HORNBY, John (1810-1892), of 22 Park Crescent, Portland Place, London

Remembered as ‘a gentleman every inch’, Hornby staunchly supported the Anglican church and factory reform during his decade as Conservative MP for his native borough of Blackburn, but wavered on the issue of free trade, which cost him his seat in 1852.1Blackburn Standard, 10 Dec. 1892. The Hornbys were local gentry in the Fylde area of Lancashire, and Hornby’s father, also John (1763-1841), had moved from Kirkham to Blackburn in 1779 to set up as a cotton merchant, and (in partnership with his brother-in-law) subsequently invested part of his £10,000 inheritance from his father in a spinning mill, as well as acting as a putter-out to handloom weavers. On his death in 1841 – having retired to Raikes Hall, Blackpool, some years earlier and left the expanding business in the hands of Hornby’s older brother, William Henry – his estate was valued at £200,000.2M.M. Edwards, The growth of the British cotton trade, 1780-1815 (1967), 255; B. Lewis, The middlemost and the milltowns: bourgeois culture and politics in early industrial England (2001), 364; D. Beattie, Blackburn (2007), 68. Hornby was the second of John Hornby’s sons to share his name, an older brother of the same name having died in 1809: W.A. Abram, A history of Blackburn (1877), 399. As a younger son, Hornby was sent to train for the law, being admitted at Lincoln’s Inn in 1833. However, although he was described in the national press when he offered for Blackburn in 1841 as ‘a promising young barrister’, there is no record that he was ever called.3Morning Post, 14 June 1841. See also The Times, 14 June 1841, and W.D. Jones & A.B. Erickson, The Peelites 1846-1857 (1972), 228-9. An error in J.A. Venn’s Alumni Cantabrigiensis has also led to the mistaken belief that Hornby became a barrister after leaving Parliament, being called in 1857, but this conflates him with his nephew and namesake.4Howe states that Hornby was a lawyer after leaving Parliament: A. Howe, The cotton masters 1830-1860 (1984), 97. However, Venn inadvertently duplicates the date of John Hornby (1832-1901, Hornby’s nephew, and son of William Henry Hornby) being called in Hornby’s entry: Alum. Cantab., iii. 443. Neither Hornby’s obituary in the local press nor a family history refer to him ever having practised as a barrister.5Blackburn Standard, 10 Dec. 1892; W.A. Abram, Members of the Hornby family who have represented Blackburn in Parliament (1892), 11. In addition, none of the census returns between 1841 and 1891 list Hornby as a barrister. He has also been incorrectly identified as Stanley’s cousin, which applies to a different branch of the Hornby family.6A. Hawkins, The forgotten prime minister: the 14th earl of Derby (2007), 331; Preston Guardian, 26 Jan. 1878. Hawkins mistakenly identifies Hornby’s brother William Henry as the comptroller of the Knowsley estate and Derby’s close companion, but this was in fact Sir William Wyndham Hornby (1812-99): J.R. Vincent (ed.), Disraeli, Derby, and the Conservative Party: journals and memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849-1869 (1978), 375n.

Unlike his brother William, who was chairman of the local Conservative party and among the borough’s most significant employers, Hornby was not prominent in Blackburn’s public life before his selection as a Conservative candidate in 1841.7He was present at some local Conservative events prior to 1841: Blackburn Standard, 4 July 1838, 15 Jan. 1840. The increasingly Radical tendencies of the borough’s Liberal MP, William Turner, prompted the Conservatives to field a second candidate to run alongside the incumbent Conservative, William Feilden, to whom the Hornbys were connected by marriage.8Hornby’s older brother, Robert, a clergyman, was married to one of Feilden’s daughters. Hornby was accused of trying ‘to conceal his sentiments, not to explain them’ in an empty election address which gave no indication of his views on the corn laws.9Morning Chronicle, 7 June 1841. For similar comments, see Manchester Times and Gazette, 5 June 1841. He did, however, warn later in the contest that ‘if the cry of cheap bread means anything at all, it means low wages’, and deemed the new poor law ‘a disgrace to humanity’.10Blackburn Gazette, 30 June 1841, cited in I. Newbould, ‘Sir Robert Peel and the Conservative party, 1832-1841: a study in failure?’, EHR, 98 (1983), 551. He and Feilden were elected, although Hornby finished just one vote ahead of Turner. The Liberals petitioned for a scrutiny, but Hornby retained his seat, 28 Apr. 1842.11A family history claimed that Hornby could have topped the poll, but selflessly turned over some of his votes to Feilden to secure his return: Abram, Members of the Hornby family, 10. However, Feilden asserted in a letter to Peel that the reverse had been the case, and that his votes had secured Hornby’s return: William Feilden to Sir Robert Peel, 1 July 1841, BL, Add. MSS. 40485, f. 6.

