THOMPSON, Paul Beilby (1784-1852), of Escrick Park, Yorks. and 29 Berkeley Square, London, Mdx.

Seeking election for the East Riding of Yorkshire in 1832, Thompson declared himself ‘a consistent constitutional Whig, and an independent country gentleman’, and these principles guided his conduct during his five years in the Reformed Parliament. While generally supportive of Whig ministers, he was unafraid of voting against them, notably on agricultural questions and the Irish church. Yet he was sufficiently loyal to be rewarded with a peerage in 1839, two years after election defeat ended his Commons career.1Hull Packet, 25 Dec. 1832. The York Herald lauded him in 1840 as ‘kind and benevolent in his disposition, affable in his manners, and the staunch friend of constitutional liberty’.2York Herald, 1 Feb. 1840.

Born Paul Beilby Lawley, Thompson had changed his name in 1820 after succeeding to extensive estates at Escrick, Yorkshire, on the death of his maternal uncle Richard Thompson. These estates had previously been owned by Richard Thompson’s older brother, Beilby (1742-99), who had sat for Hedon, 1768-80, 1790-6, and Thirsk, 1780-4.3HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 421; Beilby Thompson (1742-99) is erroneously referred to here as Thompson’s great-uncle rather than his uncle. For the Thompson family tree, see G. Poulson, The history and antiquities of the seigniory of Holderness (1840), ii. 64. There was also a distinguished tradition of parliamentary service among the Lawley family, whose estates lay in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire. (Thompson was born in the first of these counties, at Canwell.4Boase, Modern English biography, iii. 171.) Thompson’s father, Sir Robert Lawley, 5th bt. (1736-93), had been Whig MP for Warwickshire, 1780-93, a constituency later represented by Thompson’s older brother Francis (1782-1851), 1820-32. His oldest brother, Sir Robert Lawley, 6th bt. (1768-1834), sat for Newcastle-under-Lyme, 1802-6, and successfully claimed the barony of Wenlock in 1831.5HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 393-4. Thompson, who later remarked that ‘from his earliest youth he had been a constitutional Whig’, unsuccessfully contested the borough of Wenlock in 1820.6York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. He was elected there with his brother’s support in 1826, and re-elected in 1830 and 1831. A silent member, he divided for Catholic relief and the Grey ministry’s reform bill.7HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 422-3.

Thompson had been mentioned as a possible candidate for Yorkshire in 1830,8York Herald, 10 July 1830. and when the county’s three Ridings were granted separate representation by the Reform Act, he was invited to offer for the East Riding, where his Escrick estates lay.9In 1873 Thompson’s son held a total of 19,453 acres in the East Riding: J.T. Ward, East Yorkshire landed estates in the nineteenth century (1967), 20. Described by the Leeds Mercury as a ‘strictly independent reformer’, his election address promised that his parliamentary conduct would continue to be ‘thoroughly unbiassed and independent’ and emphasised his ‘anxious desire to uphold a liberal and enlightened line of policy’.10Leeds Mercury, 1 Sept. 1832. At the nomination in December 1832, when he was returned unopposed alongside a Conservative, he was praised for his benevolence as a landlord. He ‘gloried’ in having backed parliamentary reform, and declared his support for ‘every measure tending to establish the rights of the people upon constitutional grounds, but he did not advocate changes where he did not believe they would be salutary’. While attached to the Church, he believed that ‘some small abuses’ needed to be removed and would consider the tithes question with an open mind.11Hull Packet, 25 Dec. 1832. He also spoke in favour of the abolition of slavery, free trade with India and China, reform of municipal corporations, retrenchment, reductions in taxation and reform of the criminal code.12York Herald, 22 Dec. 1832.

Addressing his constituents in 1835, Thompson noted his ‘inability to discharge the duty of publicly speaking in parliament for your advantage’.13Hull Packet, 16 Jan. 1835. Although silent in the chamber in this Parliament, he performed some useful service in the committee rooms. He sat on the committee on the Limerick election petition,14CJ, lxxxviii. 35. and was added to an inquiry which considered the differing weights and measures used for the sale of corn, 2 May 1834.15PP 1834 (517), vii. 2. He also served on the committee on the claims of the Baron de Bode against the French government regarding property in Alsace.16PP 1834 (583), xviii. 856. He joined his fellow East Riding MP, Richard Bethell, in promoting legislation for the benefit of their constituents. The bills with which he was involved included a measure for repairing the road between Hull and Beverley (3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 93),17CJ, lxxxviii. 48. and the Great Givendale Inclosure Act (3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 14), on which he and Bethell co-operated with Sir William Chaytor.18CJ, lxxxviii. 48-9, 422.

