DAVIES, Thomas Henry Hastings (1789-1846), of Elmley Park, Worcs.

align="left">Davies was from an ancient Shropshire family, his ancestors having taken up residence in Herefordshire in the late seventeenth century.1J. Burke, History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1836), ii. 259. The family had ‘in very early times’ been seated in Montgomeryshire: The Assembled Commons; or, parliamentary biographer (1838), 70. A wealthy East India proprietor and Worcestershire landowner, he had distinguished himself as a Guards officer in the Peninsula, and had ended his active military career ‘on the plains of Waterloo’.2Morning Post, 15 Dec. 1846; United Services Journal (1839) i. 573. He was named after his godfather, Warren Hastings, a close friend of his father’s: W.R. Williams, The Parliamentary History of the County of Worcester (1897), 108. Of ‘Liberal’ political opinions, he had sat for Worcester since 1818 as a moderate reformer, and had actively supported Joseph Hume’s efforts to secure economies in the public service.3HP Commons, 1790-1820, i. 573; Dod MS, i. 323. He would support a similar resolution from Hume, 14 Feb. 1833. Admired for his independence, Davies remained committed to retrenchment, particularly in military expenditure, and, above all, to the reduction of taxation. By the mid-1820s he had spoken in favour of free trade, parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation.4HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 864-5. Having assiduously supported the reform bill in parliament, differing from the government only when convinced ‘that they were not acting up to the spirit of that Bill’, he was re-elected unopposed at the 1832 general election for Worcester, where he had always spent freely.5HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 867-8; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832; Morning Post, 15 Dec. 1832. His returns in 1818 and 1826 reportedly cost £20,000: Williams, Parl. Hist. Worcs., 109.

Davies was an very active member who considered himself ‘a Whig, and perhaps something more than a Whig’, arguing in 1834 that it ‘was not possible for any small clique now to rule the country … For an Administration to be powerful, it was now necessary to appeal to the people’.6Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 15 Nov. 1838; Hansard, 2 June 1834, vol. 24, c. 23. Though he ‘generally voted’ with the Grey and Melbourne administrations, he publicly ‘kept himself free from every Government’ and was returned to the Commons ‘unfettered’ and determined not to ‘compromise his conscience to keep [Grey’s ministry] in office’.7Assembled Commons, 70; Caledonian Mercury, 17 Dec. 1846; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832. He trusted that representatives in the reformed parliament ‘would not act on the principle of party, but on the merits of the question brought before them’. However, although Davies later claimed to have opposed Grey’s ministry whenever he ‘found them sacrificing principle to expediency’, he did come to the prime minister’s assistance on 3 June 1833, when he proposed the motion of confidence in the government, following their defeat in the Lords on the question of Portuguese neutrality over which they had threatened to resign. In spite of making what Lord Ellenborough described as ‘a wretched speech’, a rumour subsequently arose that he would be offered office, but Davies, who prided himself on having never ‘solicited anything of any Administration’, remained a backbencher.8HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 868; Hansard, 6 June 1833, vol. 18, cc. 391-6; Examiner, 9 June 1833; A. Aspinall (ed.), Three Early Nineteenth-Century Diaries (1952), 332, 336; Standard, 15 June 1833; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 27 July 1837. In this capacity he had long been critical of successive ministries for their mismanagement of Irish affairs. On 6 March 1833 he presented a petition against the Irish coercion bill from the Political Union of Worcester, and is said to have characterised Stanley’s defence of the measure as ‘an insult to Ireland, proving how unfit Stanley was for his office’.9HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 864; A. Hawkins, The Forgotten Prime Minister. The 14th Earl of Derby. Ascent, 1799-1851 (2007), 122. Replying to Stanley’s statement on Ireland at the address, Davies commented, ‘Enshrined in a fancied aristocratic superiority of birth and station’, the Irish chief secretary ‘seemed to think it quite beneath his lofty reputation to hold out the olive-branch to Ireland’, adding that it made his ‘blood boil to hear any Minister presume, in a freely chosen Parliament of the British people, to utter a speech so calculated to incense an excitable, and long-injured, and sensitive, and brave people’: Hansard, 5 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc. 197-8. With ‘much reluctance’ he felt compelled to support the bill owing to ‘its absolute necessity’, but could not suppress his conviction that if the government had vigorously exercised its power at the onset of the disturbances, ‘there would not have been the slightest necessity for the proposed measure’.10Hansard, 19 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc. 842-4.

