LEATHAM, William Henry (1815-1889), of Hemsworth Hall, Pontefract, Yorks.

A ‘moderate man, of philanthropic character and popular prepossessions’, Leatham came from an old Quaker family originally settled near Malton, North Yorkshire.3Leeds Mercury, 27 Mar. 1852; Bankers’ Magazine (1845), iii. 11. His mother’s family were also Quakers, and his maternal grandfather, Joshua Walker (1746-1817) served for 25 years as physician to Leeds General Infirmary: R.V. Taylor (ed.), Biographia leodiensis (1865), 264. His grandfather, John, operated ‘a quasi-banking business’ from his draper’s shop in Pontefract market-place, before becoming one of the founding partners of Leatham, Jackson & Co. in 1801.4J.T. Mills, John Bright and the Quakers (1935), i. 401; http://www.lordsmeade.freeserve.co.uk/elizhoward-fragments.pdf [pg. 9]. The bank had branches at Pontefract and, until 1847, at Doncaster, and in 1809 Leatham’s father, William, extended its operations to Wakefield, taking John’s place at the helm on his death in 1823.5J.W. Walker, Wakefield: its history and people (1934), 458; http://heritagearchives.rbs.com/wiki/Leatham,_Tew_&_Co,_Doncaster,_1801-47 The following year, the firm was renamed Leatham, Tew, Trueman & Co., and from 1834 it became Leatham, Tew & Co.6http://heritagearchives.rbs.com/wiki/Leatham,_Tew_&_Co,_Doncaster,_1801-47 In 1840 Leatham’s father published Letters on the Currency, a ‘thoughtful and authoritative’ pamphlet on the banking question.7Mills, John Bright and the Quakers, i. 403. Addressed to Charles Wood, chairman of the select committee on banks of issue then sitting, Leatham’s pamphlet emphasised the significance of bills of exchange within the financial system: J.W. Bosanquet, Metallic, paper, and credit currency, and the means of regulating their quality and value (1842), 90-1. Born in Wakefield, Leatham entered the family bank there in 1834 after a Quaker education, and also spent a year learning the business in London, before becoming a partner in 1836.8The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 210-11. In 1839 he married the daughter of a fellow banker, Samuel Gurney, cementing the Leathams’ place within the Quaker business network.9Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’. Through his own and his wife’s family, Leatham was connected to the Barclays, the Frys, the Peases and the Buxtons, and he and his father were among fellow Quakers attending the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society Convention in 1840.10Mills, John Bright and the Quakers, ii. 345; British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society: Convention, June 12th, 1840 (1840), 4. Leatham also belonged to the Northern Central British India Society and the African Civilization Society: Proceedings of a public meeting for the formation of the Northern Central British India Society... August 26th, 1840 (1840), 10; Report of the committee of the African Civilization Society... 21st June 1842 (1842), 6. However, in 1843, the year after his father’s death, Leatham and his wife seceded from the Society of Friends and joined the Anglican church.11The Examiner, 18 Nov. 1843.

Leatham succeeded his father at the bank, his older brother John Arthington Leatham (d. 1857) having pursued a career at the bar,12Gent. Mag. (1857), ii. 101. but also had another string to his bow: a European tour in 1835 ‘had awakened in his mind a love of poetry’, and from 1837 he published numerous poems and verse plays, including Sandal in the Olden Time (1839) and Cromwell, a Drama (1843).13The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 211. For a list of his chief publications, see E.N. Armitage, Quaker poets of Great Britain and Ireland (1896), 168-9. Contemporary reviews were mixed: one suggested that he had ‘gifts that might be made something of by patient painstaking’, while his Selections from Lesser Poems (1855) were said to ‘do their author credit, but may not aspire to too much originality’.14J. Cameron, The notabilities of Wakefield and its neighbourhood (1843), 70; The Examiner, 7 July 1855. Later accounts also differ in their assessment of Leatham’s abilities, with Armitage praising his ‘great strength of diction, and tenderness of thought’, while Mills finds his style ‘somewhat stilted’: Armitage, Quaker poets, 168; Mills, John Bright and the Quakers, i. 407. Better received were his published lectures to Mechanics’ Institutes, ‘well adapted for popular instruction... and expressed in an agreeable style’.15Liverpool Mercury, 11 July 1845. Leatham served for five years as vice-president of Wakefield Mechanics’ Institute, and was president in 1847.16The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 211-12; Bradford Observer, 30 Sept. 1847. He also patronised many other local causes, including the Wakefield Bible Association and Wakefield Town Mission, and was a prize-winning archer.17Leeds Mercury, 13 Oct. 1838, 7 June 1851; Bradford Observer, 20 July 1843, 4 July 1850.

