and especially the 1828 sliding scale, entirely coincided with the opinions of his constituents. He opposed the repeal of the corn laws or any diminution in the current level of protection, 19 Feb. 1839, 14 Mar. 1839.12Hansard, 19 Feb. 1839, vol. 45, c. 656; ibid., 14 Mar. 1839, vol. 46, cc. 628-33. He was placed in an awkward position when the Whig government proposed a low fixed duty on corn in May 1841 and opposed the measure as ‘quite inadequate’ for protection, contending that the sliding scale was a better means of stabilising prices, 12 May 1841.13Hansard, 12 May 1841, vol. 58, c. 286. Despite his opposition to the budget, however, Worsley supported the Melbourne government in the vote of confidence, 4 June 1841, which prompted bitter criticism from Lincolnshire Conservatives, including his parliamentary colleague.14Hansard, 27 May 1841, vol. 58, c. 833; Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 110. Anticipating his critics, Worsley argued that with the exception of the corn laws he had ‘almost always’ supported the government’s policies, which were ‘correct and just’ especially regarding Ireland.15Hansard, 27 May 1841, vol. 58, cc. 828-33, 836 (at 829).

Despite his apparent vulnerability at the 1841 general election, Worsley easily defeated the Conservative candidate and again topped the poll.16Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 111-13. Worsley had long suspected that Peel would himself propose a diminution of agricultural protection once in power.17E.g. Hansard, 27 May 1841, vol. 58, c. 831; ibid., 25 Aug. 1841, vol. 59, cc. 260-1. When this came to pass, he contrasted his independence in opposing his own party’s measure in 1841 with the meekness of Conservative MPs towards Peel, 16 Feb. 1842.18Hansard, 16 Feb. 1842, vol. 60, cc. 581-7. He embarrassed county members by quoting liberally from election speeches in which they had trumpeted their defence of agricultural protection.19Ibid., 582-3. Worsley hammered home this theme at every available opportunity, not least when leading the unsuccessful parliamentary opposition to the 1843 Canadian corn bill, which he argued was a further move in the direction of free trade.20Hansard, 25 Feb. 1842, vol. 60, cc. 1139-40; ibid., 9 Mar. 1842, vol. 61, cc. 401-4; ibid., 7 Apr. 1842, vol. 62, cc. 54-6; ibid., 28 June 1842, vol. 64, c. 741. Worsley unsuccessfully moved the defeat of the Canadian corn bill on the first, second and third readings: ibid., 26 May 1843, 2, 15 June 1843, vol. 69, cc. 973, 1251-2, 1575-8. It was Worsley’s campaign that forced the other three Lincolnshire MPs (all Conservatives), to shift to abstention or outright opposition to Peel during the debates on protection in 1842-3.21Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 116-17.

In 1843 Worsley resumed his attempts to make commons enclosure cheaper and easier, which he argued would encourage agricultural improvement.22Hansard, 21 June 1843, 5 July 1843, vol. 70, cc. 182-5, 732-3. However, he abandoned the attempt after opposition from paternalist Tories and Radicals who argued that the bill would sanction a land grab at the expense of the customary rights of the poor.23He introduced two bills in 1843: CJ, xcviii. 310, 393, 419, 463; PP 1843 (309), i. 547-608; 1843 (341), i. 609-68. The following year he reintroduced his seventy page bill, but withdrew it in exchange for a select committee on the issue.24PP 1844 (69), i. 151-220; Hansard, 29 Feb. 1844, 13 Mar. 1844, vol. 73, cc. 421-7, 965-79; ibid., 27 June 1844, vol. 76, cc. 72-4; CJ, xcix. 71, 127-8, 366, 401, 449. The committee’s 1844 report, largely the work of Worsley, as chairman, recommended passing a general enclosure act, to be administered by a central commission, which would negate the need for expensive private and local legislation.25PP 1844 (583), v. 3-4. With Worsley’s approval, the measure was taken up by the Conservative government the following year and resulted in the Commons Inclosure Act (8 & 9 Vict., c. 118).26Hansard, 4 July 1845, vol. 82, c. 19; CJ, c. 607, 748, 907.

Against the wishes of many of his constituents, Worsley supported the Maynooth college bill, but remained critical of Peel’s Irish policy, especially his unwillingness to appropriate surplus Irish church revenues, 15 Apr. 1845.27Hansard, 15 Apr. 1845, vol. 79, cc. 735-7. When Peel proposed the repeal of the corn laws the following year, Worsley drew ‘cheers and great laughter’ from MPs by quoting the statesmen’s past protestations of support for protection, 10 Feb. 1846.28Hansard, 10 Feb. 1846, vol. 83, c. 702. He reserved his real scorn, however, for Conservative MPs, whose feeble line in 1842 had encouraged their leader to go much further.29Ibid., 703, 708. Although he remained steadfast in his opposition to the measure, Worsley wanted the issue to be settled, and for this reason preferred immediate abolition to Peel’s phased approach.30Ibid., 703-4; ibid., 2, 3 Mar. 1846, vol. 84, cc. 436, 571. Worsley’s last contribution in the House was his condemnation of the Irish arms bill, 15 June 1846.31Hansard, 15 June 1846, vol. 87, cc. 483-6. During his speech he declared that despite his differences with his party over the corn laws, Irish policy above all had kept him a Whig.32Ibid., 483-4.

Worsley succeeded his father as 2nd earl of Yarborough in September 1846, and his constituents presented him with a ‘most valuable piece of plate’ in recognition of his service.33Farmers’ Magazine (1862), xxi. 252. He never publicly renounced protection, but told farmers to look to new improving techniques, which he had extensively employed on his estates, rather than a restoration of the corn laws.34Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 121-2. For this reason, the protectionist whip Charles Beresford described him as an ‘arch humbug and agricultural impostor’.35Charles Beresford to Benjamin Disraeli, 21 Dec. 1849, Hughenden MSS, B/III/87, qu. by Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 125, n.15. Yarborough’s stance placed his nominee and successor in the representation, Sir Montague Cholmeley, in a very uncomfortable position and contributed to the baronet’s defeat in 1852.36Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 122-33. However, Yarborough regained and retained his family’s seat for his nominees at subsequent elections, partly thanks to the establishment of a local Liberal Association which, despite public appearances, he carefully managed.37Ibid., 149-54.

Yarborough rarely spoke in the Lords and it was fairly said that ‘he was not a great statesman, and only so much of a politician as his position when in the House of Commons obliged him to be’.38Farmers’ Magazine (1862), xxi. 252-3. He suffered an attack of paralysis in the 1850s and ‘never regained his health’, but still served as lord lieutenant of Lincolnshire from 1857 before dying after a prolonged illness in 1862.39The Times, 8 Jan. 1862; Morning Post, 8 Jan. 1862. He was succeeded as 3rd earl by his ‘less able and politically-minded son,’ Charles Anderson Pelham (1835-77), who as Lord Worsley sat as a Liberal for Great Grimsby, 1857-62.40Olney, Lincolnshire politics, 159. His election had been aided by his father’s traditional influence in the town, as well as Yarborough’s position as chairman of the local railway company.41Ibid., 5.