Other than private bill committees, Hornby only appears to have sat on the inquiry into the Athlone election petition (1842).12PP 1842 (248), v. 67. A silent member during this Parliament, and an indifferent attender, he was present for 73 out of 237 divisions in 1842, but managed only 14 out of 170 divisions in 1845 and 20 out of 101 in 1846.13Preston Chronicle, 17 Sept. 1842; Preston Guardian, 20 Sept. 1845, 14 Nov. 1846. When present he generally divided loyally with his party, supporting Peel’s ministry on the sliding scale, 9 Mar. 1842. Having opposed earlier efforts to remove the corn laws, he rallied to support Peel on repeal, 27 Mar. 1846, later observing that he had been swayed by the arguments of the leaders of each party and ‘by the dread of that heaviest of all calamities, scarcity of food’.14Blackburn Standard, 21 July 1847. His voting patterns reflected his staunch Anglicanism: he divided against admission of non-Anglicans to Oxford and Cambridge, 25 May 1843, the second reading of the Dissenters’ chapels bill, 6 June 1844, the Maynooth grant, 18 Apr. 1845, and Catholic relief, 24 Feb. 1847. Unlike Feilden, Hornby favoured a ten rather than a twelve hour factory day, 22 Mar. 1844, for which he was praised at a local meeting, and divided for the second reading of the ten hours bill, 17 Feb. 1847.15The Times, 22 Apr. 1844. Feilden opposed the 1844 vote and was absent from the 1847 vote. He encouraged efforts to bring the railway to Blackburn, being among the promoters of the Blackburn, Darwen and Bolton railway and the Blackburn, Clitheroe and North Western junction railway, and had at least £29,000 in railway investments in 1845.16The Standard, 23 Nov. 1844; PP 1845 (577), xlvii. 33, 79; PP 1845 (317), xl. 68. His involvement with local institutions remained limited, although he served as a steward at Blackburn steeplechase in 1844, his older brothers being keen equestrians.17Blackburn Standard, 20 Apr. 1889.

By the time he sought re-election in 1847, opposed by two Liberals and a Chartist, Hornby no longer resided in Blackburn, but emphasised his ‘family association’ with the town, particularly William Hornby’s ‘great stake’ in the borough. Although he ‘never contemplated so speedy an abolition’ of the corn laws as had taken place, he did not regard his vote for repeal as inconsistent, given his earlier votes for a gradual removal of protective duties.18Blackburn Standard, 21 July 1847. He staunchly defended the connection between church and state, and raised the ‘No popery’ cry, citing his votes against Catholic relief.19Preston Guardian, 24 July 1847. He highlighted his support of the ten hours bill, which was commended by the Chartist candidate (flattered in turn by Hornby as ‘a very intelligent man’), and reiterated his opposition to the poor law, wishing to see more outdoor relief and more power in the hands of the locality.20Preston Guardian, 24 July 1847; Blackburn Standard, 29 July 1847. Attacked by opponents for his lacklustre efforts at Westminster – ‘They had never heard of anything which Mr. Hornby had ever done as their representative, either by way of making a speech or presenting a petition. They might… as well have had no representative’21Preston Guardian, 24 July 1847. – Hornby nonetheless topped the poll, aided by a large number of plumpers.22W.W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 228.

