SPENCER, John Charles, Visct. Althorp (1782-1845), of 12 Downing Street, London; Wiseton Hall, nr. East Retford, Notts. and Althorp Park, Northants.

Renowned for his role in the passage of the 1832 Reform Act, Viscount Althorp was chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the Commons between 1832 and 1834. His devotion to public service, and the relative inactivity of his cabinet colleagues in the Commons meant that he bore the brunt of the Grey ministry’s ambitious reform agenda, pushing his imperfect parliamentary skillset to the utmost of its limits.1This article draws on the excellent E. A. Wasson, Whig Renaissance: Lord Althorp and the Whig Party, 1782-1845 (1987).

Althorp was a deeply religious politician, who in 1834 professed that the ‘one object … worthy of the ambition of a man of sense … [is] to obtain the favour of God’.2D. Le Marchant, Memoirs of Viscount Althorp (1876), xv-xvi. Historians have attributed his evangelical conviction to the death of his wife during childbirth in 1818, following which, it is generally agreed, he ‘surrendered himself to God’s will’ and sought salvation through public service.3HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 199-235; E. A. Wasson,Whig Renaissance: Lord Althorp and the Whig Party, 1782-1845(1987); E. A. Wasson, ‘Spencer, John Charles (1782-1845)’, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com; R. Brent, Liberal Anglican Politics: Whiggery, Religion, and Reform 1830-1841 (1987), 37,-41 73, 127-9; P. Mandler, Aristocratic Government in the Age of Reform (1990), 87-96, 276; B. Hilton, A Mad, Bad and Dangerous People? (2008), 516-24. He had sat for fourteen years prior to this, establishing himself as an accomplished moderator of the various Whig factions at Westminster. Although it was widely accepted that his oratory lacked elegance – one contemporary went so far as to consider him ‘one of the worst speakers in the house’4J. Grant, Random Recollections of the House of Commons (1837), 178. – the good favour he had curried led to frequent calls for him to lead the Whig party in the Commons from 1818.5HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 199; Wasson, ‘Spencer’, Oxf. DNB. It was not until March 1830, however, that he formally agreed to act as the leader of an organised opposition – and when he did, it was on the basis that he would only co-ordinate members over retrenchment and the reduction of taxes.6HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 212. When Lord Grey was asked to form a government in November that year, a reluctant Althorp refused his offer of the premiership, but accepted the role of chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the Commons. Although his first budget proved a notable disaster, his ‘loose and unassertive’ style of parliamentary management and his ‘mastery’ for the detail of committee work became crucial in securing the 1832 Reform Act.7HP Commons, 1820-32, vii. 215; Wasson, ‘Spencer’, Oxf. DNB.

The death of Althorp’s wife had also prompted an about turn in his public life outside of Westminster. A previous passion for foxhunting (which he arguably attributed more importance to than politics prior to 1818) was supplanted by a commitment to the development of scientific approaches to agriculture – particularly cattle breeding which he reinvigorated national interest in through his presidency of the Smithfield Cattle Club from 1825 – and educational philanthropy through London University and the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.8Wasson, ‘Spencer’, Oxf. DNB; Mandler, Aristocratic Government, 90-92; R. Ashton, Victorian Bloomsbury (2012), 73, 77-8. Both endeavours were underpinned by his interest in political economy, and he had been an active founding member in 1823 of the Political Economy Club.9Wasson, ‘Spencer’, Oxf. DNB.

Physically, he cut a stout figure, and dressed throughout the year ‘as if he had been wintering in the neighbourhood of the North Pole’– usually in black (which he wore in mourning for his wife) aside from a light coloured double-breasted cashmere waistcoat which he always wore buttoned to the neck.10Grant, Random Recollections, 179. During debates, Althorp spoke slowly, in ‘so low a tone, that it was often impossible to hear him at any distance’. This did little to endear him to parliamentary reporters’, among whom it was a ‘subject of general wonder … that he should ever have been put forward as the leader of the Ministerial party’. Nevertheless, his ‘good natured’ and ‘inoffensive’ manner endeared him to a wide cross-section of the Commons, particularly those wary of new members and their increasing desire for speechifying.11Ibid, 178-81; A. Hawkins, Victorian Political Culture (2015), 56.