Although Thompson claimed after the close of this Parliament that he had been absent ‘not one day… on private business. He had not paired off once’, this exaggerated his assiduity.19York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. He was, for example, given three weeks leave of absence, 14 Mar. 1833, due to family illness, and was not unfailingly present for the remainder of that session.20CJ, lxxxviii. 167. In 1836 he left before the end of the session, visiting Germany for the benefit of his wife’s health: Morning Post, 29 Aug. 1836. When present, he gave general support to Whig ministers, voting against Radical motions on sinecures, 14 Feb. 1833, pensions, 18 Feb. 1834, and shorter parliaments, 15 May 1834. However, he demonstrated his independence when he entered the opposite lobby to divide for Chandos’s motion for relief to the agricultural interest, 21 Feb. 1834, and presented a petition to the same effect, 12 May 1834. In keeping with his constituency’s dependence on agriculture, he also voted against Hume’s motion for a low fixed duty on corn, 7 Mar. 1834. He joined the minority in support of the shipowner George Young’s protectionist motion for repeal of the Reciprocity of Duties Act, 5 June 1834. The following month he accompanied a deputation from Hull to the board of trade to protest against extending the system of bonded warehouses to inland towns.21Preston Chronicle, 12 July 1834. Outside Parliament he gave his support to a memorial to William Wilberforce following his death in 1833, which resulted in the creation of the Yorkshire School for the Blind,22The Standard, 5 Oct. 1833; Sheffield Independent, 7 Dec. 1833. and was involved with the Labourers’ Friend Society, which provided allotments for the poor.23Labourer’s Friend Society, for the purpose of disseminating knowledge beneficial to the farmer, the land-owner, the labourer, and our country (1832); York Herald, 21 Feb. 1835. In November 1833 he spoke in support of the candidature of his fellow Whig Thomas Dundas for a vacancy at York.24The Times, 12 Nov. 1833.

Seeking re-election in 1835 Thompson reiterated his position as ‘an independent country gentleman’ and ‘an impartial supporter of the late liberal and enlightened ministry’.25Hull Packet, 16 Jan. 1835. Yet although he was attached to many individuals in that ministry, notably Charles Wood, who spoke in his support at the nomination,26York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. he would ‘never… be their servile follower’, citing issues such as agricultural relief and Robert Cutlar Fergusson’s motion on Polish affairs, 9 July 1833, on which he had voted against ministers. Seeing his supporters with hat cards inscribed ‘Thompson, the friend of the farmers’, he assured them that he was ‘a sincere respecter of public opinion’.27Hull Packet, 16 Jan. 1835. He and Bethell again shared the representation without a contest, with The Times describing Thompson, who declared his attachment to ‘our monarchical and free institutions’,28York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. as ‘a Conservative Whig’.29The Times, 16 Jan. 1835.

Thompson’s conservatism was demonstrated early in the 1835 Parliament. Having divided against Peel’s ministry on the speakership, 19 Feb., the address, 26 Feb., and Chandos’s motion for repeal of the malt tax, 10 Mar. 1835, he entered the lobby with the Conservatives to vote against Russell’s motion on the Irish church, 2 Apr. 1835. The ‘pain’ he felt in diverging from his party prompted him to break his parliamentary silence, 1 Apr. 1835, when he spoke ‘if not wisely, at least fearlessly and independently’ to explain his reasons. He acknowledged that he might be considered ‘a rigid Protestant’, but cited his past support for Catholic emancipation. He believed it would be an injustice to Irish clergymen to appropriate the property of the Irish Church, and considered such appropriation ‘pregnant with danger to every other species of property’. The Morning Post praised him as ‘an honourable and upright Whig… whose conscientious sense of duty compelled him to desert his party upon this occasion’.30Morning Post, 2 Apr. 1835. Thompson’s East Riding supporters were less impressed: the York Courant reported that the ‘liberal electors… are so dissatisfied’ that they would not support him at the next election, despite the esteem in which he was held as a landlord and local benefactor.31York Courant, cited in York Herald, 2 May 1835.

Aside from this vote, Thompson divided mainly with the new Melbourne ministry, backing them on Irish municipal corporations in the 1836 session and voting against Radical motions on the abolition of military flogging, 13 Apr., and pensions, 19 Apr. 1836. At the annual meeting of the Yorkshire Central Agricultural Association in November 1835 he had declared his ‘unflinching, nay almost innate, attachment’ to the agricultural interest and promised to do all in his power to secure relief for them.32The Times, 17 Nov. 1835. He kept this pledge with his vote for Chandos’s relief motion, 27 Apr. 1836. His committee service was confined to the inquiry in 1836 into harbours of refuge on England’s north-eastern coast, chaired by his colleague Bethell.33PP 1836 (334), xx. 388. He joined Bethell as a teller for the second reading of the Bridlington harbour bill, 14 Mar. 1836, which was defeated by 83 votes to 106. He made his second and final speech of this Parliament in support of the same measure, 8 May 1837.