While still far from assiduous, Hornby became more attentive to his parliamentary duties thereafter, perhaps influenced by the fact that his new Liberal colleague, James Pilkington, was considerably more diligent than Feilden.23Hornby voted in 75 out of 255 divisions in 1848; 63 out of 219 in 1849; 138 out of 329 in 1850; and 78 out of 242 in 1851: Manchester Times, 16 Sept. 1848; Preston Guardian, 11 Aug. 1849, 31 Aug. 1850, 20 Sept. 1851. He represented local interests with his service on the committee on the Bolton, Blackburn and Clitheroe railway bill, but was otherwise not active in the committee-rooms.24PP 1851 (692), xlvii. 35. He quarrelled with the Liberal-dominated Blackburn Commercial Association in 1848, when it accused him of failing to present their petition on reduction of the tea duties, but argued in his defence that the Association had incorrectly drafted this as a memorial, and that he had consulted both the clerk at the table and the experienced Salford MP, Joseph Brotherton, to see whether it could still be presented.25Blackburn Standard, 8 Mar. 1848, 22 Mar. 1848. He successfully presented a petition later that year from Blackburn operatives on extending the Ten Hours Act to all adult males, regretting that not all local manufacturers were ‘giving the experiment a fair trial’.26Preston Guardian, 27 May 1848. In 1851 he presented a local petition against the window tax, and assured his constituents of his support for its total repeal.27Preston Guardian, 8 Feb. 1851; Blackburn Standard, 12 Mar. 1851.

Hornby had meanwhile made his first contribution to debate, opposing the admission of Jews to Parliament, 3 Apr. 1848. Concerned that they ‘were essentially traffickers in money’, and should thus be prevented from close contact with the legislature, he also believed that admitting these ‘enemies of the Church’ to Parliament was unwise given the premier’s role in church appointments. His speech was praised by the Conservative MP who followed for ‘its manner’ and ‘its talent’.28Hansard, 3 Apr. 1848, vol. 97, c. 1239. Hornby continued to divide against Catholic relief and further electoral reform, but consistently backed efforts to repeal the malt tax. Having emphasised his support for commercial freedom at the 1847 contest, Hornby changed his tune when he spoke against repeal of the navigation laws, 12 Mar. 1849. Declaring that he had backed corn law repeal in 1846 because of Peel’s ‘irresistible appeal to the House in regard to the famine in Ireland’ and the ‘prospects of reciprocity’, he now argued that free trade had failed to deliver reciprocity – ‘They had conceded everything, and got nothing’ – and saw no benefits in proceeding further.29Commenting on this vote, William Henry Hornby later claimed that his brother believed that until the duty on timber imported for shipbuilding was reduced, foreign vessels should not be admitted without paying some tax: Blackburn Standard, 14 Sept. 1853. Hornby increasingly demonstrated protectionist sympathies, and was the only Lancashire MP to divide for Sir John Trollope’s protectionist amendment to the address, 1 Feb. 1850.30Preston Guardian, 9 Feb. 1850. He was in the minority for Grantley Berkeley’s motion to consider the corn laws, 14 May 1850, and, having attended a meeting of protectionist members at Lord Stanley’s in February 1851, supported Disraeli’s motion to relieve agricultural distress, 13 Feb. 1851.31Morning Post, 5 Feb. 1851. Thus although Jones and Erickson describe him as a ‘Free Trade Conservative’, he is more accurately identified by J.B. Conacher as a Derbyite in this Parliament.32Jones & Erickson, The Peelites, 228-9; J.B. Conacher, The Peelites and the party system (1972), 231. See also Hawkins, The forgotten prime minister, 331, which lists Hornby as one of those Peelites who were inclined to return to the Conservative fold in 1847. Hornby’s last known contribution to debate, on the 1850 factory bill, was singled out by the Preston Guardian in 1875 as the best speech ever made by a Blackburn MP – admittedly a small field, since Blackburn’s representatives were not renowned for their loquaciousness – and ‘perhaps the best specimen of forensic eloquence ever uttered in the House’.33Preston Guardian, 18 Sept. 1875. He seconded Lord John Manners’ amendment to end the working day at 5:30 p.m. rather than 6 p.m., enquiring why the House was being asked to repeal the wholly beneficial Ten Hours Act ‘on account of the obstinacy... of a small section of the manufacturers’, 14 June 1850. He had earlier divided in favour of a clause to prevent use of the relay system, 6 June 1850.