The impartial manner in which Althorp’s land conveyancer, John George Shaw Lefevre, had divided Northamptonshire for the 1832 Boundary Act meant that the Spencer estate stretched across both the northern and southern divisions of the reformed county.12M. Spychal, ‘Constructing the electoral map: parliamentary boundaries and the 1832 Reform Act’ (PhD thesis, University of London, in preparation); Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 249. Fearing a repeat of the county’s expensive 1831 contest, and after receiving invitations to stand expense free for both Glasgow and Tower Hamlets, a cost-conscious Althorp hesitantly agreed to stand for Northamptonshire South in 1832 following assurances from fellow Northamptonshire Whigs, Viscount Milton and Lord Euston, that they would not offer for the division.13Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 248-251; N. Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel (1964), 244-5. These negotiations helped to ensure he was returned unopposed at the election, when he confirmed the government’s commitment to widespread institutional reform, retrenchment and the finality of the Reform Act. Pressed by a member of the crowd at the hustings, he also pronounced the need for a review of the corn laws, but indicated that the issue was not a priority for the government.14Northampton Mercury, 8 Dec., 22 Dec. 1832.

Althorp’s parliamentary activity during 1833 allows him fair claim to the title of hardest working member for any given year in the history of the Commons. The first session of the reformed parliament was one of the longest of the nineteenth century, and as leader of the Commons and chancellor of the exchequer he took almost sole responsibility for stewarding one of the most ambitious packages of reform that have ever been introduced in a single session. Remarkably, during 1833 he made 447 recorded speeches. The rest of the cabinet combined only spoke 362 times in the Commons, and Daniel O’Connell (343 speeches) and Joseph Hume (278 speeches) were the only members whose speaking records came close to Althorp’s.15Stanley spoke 173 times, Russell 57 times, Grant 32 times, Littleton 28 times, Graham 25 times, Palmerston 24 times and Ellice 23 times. Compiled from Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, xx. General Index. As well as assiduously defending the Grey ministry’s reform agenda, he played a pivotal role in the drafting of legislation and continued his pre-1832 devotion to committee work – sitting on eight select committees, including the major investigations into the state of manufacturing, commerce and shipping, the condition of agriculture and the Metropolitan Police response to the Cold Bath Fields riot.16The 1833 session sat for 146 days (not 144 as indicated in C. Cook & B. Keith, British Historical Facts, (London, 1975), 100), which was only bettered six times prior to 1900. The session’s average daily sitting length of over 9 hours 33 minutes was never matched during the century, XX; PP 1833 (612), v. 1; (690) vi. 1; (646) vii. 779; (2) (44), xii. 153, 487; (718), xiii. 589; (676) xiv. 67; (673) (674), xvi. 39, 99; Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 248-289, P. Jupp, British Politics in the Age of Reform (1998), 223-4. His workload prompted regular complaints of exhaustion, threats of resignation and resentment towards his ministerial colleagues, and within six weeks of the opening of parliament, he was praying to be side-lined by a fit of gout in order that ‘Grant, Palmerston, and Graham, who now never opened their lips, would be forced to speak’.17Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 281. Unsurprisingly, Althorp voted with the government on all significant divisions throughout the reformed parliament. He voted against every major radical motion of the parliament, including Hume’s resolution in favour of the abolition of sinecures and pension, 14 Feb. 1833, Hume’s motion to abolish military flogging, 2 Apr. 1833, Grote’s ballot motion, 25 Apr. 1833, and Tennyson’s motion for shorter parliaments, 15 May 1834. Although Althorp had expressed his willingness to consider corn law reform in public, he voted against motions for a low fixed duty in both years of the parliament, 17 May 1833, 7 Mar. 1834.