A member of the established church, Davies resisted the separation of church and state, but favoured the removal of all disabilities from Dissenters, condemned ‘the system of non residences and pluralities’, and supported Althorp’s plan to replace church rates with a grant raised from a land tax, 21 Apr. 1834.11Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 8 Jan. 1835, 25 Dec. 1834. He also presented a petition from Worcester for the better observance of the Sabbath: Standard, 6 Mar. 1833. He did, however, consider the state of the Irish church establishment to be ‘a political monstrosity’, supporting the government’s temporalities bill, 11 Mar. 1833, but strongly criticised Lord Stanley’s subsequent Irish tithes measure, arguing that it was insufficient to conciliate the Irish people.12Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 25 Dec. 1834; Hansard, 20 Feb. 1834, vol. 21, cc. 603-4. Believing the bill to be ‘fraught with injustice’, he subsequently urged the House to ‘look deeper for a remedy’, warning that ‘for as long as the people of Ireland had to pay for a Church opposed to the religion they professed they never would have peace in Ireland.’13Hansard, 2 May 1834, vol. 23, cc. 432-4; Hansard, 4 July 1834, vol. 24, c. 1144. Every clause of the bill, he argued, ‘secured with an iron grasp the rights of the Church, and would leave the clergy of Ireland as completely in the possession of their present property as if the appropriation (or he should rather call it) the misappropriation clause had passed’: Hansard, 23 June 1834, vol. 24, cc. 755-8. After a schism occurred within the Whig ministry over Irish church reform he confessed to having ‘very little confidence in the government’, and concluded in August 1834 ‘that a more wavering, imbecile course had never been pursued by any Ministry than that which had been adopted by his Majesty’s Government with respect to the present measure’.14Hansard, 4 Aug. 1834, vol. 25, c. 926.

Having ‘uniformly supported every measure calculated to ameliorate the condition’ of West Indian slaves, Davies considered himself ‘as decided an enemy’ of the institution as any member of the House. In December 1832 he had advocated slavery’s ‘earliest abolition … consistent with common sense’, addressing constituents on the subject the following year.15Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 2 Aug. 1832, 13 Dec. 1832, 18 Apr. 1833. However, although he accepted that immediate abolition was ‘absolutely necessary’, he would not ‘shut his eyes to the danger attendant upon it’, and urged the House to ‘not forget that there were two parties to be considered; and that while the negroes ought to have justice done to them, the rights of their masters ought not to be neglected’.16Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 8 Jan. 1835; Hansard, 31 May 1833, vol. 18, c. 235; 10 June 1833, vol. 18, cc. 550-1. Prior to his return he stated that he ‘would not vote for any rash measure, by which the throat of the white man should be laid bare to the knife of the infuriated negro’: Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832. He refused, therefore, to assent to any imposition of additional taxes on colonial produce, and in February 1834 recommended that duties on West Indian goods be removed as an alternative to the payment of compensation to former slave owners.17Hansard, 31 May 1833, vol. 18, c. 236; 10 June 1833, vol. 18, cc. 550-1; 28 Feb. 1834, vol. 21, c. 948.

Davies believed the corn laws required ‘an entire revision’, having been ‘framed on the worst principle’, but argued that ‘cheap bread’ also required ‘an immense reduction of taxation’. He therefore supported Hume’s motion for reducing the protective duty, 7 Mar. 1834, but did not favour its entire abolition.18Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832, 25 Dec. 1834. As the representative of ‘of a large manufacturing and commercial community’, he was aware of the damage done to Worcester’s glove trade by earlier legislation, and was forced to defend having campaigned for the diminution of import duties in 1824.19HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 864. He was not, however, a convert to ‘the principle of entire Free Trade’, although he did support repeal of the malt duty, 27 Feb. 1834, and advocated the reduction of public establishments, and assessed taxes, so as to diminish the financial burden on rent-payers.20Hansard, 27 Feb. 1834, vol. 21, cc. 892-3; 19 Apr. 1833, vol. 17, cc. 341-2; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832, 25 Dec. 1834. He regularly supported George Robinson’s annual motion to replace all taxes with a property tax: Hansard, 26 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc. 1072-118; 10 June 1834, vol. 24, c. 353; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 8 Jan. 1835. He also wanted to reduce the ‘enormous expenditure’ on sinecure places and cut salaries for colonial governors and pensions for civil offices, but urged that allowances for retired ‘and deserving’ army staff officers be improved.21Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832; Hansard, 14 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc. 676-7; 3 Mar. 1834, vol. 21, c. 1023; 12 May 1834, vol. 23, cc. 866-7, 873-4.