Almost entirely absent from the 1852 session, having travelled overseas for the sake of his wife’s health, it was from Southampton that Hornby issued his election address that year upon his return from Madeira.34 Blackburn Standard, 31 Mar. 1852; Preston Guardian, 19 June 1852. Hornby voted in only 3 divisions that session: Liverpool Mercury, 2 July 1852. His wife died in October 1853 at the age of 38: Annual register (1853), 260. His brother William had earlier denied reports that an agreement had been made with the Liberals that Hornby’s address would satisfy them on the question of free trade, so that a contest could be avoided – ‘my brother is not made of such squeezable materials as to submit to such dictation’35Blackburn Standard, 14 Apr. 1852. – but nonetheless he did emphasise his support for ‘the most perfect freedom of Commercial intercourse between this and foreign nations’, and, despite his parliamentary votes, declared that he would not attempt to reverse free trade. He wished to see revision of the fiscal system, declared his firm attachment to the Church, and promised general support for Derby’s administration, but ‘without a slavish adherence to any set of men’.36Blackburn Standard, 30 June 1852. However, although the Liberals did not field a second candidate, William Eccles, a former supporter of Hornby disappointed with his protectionist votes, came forward as a Peelite.37Blackburn Standard, 29 July 1847; PP 1852-53 (217), viii. 455. While the Conservative Blackburn Standard endorsed Eccles as its preferred colleague for Hornby, rather than the incumbent Liberal (Pilkington), Hornby rejected this, considering Eccles to be ‘as great a Radical as Mr. Pilkington’.38Blackburn Standard, 21 July 1852. Hornby’s view of Eccles proved correct, as Eccles quickly joined the Liberal fold. He claimed on the hustings that ‘I never in my life on any occasion whatever opposed free-trade as a protectionist or a monopolist’, although he admitted that he had pointed out the lack of reciprocity. He also denied that he opposed suffrage extension, claiming to favour equalisation of the county and borough franchise, despite having voted against this, 20 Feb. 1851. He lamented that ‘some way or another I have forfeited your esteem. You have by some means been exasperated against me. It is altogether without cause’, and emphasised his past votes for corn law repeal and factory reform.39Preston Guardian, 10 July 1852. Hornby’s defeat, 71 votes short of Eccles, caused him ‘the greatest surprise’, and was ascribed to his support for protection and the fact that some of Pilkington’s supporters who had promised to split for Hornby in fact backed Eccles.40The Standard, 21 July 1852; Preston Guardian, 2 Feb. 1878; Blackburn Standard, 2 Oct. 1875, 9 Oct. 1875. Corruption was another factor, as Eccles was unseated on petition for bribery, 24 Feb. 1853. Although Hornby was rumoured as a possible candidate at the ensuing by-election, it was his brother William who offered for the Conservatives, although he did not succeed in following John into Parliament until 1857.41Preston Guardian, 26 Feb. 1853.

Hornby faded from public view after leaving the Commons, although in 1875 he wrote to correct errors in the Blackburn Standard’s history of local elections.42Blackburn Standard, 9 Oct. 1875. In his later years he rarely left London, where he died in December 1892. He had been considered to be ‘in pretty good health’ two years earlier, and his death, ascribed to ‘old age’, was ‘sudden and unexpected’.43Blackburn Standard, 1 Mar. 1890, 10 Dec. 1892. He was succeeded by his oldest son John Frederick, an army colonel and chairman of Windsor Conservative Association, who earlier that year had assisted in the return of his cousin (Hornby’s nephew), William Henry Hornby (junior) for Blackburn.44Abram, Members of the Hornby family, 11; Blackburn Standard, 10 Dec. 1892. Another of Hornby’s nephews, Edward Kenworthy Hornby, also sat for Blackburn, 1869-75. His younger son, Wilfrid Bird Hornby, entered the Church, and was bishop of Nyasa, 1892-4, and of Nassau, 1904-18.45The Times, 6 June 1935.