Despite this daily attendance and dedicated defence of the Whig reform agenda, he has not escaped criticism from historians. Parry has argued that his reticent leadership meant the Grey ministry only ‘just kept its head above water’ in the reformed Commons, and Newbould has suggested that Althorp’s unwillingness to implement formal procedures for the management of MPs after 1832 led to unnecessary government losses in the division lobbies.18J. Parry, The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian England (1993), 105; I. Newbould, ‘Whiggery and the growth of party 1830-1841: organisation and the challenge of reform’, Parliamentary History, 4 (1985), 142-3. Certainly, Althorp’s conscious strategy of occupying the centre ground, disdain for organisation and lack of confidence in his own ability to influence the government’s agenda, laid the administration open to challenges across the political spectrum – from the forces of conservatism both on the opposition benches and within the cabinet, as well as from radicals and Irish MPs, who remained sceptical about the ambition of the government.

Althorp’s main legislative preoccupations during 1833 were the public finances, Ireland, the abolition of slavery and the factory bill. The financial measures passed by Althorp during 1833 – the budget; his continued focus, where possible, on a reduction of government expenditure; the Bank Charter Act and the East India Company Charter Act – have been identified as major innovations that laid the foundations for the nineteenth-century ‘rationalisation of the Treasury’.19Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 261-2. Such long-term horizons mattered little at the time, however, as the extent of commercial and agricultural distress following the winter of 1832 placed Althorp under increased pressure ahead of his 1833 budget to satisfy both urban radicals – who desired a faster pace of tax reductions – and the landed interest – who sought a repeal of the malt duty. Althorp’s inability to satisfy either faction with his budget, 19 Apr. 1833, prompted the first major challenge to the government’s authority that session, when radical and Irish MPs coalesced with the landed interest and backed Ingilby’s motion to repeal the malt taxes, 26 Apr. 1833. The government was defeated by ten votes, which Althorp initially viewed as a vote of no confidence. He initially threatened to resign, but was talked down by Grey, in whose presence it was later said that during 1833 Althorp had ‘no will of his own’.20Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 257, 276; Parry, Rise and Fall, 105-6.

Ireland proved a constant source of difficulty for Althorp during the first year of the reformed parliament. He had already threatened to resign from the cabinet before the 1832 general election, after he discovered in October 1832 that Stanley’s draft Irish temporalities bill failed to end the maintenance of Protestant clergymen in entirely Catholic parishes, and lacked provision for the appropriation of funds for secular education.21Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 276-7. Grey, however, convinced Althorp into not only supporting, but introducing the bill as a conciliatory measure to accompany a new Irish coercion bill, which Grey, Stanley and Melbourne felt necessary to suppress an increase in Irish disturbances that winter. Althorp did help to make several amendments to Stanley’s original bill, and when he announced it to the Commons, 12 Feb. 1833, his somewhat generous portrayal of the bill’s reforming intentions helped secure the support of Irish and radical MPs. The same cannot be said for Althorp’s reluctant, bungled, introduction of the Irish coercion bill, 27 Feb. 1833. He struggled to reconcile his conscience to the severity of the bill, which proved deeply unpopular amongst Irish MPs, radicals and the liberal press, and without consulting the cabinet (and perhaps by mistake), announced that the bill would not allow prosecution for the non-payment of tithes, 18 Mar 1833.22Ibid, 282. This statement proved significant as it placed Althorp at odds with Stanley, the latter getting his revenge later that year when he successfully removed clause 147 (which effectively sanctioned the principle of appropriation) from the Irish temporalities bill, 21 June 1833.23A. Aspinall, Three Early Nineteenth Century Diaries (1952), 350; A. Hawkins, The Forgotten Prime Minister: The 14th Earl of Derby, (2009), i. 133. Stanley’s amendment, which was supported by Grey and made whilst Althorp, who ironically had been praying for a bout of illness all year in order to have some rest, had taken to his sickbed, further soured cabinet relations and those between the government, radicals and Irish MPs by the end of 1833.24Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 283-5.