Involved in Wakefield elections from 1832, Leatham became prominent in local Liberal politics, seconding their candidate at the nominations in 1837 and 1841.18Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’; Report of the proceedings before a committee of the House of Commons, on the Wakefield election petition. April 1842 (1842), 14, 21. At a local meeting in 1839 he seconded the motion for a loyal address praising the queen’s conduct during the Bedchamber crisis, and he chaired the meeting which urged the Conservative MP William Lascelles to resign after he was seated on petition on a technicality in 1842.19Leeds Mercury, 25 May 1839; The Times, 25 May 1842. Although John Bright recorded in November 1845 that Leatham was ‘not fully converted’ to repeal, the following month he spoke at an Anti-Corn Law League gathering.20Mills, John Bright and the Quakers, i. 403; Bradford Observer, 18 Dec. 1845. In 1847, with the government’s education proposals causing disunity among Wakefield’s Liberals, Leatham, who subscribed to 16 local schools, defended the principle of parliamentary grants at a public meeting.21Bradford Observer, 25 Mar. 1847. With no local Liberal willing to stand at that year’s general election, Leatham brought forward his brother-in-law, Sir Edward North Buxton, but Buxton’s views on education prompted opposition and he was not adopted.22The Times, 22 May 1847; Leeds Mercury, 22 May 1847. He was returned instead at South Essex.23Edward North Buxton served as MP for South Essex, 1847-52, and for East Norfolk, 1857-8. His son and namesake was Liberal MP for Walthamstow, 1885-6. In the same year Leatham became brother-in-law to another MP, when his sister married John Bright. A third brother-in-law, Samuel Gurney, was Liberal MP for Penryn and Falmouth, 1857-68.

Leatham retired from banking in 1851 and moved from Wakefield to Hemsworth Hall, near Pontefract, which he had purchased two years earlier.24London Gazette, 12 Mar. 1852; The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 212. Prior to their move to Hemsworth, Leatham and his family had lived at Heath Common, 1843-51, and before that at Sandal: Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’; The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 212. At the 1852 election, he stood for his native borough, advocating free trade, retrenchment, abolition of church rates, the ballot and parliamentary reform, where he favoured a bill with ‘all the breadth of lord John [Russell]’s measure, without its patchwork’.25Leeds Mercury, 13 Mar. 1852; Bradford Observer, 8 July 1852. Emphasising his philanthropy, he denied that poetry distracted him from business, arguing that ‘he had loved literature because it kept his heart green, and his affections fresh; when... they might, in the vocations of a banker, have become prone to covetousness’.26Leeds Mercury, 26 June 1852. Despite hopes of winning over moderate Conservatives, he failed to oust the sitting MP.27Leeds Mercury, 20 Mar. 1852. He offered again in 1857, but was absent in Torquay due to ill-health when his address was issued, and found that his opponent had ‘stole[n] a march’ on him.28PP 1860 [2601], xxviii. 160; Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1859. The ‘very modified tone of his opinions’ compared with 1852 – he reportedly refused to pledge on the ballot and franchise extension and ‘emphatically expressed no sympathy’ with them in some quarters – prompted concerns that he ‘was no longer a true Liberal’. He withdrew following an unpropitious canvass, leaving the Conservative John Charlesworth to be elected unopposed.29PP 1860 [2601], xxviii. 160; Daily News, 20 Mar. 1857.

At the 1859 election Leatham was more forthcoming in his advocacy of parliamentary reform, although not to the extent proposed by his brother-in-law Bright, suggesting that ‘if you find me differing from him you must make allowance for a fellow who lives in the country’.30Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1859. (The following year he denied that he was Bright’s political disciple – ‘I have never professed to hold Mr. Bright’s opinions, having always carefully drawn the line where Mr. Bright and I did not agree in politics’ – and both personally and politically he was less close to Bright than was his younger brother, Edward Aldam Leatham.31The Times, 30 May 1860; Mills, Bright and the Quakers, i. 408.) He favoured a £10 county franchise and a £6 borough franchise, and backed Sir Eardley Wilmott’s redistribution scheme which would provide 5 additional Yorkshire members. He (somewhat half-heartedly) advocated the ballot, and supported quadrennial parliaments and abolition of church rates.32Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1859, 9 Apr. 1859. Those who had been lukewarm in 1857 due to his moderation now felt that ‘although Mr. Leatham did not go quite so far as they could wish, yet he was evidently travelling in the right direction’, and with the Liberals united he narrowly defeated Charlesworth.33Leeds Mercury, 19 Mar. 1859. However, a petition alleging bribery was lodged, 9 June 1859, and this, together with a petition against Edward Leatham at Huddersfield, gave Bright’s critics an opportunity to castigate this champion of political purity.34See, for example, the leading article in The Times, 9 Aug. 1859. Although bribery was proved at Huddersfield, this could not be connected to Edward Leatham or his agents, and he retained his seat. Responding to one such attack in his maiden speech, 10 June 1859, Leatham retorted that ‘his constituents did not employ him to buy cats at £20 a piece’, but had sent him there to oppose the Derby ministry, and he duly voted for the amendment to the address. He opposed the income tax as ‘unjust and unequal in levy’, 18 July 1859, and the following day questioned the home secretary as to the future location of the West Riding assizes, a subject of long-standing concern in Wakefield.35Leatham’s only other known contribution to debate in this session was a question regarding stamps on bankers’ cheques, 21 July 1859. Leatham generally divided with his party, supporting the second readings of the endowed schools bill, 6 July 1859, and the church rates abolition bill, 13 July 1859. However, his parliamentary career was curtailed when he was unseated on grounds of bribery performed by his agents, 27 July 1859.