A critic of ‘the bad construction and want of proper accommodation of the House’, Davies lamented that its appearance ‘was frequently rather that of a debating-club or a bear-garden, than of a deliberative assembly’. The noise, he complained, ‘was excessive, and Members, instead of attending to the proceedings, amused themselves with talking, or laying stretched at full length asleep upon the benches’.22Hansard, 2 July 1833, vol. 19, cc. 62-3. He therefore supported Hume’s proposal to re-accommodate the House, arguing that insufficiency of space meant that members ‘could neither sit nor stand, and when so great numbers were present not one-half could hear the debate’.23Hansard, 7 Aug. 1834, vol. 25, c. 1030. He also believed that ‘an authenticated publication of the proceedings of that House would be productive of great benefit’, but criticised the excessive time that was then being taken by journalists to compile division lists.24Hansard, 22 May 1834, vol. 23, c. 1238; 21 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, c. 1085. Unconvinced of the value of triennial parliaments, he spoke in opposition to the repeal of the Septennial Act, 15 May 1834, but consistently supported the ballot as the best means of securing ‘well qualified’ representatives of ‘moderate fortune’.25Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Dec. 1832, 25 Dec. 1834; Hansard, 15 May 1834, vol. 23, cc. 1042-5.

A critic of the Russian and Turkish Treaties over the Dardanelles, Davies was part of the growing Russophobic element within the Commons, and contended that it was ‘the duty of every prudent Ministry to watch the rapid growth which had for years been increasing, of the colossal power of Russia’.26Hansard, 17 Mar. 1834, vol. 22, c. 330; O. Figes, Crimea (2010), 73-4. He continued to take an interest in military affairs and, while opposed to ‘the general principle of flogging’, believed ‘that it would be impossible to preserve the discipline of the British army without corporal punishment’, for which he was subsequently reproached by some of his constituents. He did, however, suggest that ‘if commissions were reserved for soldiers who had served ten or twelve years in the army, the character of the soldiery would be improved’.27Hansard, 23 July 1834, vol. 25, cc. 372-3; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 25 Dec. 1834; Hansard, 26 Mar. 1838, vol. 41, c. 1256.

Although he did not introduce any bills, Davies was an active committee man, particularly in regard to parliamentary affairs, public order, and military matters, sitting on select committees on public documents, the House of Commons buildings, civil list charges, the establishment of the House, army and navy appointments, parochial registration, the metropolitan police, the Cold Bath Fields meeting, and militia estimates.28PP 1833 (44) xii. 15; PP 1833 (717) xii. 57; PP 1833 (269) xii. 487; PP 1833 (646) vii. 779; PP 1833 (648) xii. 179; PP 1833 (650) vii. 1; PP 1833 (669) xiv. 505; PP 1833 (675) xiii. 401; PP 1834 (600) xvi. 1; PP 1833 (718) xiii. 589; PP 1834 (425) xviii. 33. In May 1833 he moved for and subsequently served on an inquiry into colonial military expenditure.29Morning Post, 20 May 1833; PP 1833 (570) vi. 1. Having served on the select committee on public petitions in May 1832, he was frustrated with the long speeches and debates which accompanied their presentation in parliament, and in February 1833 recommended the appointment of ‘a grand committee’ to receive them. That June he moved for a select committee to consider the best mode of conducting the public business of the House, on which he also served.30PP 1833 (2) xii. 153; Hansard, 6 Feb. 1833, vol. 15, cc. 225-6; 5 Mar. 1833, vol. 16, cc. 200-1; 7 June 1833, vol. 18, cc. 456-7; PP 1834 (284) xi. 317. A member of the committee on members holding offices, he was concerned by the expense involved and pointed to little-known legislation designed to limit the duration of patent offices.31PP 1833 (671) xii. 1; Hansard, 18 Apr. 1833, vol. 17, cc. 299-301.

Davies welcomed the appointment of the Melbourne’s ministry in 1834 which, having been ‘weeded of those half and half Reformers who were rather likely to impede the march of Reform’, held ‘principles he entertained as his own’.32Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 25 Dec. 1834, 8 , 22 Jan. 1835. Having sustained injuries after being thrown from his carriage whilst canvassing in December 1834, he was unexpectedly defeated at the 1835 general election by a Conservative and unsuccessfully petitioned against the result.33Williams, Parl. Hist. Worcs., 109; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 5 Mar. 1835. While outside parliament Davies remained popular in his former constituency and, ‘as a staunch, an old, and long-tried Reformer’, involved himself in the establishment of a reform association at Worcester.34 Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 Oct. 1836. Frustrated at the obstruction on the Irish municipal corporations bill by the House of Lords, he urged ‘the people’ to ‘use the weapons of the Constitution, and force the Lords to yield to the just wishes of the nation’, telling a meeting of Worcester’s Liberal operatives that a ‘wholesome reform’ of that House was overdue.35Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 7 July, 27 October 1836.