Althorp had been involved in preparing an abolition of slavery bill from January 1833, and whilst he was aware of the difficulty of convincing colonists to accept such a measure, had been in favour of Viscount Howick’s plan for almost unqualified emancipation with some compensation, which had been drawn up prior to Stanley’s appointment to the colonial office in April 1833.25Ibid, 263-5. In May Althorp managed to convince most Whig MPs to fall in line behind Stanley’s more moderate bill (which initially entailed a twelve year apprenticeship period and an extensive compensation scheme), but from then was granted the rare luxury of taking a back seat over government legislation, as the new colonial secretary steered the bill through the Commons.

In July that year, Althorp hijacked Lord Ashley’s factories bill, which would later became known as ‘Althorp’s Act’. In a move that he hoped would secure the support of manufacturers, he moderated Ashley’s bill so that only children between the ages of nine and thirteen (rather than eighteen) would be restricted to nine-hour days, and those aged between thirteen and eighteen would be restricted to twelve-hour days, 5 July 1833. Whilst Althorp made no attempt to restrict the ‘relay’ system of using multiple shifts of children in his bill, his establishment of a factory inspectorate and insistence that employers give two hours a day of educational provision to children are considered by historians as significant achievements.26Ibid, 266-7.

Althorp informed Grey on 6 Mar. 1834 that 1834 would be his last year as leader of the Commons.27Ibid, 291-3. This followed a hectic month in the Commons for Althorp, during which he had been involved in a major row with the Irish MP Richard Lalor Sheil over the latter’s alleged private support for the Irish coercion bill, which led to preparations for a duel, 5 Feb. He had announced the abolition of the house tax in his budget, 14 Feb., and decided to ‘pocket his conscience’ and vote against Hume’s motion for a fixed low duty on corn, 7 Mar. 1834. He made 315 recorded speeches during the year, which although less than in 1833 was still considerably more than the next most frequent speaker, O’Connell, who spoke 223 times. Fortunately for Althorp, the rest of the cabinet pulled comparatively more weight and collectively made 359 speeches, thanks primarily to the new Irish secretary Edward Littleton who made 88 contributions that year.28Stanley spoke 68 times, Russell 56, Grant 9, Littleton 88, Graham 46, Palmerston 29, Ellice 39, Spring Rice 24, compiled from Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, xxv. General Index. Althorp sat on ten select committees during his last year in the Commons, including the extended inquiries into county rates, the hand-loom weavers’ petitions and drunkenness.29PP 1834 (559) (601), viii. 1, 315; (147) (284) (438) (540), xi. 1, 317, 325, 333; (542), xiv. 1; (279), xvii. 87; (362) (560) xviii. 91, 199.