Concerns that bribery had been extensive prompted a royal commission inquiry at Wakefield, where Leatham testified that ‘things were kept from me systematically which have since been made very plain’.36Daily News, 12 Oct. 1859. Despite his professed innocence, the commissioners reported that Leatham had provided at least £3,900 for election purposes, much sent in batches of small notes via his brother-in-law’s London bank, and ‘had anticipated and suspected’ that corruption would occur.37PP 1860 [2601], xxviii. 5-6; Hansard, 20 Mar. 1867, vol. 186, cc. 214. The attorney-general subsequently filed seven counts of bribery against Leatham, the key charge being that he supplied £2,000 to Thomas Gilbert for bribery.38PP 1860 (385), lv. 62-6. Despite pleas in the Commons to abandon the prosecution, on the basis that Leatham had been unjustly denied an indemnity certificate by the commissioners – Bright described this as ‘a case of grievous hardship’, 25 May 1860, and presented a petition from Leatham on the subject, 11 June 1860 – he was convicted at York assizes in July 1860.39The Times, 12 June 1860, 20 July 1860. One of the three commissioners had disagreed with the decision to refuse a certificate. After he appealed, the attorney-general in February 1861 entered a nolle prosequi on the charge regarding Gilbert, but Leatham’s application for a new trial on the other counts was refused.40Leeds Mercury, 8 Nov. 1860; The Times, 13 Feb. 1861; Leeds Mercury, 14 Feb. 1861; Derby Mercury, 20 Feb. 1861. Leatham’s grounds for appeal were that no evidence had been given that he supplied funds to Gilbert, only to his agent, Joseph Wainwright, who passed the money to Gilbert; that certain correspondence between him and Wainwright was inadmissible as evidence; and that the prosecution should have been undertaken within a year of the alleged offence. The judges dismissed the second point and did not think the latter was tenable, but reserved it for the opinion of the court of error. Not until March 1862 were all proceedings finally dropped.41Leeds Mercury, 17 Mar. 1862. Matters were delayed by the fact that Leatham’s fellow candidate, Charlesworth, was also prosecuted and involved in prolonged legal proceedings.

Leatham’s political rehabilitation began with the presentation by 3,762 Wakefield non-electors in July 1862 of a silver centrepiece, and an address sympathising with his ordeal. He admitted that ‘no one regrets more than I do that that mode of retaliation was adopted, by which bribery was check-mated by bribery’.42Leeds Mercury, 2 July 1862. This centrepiece, which cost 120 guineas and was adorned with figures representing Benevolence, Truth, Commerce and Liberty, was stolen from Leatham’s home in 1872: Penny Illustrated Paper and Illustrated Times, 14 Dec. 1872. After his enforced absence from public life, he resumed involvement in Wakefield’s philanthropic and social activities.43See his speech to the Wakefield Young Men’s Christian Association, Leeds Mercury, 3 Oct. 1862. He stood again in 1865, on the understanding that he would not canvass or contribute to election expenses, and his participation in the campaign was limited.44He made two visits to his committee-room, at which he answered questions, and spoke at the nomination: Wakefield poll book 1865 (1866), vi. He declared his support for ‘all sound Liberal principles’ and for Palmerston’s ministry, although he bemoaned its decision to move the assizes to Leeds rather than Wakefield in 1864, and its ‘bad treatment’ of him and others following the 1859 contest. He reaffirmed his opposition to church rates and religious tests, and, believing that ‘it was the large number of non-electors, and not their want of intelligence, which was the difficulty’, suggested that non-electors might elect one delegate to vote for every 25 of their number. He refused to answer allegations that he had sought a deal with the Conservatives enabling Charlesworth’s return at this election and his at the next.45The Times, 12 July 1865. After defeating the incumbent Conservative, Sir John Hay, he acknowledged that some former opponents had voted for him and ‘trusted to my moderation and I shall be moderate’.46Leeds Mercury, 14 July 1865. He again faced a petition, 16 Feb. 1866, but although several cases of bribery were proved, none were connected with Leatham or his agents, and he retained his seat, 30 Apr. 1866.

