HOULDSWORTH, Thomas (1771-1852), of Portland Place, Manchester and Sherwood Hall, Nottinghamshire

Known for his ‘genial and popular personality’, Houldsworth, who represented Nottinghamshire North in the Conservative interest for two decades, was a self-made entrepreneur.1W. Houldsworth Macleod, The beginnings of the Houldsworths of Coltness (1937), 113-4. The second son of a Nottinghamshire yeoman farmer, Houldsworth served an apprenticeship in a surveyor’s office in Nottingham before leaving for Jamaica with his elder brother William, who had inherited an estate there from a paternal uncle. After swiftly selling the property, they returned to England, and on the advice of their younger brother, Henry, who had moved to Manchester to learn the cotton trade, the three brothers used the capital to establish Houldsworth’s cotton spinning factory on Little Lever Street.2D.C. McConnel, Facts and traditions collected for a family record (1861), 152-3. According to the family historian, the ‘attractions of Manchester exerted such an irresistible spell upon “Tom”’, and after a difficult start, the business flourished.3Houldsworth Macleod, Houldsworths, 114. In 1800 Thomas became the sole owner, established further branches in Pontefract and Glasgow, and by 1816 the Manchester factory employed 622 people.4R.S. Fitton, The Arkwrights: spinners of fortune (1989), 150-1. Flushed with success, Houldsworth purchased Sherwood Hall in his native Nottinghamshire, where he indulged his passion for racehorses. Though he reputedly never bet himself, he had numerous successes on the turf, and in 1816 one of his horses won the Derby.5Houldsworth Macleod, Houldsworths, 114.

Houldsworth was first returned to Parliament in 1818 as member for Pontefract and gave steady, though independent support to Liverpool’s ministry. In 1830 he retired from Pontefract to come in for Newton, allegedly given the seat in compensation by one of his debtors, Thomas Legh of Lyme, Cheshire, who owned most of the property in the borough. He was a consistent opponent of the Grey ministry’s reform bill.6HP Commons, 1820-1832, v. 716-8.

With Newton disfranchised by the Reform Act, Houldsworth offered for his native North Nottinghamshire at the 1832 general election. Although he came forward as a Conservative, his candidature caused some discomfort to the fourth duke of Newcastle, one of the county’s dominant landowners, who commented that:

He is a loyal and sound man, but as a fit representative of the landed interest, it is not a little burlesque [that] not many years ago he was a common thread spinner at Nottingham. Now certainly he is a most wealthy man possessing probably £30,000 a year or even more – all made by spinning which he carries forward to a great extent at where he lives (Manchester), but yet representing a part of Notts! What a change in affairs! Where are the gentry and where are their means?7Unhappy reactionary: the diaries of the fourth duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1822-1850 (2003), ed. R.A. Gaunt, 46-7.

Riding to the nomination on one of his own horses and sporting a ‘curly brimmed beaver’, Houldsworth’s presence appeared to irk some of the division’s non-electors, and on polling day his supporters were violently attacked.8Houldsworth Macleod, Houldsworths, 117-8. However, following a hard fought contest, he was elected in second place, comfortably defeating his Radical opponent.9Sheffield Independent, 22 Dec. 1832.

Houldsworth’s dedication to his business interests and his penchant for the turf resulted in a notably lacklustre parliamentary career. He rarely spoke and, despite his undoubted expertise on manufacturing issues, he is not known to have served on any select committees. His poor attendance in the 1833 and 1834 sessions made it difficult to discern his precise political loyalties, though he voted for currency reform, 24 Apr. 1833, and Althorp’s motion to replace church rates with a land tax, 21 Apr. 1834.10R. Gooch, The book of the reformed Parliament: being a synopsis of the votes of the reformed House of Commons (1834), 20-21, 42-3. He also intervened in a debate on the contested Liverpool election to argue that unrestricted paper circulation ‘increased the price of votes as well as of every other commodity’, 4 July 1833.

At the 1835 general election he declared that he would give Peel’s ministry ‘a fair trial’, though he warned that ‘if they do not please me, I will not support them’.11Parliamentary test book (1835), 84-5. Re-elected unopposed, he backed Manners Sutton for the speakership, 19 Feb. 1835, voted with the ministry on the address, 26 Feb., and opposed Irish church appropriation, 2 Apr., the issue which caused the collapse of Peel’s short-lived administration. Thereafter he steadily opposed the Melbourne ministry on most major issues, and voted against the ballot, 7 Mar. 1837. In his last known contribution of the post-Reform era, he called for the inclusion of the stamping clause in the weights and measures bill, 4 Aug. 1835.

He was again re-elected without opposition in 1837, but rarely attended in the following years, instead focusing on his commercial concerns which now included a cotton mill at Rocester, Staffordshire, and the Coltness iron works, which he established in 1837.12Fitton, Arkwrights, 178. In a rare Commons appearance, he voted for Peel’s motion of no confidence in the Whig ministry, 4 June 1841.

At the 1841 general election, when he was returned unopposed, Houldsworth spoke out against a fixed duty on corn, arguing that it would seriously injure agricultural interests and be of little use to manufacturers.13The Times, 8 July 1841. A more regular presence in the division lobbies than had hitherto been the case, he backed Peel’s proposal for a sliding scale of duties on corn, 9 Mar. 1842, voted against corn law repeal, 15 May 1843, and consistently opposed motions to consider the state of Ireland.

On the 1844 factory bill, Houldsworth voted in the minority with Peel for a maximum twelve, rather than ten, hour day for young children and women, 22 Mar. 1844. He was, though, generally supportive of state regulation of factories, and opposed Roebuck’s motion against legislative interference in the hours adults could work, 3 May 1844. Despite his background as a prosperous Manchester-based cotton manufacturer, he voted against corn law repeal, 27 Mar. 1846, 15 May 1846. He voted with Peel, though, in opposing the factory bill, 22 May 1846.

At the 1847 general election Houldsworth regretted that his ‘exertions’ had not prevented the repeal of the corn laws, but pledged to continue to ‘uphold protectionist principles, and oppose principles of innovation, both in church and state’.14Morning Post, 4 Aug. 1847. He was returned unopposed. Now in his late seventies, he rarely attended, though he was present to vote in a small minority against a clause in the factories bill which aimed to prevent women and children working in ‘relays’ throughout the night, 6 June 1850.15In the 1849 session he was present for only 13 out of 219 divisions: Hampshire Telegraph, 20 Oct. 1849. He retired at the dissolution in 1852.

Houldsworth died without issue at his residence at Portland Place, Manchester, in September 1852.16Gent. Mag. (1852), ii. 427. His cotton mills in Manchester and Rocester, which were valued at £110,616 16s. 2d. at his death, passed to his nephew, Henry Houldsworth (1797-1868), best known for introducing the differential gear to roving frames in Britain.17Fitton, Arkwrights, 178; Biographical dictionary of the history of technology (2003), ed. L. Day and I. McNeil, 616. Henry Houldsworth’s son, William Henry, who subsequently took over the family firm, was Conservative MP for Manchester North West, 1883-1906, and was created a baronet in 1887.18A.C. Howe, ‘Houldsworth, Sir William Henry, first baronet (1834-1917)’, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com. A small selection of Houldsworth’s correspondence with the fourth duke of Newcastle is held by the University of Nottingham.19Nottingham Univ. Lib., Special Collections, Ne C 4914, 7589, 8334, 8345.