RIDLEY (I), Sir Matthew White, 3rd bt. (1778-1836), of Heaton Hall, Northumb.; Blagdon, Northumb. and 10 Carlton House Terrace, London, Mdx.

Described by Joseph Hume as ‘a loose fish’ whose votes could not be trusted, Sir Matthew White Ridley began his parliamentary career as a constitutional Whig before going over to the Conservatives in 1835.1Hansard, 27 Feb. 1835, vol. 26, c. 430. His relatives having represented Newcastle-upon-Tyne since 1747, Ridley was born into one of the dominant families of the region, and inherited 30,000 acres in Northumberland and valuable investments in the coal, glass and brewing industries. A senior partner in the Newcastle Old Bank of Ridley, Bigge and Co., Ridley entered parliament in 1812, where he became a keen debater who ‘rarely missed a division’.2HP Commons, 1790-1820, v. 20. A staunch supporter of Lord Grey, with whom he corresponded on Northumberland politics, Ridley gained a reputation as ‘a sincere and practical reformer’ in the pre-Reform parliament, though according to the Whig barrister James Losh, who compared him unfavourably with his younger brother Nicholas Ridley Colborne, MP for Wells, 1834-7, he was ‘an opulent man with moderate talents, labouring to be thought a person of consequence’.3Quoted in HP Commons, 1820-32, vi, 962: ‘Ridley, Sir Matthew White’.

Defending his seat at the 1832 general election, Ridley expressed his support for a further extension of the franchise and called for the abolition of the window and house tax. Though returned at the top of the poll, his popularity amongst his constituents, which had long been a source of concern to his agents,4HP Commons, 1820-32, vi, 969. appeared to dwindle further, as he was condemned for his opposition to the immediate and total abolition of slavery, and for favouring a fixed duty on corn.5Newcastle Courant, 15 Dec. 1832. Ridley was a frequent speaker in the first post-Reform parliament, and remained loyal to Grey, consistently voting for the Irish coercion bill, in addition to supporting the government over the sentencing of the Dorchester labourers, 18 Apr. 1834, and dividing in the minority with Grey, Lord Stanley and Peel on Althorp’s motion to use the land tax to support the established church in the event of church rates being abolished, 21 Apr. 1834. Serving on the select committee on municipal corporations, Ridley supported reform of local government, and assured the House that the Newcastle corporation ‘courted the fullest inquiry’.6PP 1833 (344), xiii. 2; Hansard, 14 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc. 651-2. On religious reform, however, he seemed more equivocal, dividing in the minority against the Jewish disabilities bill, 22 July 1833, and opposing the religious assemblies bill, which proposed to remove the limit placed on the number of people who could legally congregate at a house for worship, as he believed it was the ‘first step towards sapping the foundation of the established church’.7Hansard, 14 May 1834, vol. 23, c. 1004. See also Ibid. 11 June 1834, vol. 24, c. 364.