Davies was returned unopposed for Worcester in 1837, as a supporter of the abolition of church rates and amendment of the poor law.36Convinced that poverty ought ‘not to be treated as a crime’, he regarded the guardians, rather than the commissioners, as best suited to conduct each union’s affairs: Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 13 July 1837. Resuming his seat as a ‘partisan’ of the Melbourne ministry, he contended ‘that all men ought to avow their adherence in these times to one or another of the two great parties’.37Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 27 July 1837. He duly supported the government’s position on Canada, 15 Feb. 1838, and backed its Irish tithe appropriation measure, 15 May 1838. He gave notice to bring in a bill to regulate the duties of high sheriffs, 28 Feb. 1838, which went no further, and presented petitions from Worcester for the ballot, 14 Feb., for which he voted, 15 Feb., against the opium trade, 18 Mar., and for the immediate abolition of slave apprenticeships, 18 May 1838.38Standard, 1 Mar. 1838; Hansard, 18 May 1838, vol. 42, c. 1362. He continued to be active in the committee rooms, sitting on inquiries into controverted election fees, private business, public offices, and petitions relating to the Manchester and Birmingham Extension Railway bill.39PP 1837-38 (50) x. 23; PP 1837-38 (679) xxiii. 405; PP 1839 (51) xiii. 101; PP 1839 (520) xiii. 105; PP 1840 (56) xv. 157; PP 1840 (463) xv. 207; PP 1840 (503) xv. 213; PP 1839 (466) xiii. 233; PP 1839 (306) xiii. 317. As a debater, however, he was much less active than he had once been.

Davies did, however, continue to register his opinion, supporting Villiers’s motion complaining of the corn laws, 19 Feb. 1839, opposing the abolition of capital punishment, 5 Mar. 1840, and voting for the third reading of the Irish municipal corporations bill, 9 Mar. 1840. That month he also waited upon Lord Palmerston as a member of a deputation from the committee of the South American bondholders, but poor health prevented a regular attendance. By July 1840 he was not expected to offer again. Increasingly incapacitated, he paired at times with John Davenport and John Wilson Patten, opposing Sir Robert Peel’s confidence motion, 4 June 1841.40Standard, 23 Mar. 1840; Northern Star, 11 July 1840, quoting Berrow’s Worcester Journal; Standard, 19 May 1840; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 4 Feb. 1841. He remained, however, anxious to promote the interests of his constituency, presenting a petition for the repeal of the corn laws, 20 May 1841. Being of an amiable disposition, opponents paid credit to his ‘political integrity and uprightness’ and to his selfless devotion to his party.41Standard, 21 May. 1841; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 17 Dec. 1846. He claimed never to have ‘allowed his political opinions to interfere with private affairs’, and was happy to do business with persons ‘whose politics he detested, but whose persons he respected’. As a parliamentary representative, he promised to ‘facilitate the interests of every individual, whether Tory, Whig, or Radical’.42Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 15 Nov. 1838.

Having participated in only 13 of the 119 divisions in the previous session, Davies retired at the 1841 general election. He had always considered himself ‘a rude and blunt soldier, who said the things which came uppermost’.43Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 29 Apr., 15 July 1841, 27 July 1837. Worcester’s Liberal electors paid tribute to ‘the manner in which he had for a long number of years assisted in maintaining the public rights and those of the city’, and he was remembered as an ‘early, consistent, and energetic’ proponent of the Severn improvement scheme.44Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 24 June 1841, 1 Feb. 1844. While outside parliament he had supported the Severn navigation improvement bill, which was rejected in April 1837: Hansard, 12 Apr. 1837, vol. 37, cc. 1115-21; Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 27 July 1837. During the last few years of his life he was largely inactive and, having been gravely ill from the summer, died at his residence in December 1846.45Morning Post, 20 July 1846, quoting Worcester Herald. His estate passed to his widow, who married Sir John Pakington, MP for East Worcestershire, in 1851.46Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 17 Dec. 1841; Bury and Norwich Post, 11 June 1851. A codicil of 1 April 1841 directed that on her death his property was to be equally divided between his brothers Warburton and Francis John Davies: HP Commons, 1820-32, iv. 868.