During April, Althorp was forced to abandon his plans for an English tithe bill (which would have ended payments in kind) and for the abolition of church rates (he proposed to transfer funding for the upkeep of Church property to the central budget), as the cabinet decided that both were too controversial. The former was announced, 15 Apr., but never introduced as a bill, and the latter entered committee, securing Tory support but significantly not that of Dissenting MPs, 21 Apr. 1834.30Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 294-5. This allowed him to focus on the development of a poor law amendment bill, with poor law commissioners Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick. He proved the most vocal advocate in the cabinet, and in public, of the commission’s recommendation for the institution of workhouses (later termed ‘Althorp Bastilles’) managed by poor law unions and supervised by a permanent central commission. His active public support for the bill provoked the wrath of Fleet Street, and in particular the editor of The Times, Thomas Barnes, who resumed his character assassination of Althorp that he had commenced during the reform bill debates over the division of counties.31M. Spychal, ‘Constructing England’s Electoral Map’. As in 1831, the chancellor of the exchequer refused to pander to Barnes, who by July had shifted his vitriol to Brougham, after the paper’s attacks on an evidently still popular Althorp had led to a reduction in its circulation.32Anon, The History of the Times: ‘The Thunderer’ in the Making 1785-1841 (1935), 285-311; Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 300-1. Althorp’s devotion to the bill secured its third reading with most of the commission’s recommendations intact, 1 July 1834. Historians have clashed over whether the new poor law should be considered an attempt to preserve a system of aristocratic deference or a pivotal moment in the development of the ‘modern’ centralised state.33A. Brundage, ‘The English poor law of 1834 and the cohesion of agricultural society’, Agricultural History Review, 22 (1974), 405-17; A. Brundage, The making of the new poor law: the politics of inquiry, enactment and implementation (1978); P. Mandler, ‘The making of the new poor law redivivus’, Past & Present, 117 (1987), 131-57; P. Mandler, ‘Tories and paupers: Christian political economy and the making of the new poor law’, HJ, 33 (1990), 81-103; D. Eastwood, ‘Rethinking the debates on the poor law in early nineteenth century England’, Utilitas, 6 (1994), 97-116. However, in practical terms even Althorp’s biographer accepts that the Act proved ‘psychologically cruel’ and that its authors ‘lacked foresight’. Public indignation over the new poor law was so strong that Althorp later reported genuine fears of assassination ahead of a visit to Leeds in 1839.34Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 306-7.

Althorp featured prominently in the convoluted saga over the governance of Ireland between May and July 1834 that led to the collapse of the Grey ministry. Russell’s fear that Stanley might succeed Althorp as leader of the Commons provoked a public dispute between Russell and Stanley over the issue of appropriation, 6 May 1834, which led to Stanley, Graham, Ripon and Richmond’s resignation from the cabinet. The subsequent cabinet reshuffle, and Althorp’s successful defeat of Ward’s motion in favour of appropriation, following a promise of a commission on the issue, 2 June 1834, failed to restore cabinet order. With the forces of conservatism within the ministry weakened, Brougham initiated a complex plot to persuade Grey to remove the restriction on meetings from the government’s separate coercion bill. The saga led to Littleton’s unauthorised provision of assurances to O’Connell that Althorp and the lord lieutenant supported the removal of the meeting clauses from the bill. Grey, however, refused to abandon the clauses, and as a result of Littleton’s negotiations, Althorp proved unable to defend the government’s official position in the Commons, prompting both Grey and Althorp’s resignation, 9 July 1834.35Ibid, 307-15

Rumours that the king would ask Althorp to lead a new ministry proved false. Instead, Melbourne assumed the premiership and Althorp agreed to continue in his previous roles, after the former agreed to the removal of the meetings clauses from the coercion bill, which eventually received royal assent, 30 July 1834. Althorp secured Melbourne’s acceptance that his ministry would be more accommodating to the reform majority, and although the Lords successfully stalled the Irish tithe bill, Althorp’s influence ensured the short-lived government proved amenable to dissenting opinion prior to the parliament’s prorogation in August.36Parry, Rise and Fall, 111-2.

During the recess, Althorp succeeded to the peerage on the death of Earl Spencer, 10 Nov. He took the opportunity to relieve himself of ministerial duties, and with the prospect of Russell assuming the leadership of the Commons in a ministry intent on appropriation, the King dismissed Melbourne’s government.37Wasson, Whig Renaissance, 322-3. Althorp refused several overtures to return to government during 1835, and only rarely attended the Lords prior to his death a decade later. In retirement he returned his attention to agricultural improvement, educational philanthropy and eradicating an encumbrance of £500,000 that he had inherited from his father.38Ibid, 322-49; Wasson, ‘Spencer’, Oxf. DNB. He died of kidney failure at his wife’s Wiseton Park estate (where he had remained following his father’s death) and was entombed at Althorp Park. His will was proved under £160,000. With no children, he was succeeded in the peerage by his brother Frederick (1798-1857).39PROB 11/2027/227. His family papers are held by Northamptonshire Record Office and the British Library.