At the 1835 general election Ridley was roundly criticised by his constituents over his voting record and attendance, and forced to deny he had been ‘idle, inattentive, or absent’.8Newcastle Courant, 10 Jan. 1835. His reputation in Newcastle then reached a new low when it was rumoured that he sought elevation to the Lords.9Morning Chronicle, 2 Mar. 1835. Basing his appeal to the electorate largely on his previous service, he was returned in second place, but the equivocal nature of his campaign speeches, which included the assertion that he would not ‘go into parliament fettered by a pledge to support or oppose indiscriminately’,10Parliamentary Test Book (1835), 135. led the Examiner to categorise him as one of the ‘Doubtful men’ elected in 1835, stating that ‘we have no reliance upon him in any great questions’.11Examiner, 8 Feb. 1835. Also, on Feb. 12 1835, Lord Howick wrote to Ridley, stating ‘I believe you are like myself one of those who did not altogether approve of some of the measures of the last government’. Northumb. RO, Ridley (Blagdon), Mss. ZRI 25/75 Supporting Peel’s choice for Speaker, 19. Feb 1835, and dividing in the minority with his short-lived ministry on the amendment to the address, 26 Feb. 1835, there was little doubt where Ridley’s loyalties now lay.12On 3 Feb. 1835, Ridley had written to Lord John Russell, informing him that as Manners Sutton was made speaker by the late government, he did not see how Russell could now support Abercromby. Ridley concluded by stating Manners Sutton was the ‘most fit and proper person’ to be speaker. Northumb. RO, Ridley (Blagdon) Mss. ZRI 25/75. Consequently, on 27 Feb. 1835, Joseph Hume rebuked Ridley in the House, denouncing his principles as ‘always uncertain and unsteady’ and protesting that his votes ‘could never be ascertained until after the division’.13Hansard, 27 Feb. 1835, vol. 26, c. 430. Defending his principles, Ridley stressed that he ‘continued to be a sincere and constitutional Whig, and as sincere a reformer as [Hume], or any other member of the House’,14Hansard, 27 Feb. 1835, vol. 26, c. 452. though he admitted that, along with Sir James Graham and Hughes Hughes, he had attended a meeting at Lord Stanley’s house on 24 Feb., reportedly held for those who ‘did not belong’ to the ‘extremes of either party’,15Morning Chronicle, 27 Feb. 1835. and that ‘he fully acquiesced in the opinions [Stanley] entertained upon all general subjects of Reform’.16Hansard, 27 Feb. 1835, vol. 26, c. 451. This rather ambiguous defence of his political loyalties was seized upon by an anonymous correspondent, who, in a published letter to Ridley, savaged his political abilities, writing that ‘your head was never famous for its strength’. Insinuating that he had abandoned the Whigs because he was not made a peer, the correspondent went on to state that ‘yours is one of the most ordinary heads going – accordingly it was far the most easily turned’.17Morning Chronicle, 2 Mar. 1835. Despite this vitriolic attack, however, Ridley continued his dissidence, following Stanley and Graham into the government lobby over Lord John Russell’s motion on Irish church appropriation, 2 Apr. 1835.

Ridley continued to divide with Peel and Stanley following the reappointment of Melbourne as premier, particularly on corporation reform. He was in the minority for a Conservative motion to give freemen with votes in parliamentary elections the municipal franchise, and moved an amendment that the proposed legislation should not alter the private property of existing corporations, which was withdrawn, 3 July. He defended the rights of freemen again, 16 July, declaring that their ‘birthrights and privileges … ought to be preserved’,18Hansard, 16 July 1835, vol. 29, c. 676. and defeated on municipal reform, Ridley was one of a ‘half-dozen’ MPs who followed Stanley to the opposition benches in July 1835. Despite Ridley’s obvious support for Stanley, he is not listed as a member of the ‘Derby Dilly’ in R. Stewart’s study of the Conservative party,19R. Stewart, The foundation of the Conservative Party, 1830-1867 (1978), Appendix 3 and 4, 376-8. but his correspondence with Stanley the following January, cited by A. Hawkins, appears to suggest he was a member at that later stage.20A. Hawkins, The forgotten prime minister: the 14th Earl of Derby. Volume i: Ascent, 1799-1851 (2007), 175, 179. Ridley certainly supported Peel, and after privately explaining his reasoning to him, he opposed Lord John Russell’s commutation of tithes bill, 22 Feb. 1836, and, backing the removal of additional duty on spirit licences, divided against ministers, 10 Mar.21BL Add. MSS 40415, ff. 219, 221. His conversion to the Conservatives now beyond doubt, Ridley continued to assiduously carry out his parliamentary duties, serving on select committees on harbours of refuge, the record commission, and the coal trade.22PP 1836 (429), xx. 398; PP 1836 (429), xvi. 2; PP 1836 (522), xi. 169.

While staying at Richmond, Surrey, Ridley died suddenly of apoplexy in July 1836, and was succeeded in the baronetcy and to his estates, bank and business by his eldest son Matthew, who subsequently severed all ties with the family business and declined an offer to stand for Parliament in his father’s place. His refusal broke the 89-year long representation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne by the Ridleys, though he later represented Northumberland North as a Conservative, 1859-80.23HP Commons, 1820-32, vi, 971. In St. Nicholas’s church, Newcastle, there still hangs a painting of Christ washing the Apostle’s feet by Tintoretto, donated by Ridley in 1818, and his papers are located in the Northumberland record office.24Northumb. RO, Ridley (Blagdon) Mss.