Leatham consistently divided with his party against church rates and university tests, and supported Gladstone on the Irish church, 3 Apr. 1868. He is not known to have served on any select committees. Although an irregular contributor to debate, he supported the Liberal reform bill, 13 Mar. 1866, praising the savings bank franchise.47He addressed his constituents on the subject along similar lines the following month: Leeds Mercury, 7 Apr. 1866. Addressing his constituents the following year, he stood aloof from Bright’s ‘sweeping condemnation’ of the Conservative reform bill, describing it as ‘a bantling… which… with a little careful nursing might still live and prosper’, and was prepared to go as far as a £4 borough franchise. Drawing on his experiences, he suggested to both Disraeli and Gladstone that a commissioner should be sent to conduct elections in constituencies where corruption was believed to be afoot.48Leeds Mercury, 26 Apr. 1867. He was in minorities for enfranchisement of lodgers, 13 May 1867, and of women, 20 May 1867. He sounded a note of caution on the marriage with a deceased wife’s sister bill, 2 May 1866, to which he thought most women had ‘an intense and instinctive dislike’, and reflected Wakefield’s industrial interests with contributions on the master and workmen bill, 31 July 1867, the mines assessment bill, 6 May 1868, and colliery accidents, 12 June 1868. However, the events of 1859 still cast a shadow, with Disraeli ‘appealing to the annals of Wakefield and of Huddersfield’ during an exchange with Bright on electoral purity, 28 May 1866. Four days later, Leatham emphasised his support for any reasonable measure to tackle bribery, describing himself as ‘not the advocate, but the victim’ of corruption. When the question of dismissing JPs found guilty of bribery by a committee or royal commission was debated the following year, Leatham – whose case was highlighted – protested his innocence of ‘personal acts of bribery’ and complained of ‘all this persecution’, 20 Mar. 1867. He remained active in his constituency, attending events such as the opening of the 1865 Wakefield Industrial and Fine Art Exhibition.49The Times, 1 Sept. 1865. Leatham, however, declined to attend the local licensed victuallers’ annual dinner as he felt this was incompatible with his official dealings with them as a magistrate: Newcastle Courant, 15 Dec. 1865.

Leatham did not seek re-election in 1868 for ‘family reasons’, but continued his involvement in local affairs, being appointed deputy chairman of the West Riding quarter sessions in 1870, and serving ex officio on the Hemsworth board of guardians.50Bradford Observer, 5 Feb. 1874; The Biograph, and Review (1881), v. 212-13. Remembered as ‘one of the best magistrates in the West Riding’, a colleague praised his ‘unwearied patience in investigating judicial matters’ and ‘the generous sympathies of his nature’.51Armitage, Quaker poets, 168; Leeds Mercury, 19 Nov. 1889. Selected in 1874 as the second Liberal candidate for the Southern division of the West Riding, he was unsuccessful, but was returned in 1880, before retiring in 1885 from a political career which was ‘never substantial’.52Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’. Leatham died suddenly in November 1889 at the White House, Carleton, Pontefract, where he had moved two or three years earlier.53Leeds Mercury, 19 Nov. 1889. His eldest son, Samuel Gurney Leatham, who had succeeded his father at the bank, remained in residence at Hemsworth, where Leatham was buried.54Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’; Leeds Mercury, 19 Nov. 1889; Walker, Wakefield, 458. His estate was sworn at £17,368 5s. 5d.55Fell-Smith, ‘Leatham, William Henry’. He left £5,000 to his third surviving son, Charles Alfred, and £10,000 to his only surviving daughter, Agnes Georgina. Having already provided for his other children, he divided the residue of his estate between Charles Alfred and his fifth surviving son, Gerald Arthur Buxton, a talented cricketer.56Huddersfield Daily Chronicle, 15 Jan. 1890; http://acscricket.com/Archive/Players/30/30929/30929.html None of his six surviving sons followed him into Parliament, although his nephew William Leatham Bright was Liberal MP for Stoke-on-Trent, 1885-90. The banking firm of Leatham, Tew & Co. operated until it was absorbed by Barclay & Co. in 1906.57Mills, John Bright and the Quakers, i. 403. Papers relating to Leatham are held in Wakefield Local Studies Library.58In addition, his correspondence with the Shakespearean scholar James Halliwell-Phillipps is in Edinburgh University Library: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/subjectView.asp?ID=P16982