At the 1837 general election Thompson noted that he and Bethell had ‘acted in the most perfect unanimity and good feeling, for the last five years’. He was therefore ‘bereft’ and ‘injured’ that their shared representation of the East Riding was under threat, the Conservatives having fielded a second candidate alongside Bethell (to the latter’s distaste).34Leeds Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837. While Thompson’s ‘great misery and wretchedness’ at the ‘coalition against him’ dominated his hustings speech, he declared himself ‘an independent supporter of the present government’, who was attached to the Protestant Church and the existing corn laws.35Hull Packet, 4 Aug. 1837. He favoured reform ‘so long as it does not interfere dangerously with the existing institutions of the country’.36Leeds Mercury, 5 Aug. 1837. He was edged into third place in the poll behind the two Conservatives. Although at the declaration he claimed that he had already forgotten his ‘angry and disturbed feelings’, it was clear that this electoral upset rankled for some years to come. In 1840, speaking at Filey, he referred to the ‘treachery’ and ‘dissimulation’ of his opponents,37York Herald, 26 Sept. 1840. and the Conservative Hull Packet claimed that all his speeches since 1837 had contained ‘pathetic and lachrymose declarations’ about the unfairness of his defeat.38Hull Packet, 2 Oct. 1840. Yet the efforts made on his behalf in the registration courts in 1838 suggested that he had not abandoned hopes of regaining his seat.39The Times, 4 Oct. 1838.

There were, however, rumours in April 1838 that rather than returning to the Commons, Thompson would be elevated to the Lords as one of the coronation peers.40The Times, 16 Apr. 1838. There was said to be a condition attached, with Thompson asked to ‘defray the expenses’ of a Liberal election petition at Hull. Thompson was reported to have initially demurred, but then agreed.41Morning Post, 11 May 1838. Yet while he did, according to The Times, assist with the petition costs, said to total £50,000, his peerage was not immediately forthcoming.42Bradford Observer, 26 Apr. 1838. Not until May 1839 was he created Baron Wenlock, reviving a family title which had been in abeyance since his brother’s death without issue in 1834. The following month he resumed the name of Lawley in addition to Thompson.43HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 421, 423. His votes in the Lords ‘were always with the Reform party’, according to one obituary.44York Herald, 15 May 1852.

Wenlock continued to play a significant part in local public life. Having attended the first annual meeting of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society in 1838, he maintained his involvement with that body, as well as with local agricultural societies.45Hull Packet, 31 Aug. 1838; The Standard, 10 Aug. 1847. He was ‘a generous patron of the great Church societies and all the local charities in Yorkshire’, and established and maintained village schools on his estates, being ‘a zealous advocate for the extension of sound learning and religious education’.46Gent. Mag. (1852), i. 618. He contributed to the decoration and preservation of at least 12 Protestant churches on his estates,47Morning Chronicle, 17 Aug. 1837. He gave £200 towards the restoration of York minster in 1840: The Standard, 29 June 1840. and was patron of the livings of Escrick and Long Marston.48S. Lewis, A topographical dictionary of England (1844), ii. 181; iii. 255. In 1840 he sold his Beilby Grange estate near Wetherby for 60,000 guineas.49Caledonian Mercury, 15 June 1840. That January he was appointed lord lieutenant of the East Riding,50Morning Chronicle, 30 Jan. 1840. but retired in 1847 due to ‘declining health’.51Gent. Mag. (1852), i. 618. Thereafter ‘advancing age’ curtailed his public activities.52York Herald, 15 May 1852. In 1851 he succeeded his brother Francis to the Lawley baronetcy.53HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 421.

Having ‘been labouring under indisposition for some time’, Wenlock died at Escrick Park in May 1852.54York Herald, 15 May 1852. Despite his wish for a private funeral at Escrick parish church, where he was buried in the family vault, large numbers came to pay their respects.55York Herald, 22 May 1852. The church was ‘wholly rebuilt’ in 1856-7 as a tribute to him.56York Herald, 4 July 1857. He was succeeded in his titles and his entailed estates by his eldest son, Beilby Richard Lawley (1818-80), who had been elected as Liberal MP for Pontefract the previous year.57His children had retained the surname Lawley when Wenlock changed his name in 1820 and 1839. He left personal estate valued at £45,000. His will made provision for his wife (d. 2 May 1868) and his younger sons and daughter, settling estates at Stillingfleet and Kelfield on them.58Illustrated London News, 28 Aug. 1852. His youngest son, Francis Charles Lawley (1825-1901), became an MP shortly after his father’s death, sitting as a Liberal for Beverley, 1852-4, but his fondness for the Turf embroiled him in gambling debts and stock market speculations which ended his promising political career. Wenlock’s only daughter, Jane, married James Archibald Stuart-Wortley, MP for Halifax, 1835-7, and Buteshire, 1842-9. Their son, Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, was Conservative MP for Sheffield, 1880-5, and Sheffield Hallam, 1885-1916, while another of Wenlock’s grandsons, Beilby Lawley, sat briefly as Liberal MP for Chester in 1880, before being unseated on petition. Family and estate papers, including some of Wenlock’s correspondence, are held by Hull University Archives.