FENWICK, Henry (1820-1868), of Southill, nr. Chester-le-Street, co. Durham

A native of county Durham, Fenwick was the eldest son of Thomas Fenwick, a financier who was a partner in the banking house of Lambton and Co. Called to the bar in 1842, he practised on the Northern circuit, before retiring in 1851 to seek public office. After being defeated at the 1852 general election in Sunderland and the 1852 by-election in Durham City, he offered again for the former at the 1855 by-election, where William Digby Seymour was defending his seat following his appointment as recorder at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Standing in the Liberal interest, Fenwick attacked Seymour for ‘betraying’ his duty to Sunderland, and after a bitter contest, topped the poll.1The Times, 3 Jan. 1855. He comfortably defended his seat at the next three general elections.

A steady attender,2In 1856, his second parliamentary session, he voted in 89 out of 198 divisions. J.P. Gassiot, Third letter to J.A. Roebuck: with a full analysis of the divisions of the House of Commons during the last session of Parliament (1857), 6. Fenwick was generally a solid supporter of Palmerston’s two ministries, who spoke regularly in defence of the shipping interest. He sat on the select committee on state tolls,3PP 1857-58 (429), xvii. 3. and subsequently pressed the government to negotiate with Hanover for the extinction of these travel taxes, 10 Dec. 1857. He later supported efforts to abolish differential duties with France, 29 Mar. 1860. A champion of free trade, he had little appetite for reinstating the navigation laws, insisting that the depressed state of shipping was due to ‘natural causes, not bad legislation’, 1 Mar. 1859. He was also sensitive to the needs of local shipbuilders and spoke in favour of repealing duties on the import of timber and wood, 3 Mar. 1859, and of abolishing passing tolls on the river Wear, 1 Mar. 1861.

In 1861 Fenwick served on the select committee on the salmon and trout fisheries bill, where he generally divided in the majority, and became an ardent supporter of fishery reform thereafter.4PP 1861 (433), xiv. 328. He declared in the Commons that, due to overfishing, it was a ‘great evil’ that salmon was ‘now confined to the opulent classes’, 22 Mar. 1861, and later successfully moved for a royal commission into sea fisheries, 2 June 1863. He served on the 1865 select committee on the Salmon Fisheries Act (1861) amendment bill, and his recommendation that charges be imposed on fish and catch limits was incorporated into the new legislation.5PP 1865 (358), xii. 438.

Fenwick’s voting record reflected his support for religious liberties and electoral reform. He consistently divided for church rate abolition and for the Maynooth grant, and labelled the government’s Durham University bill ‘a sham’, as the institution would remain under the control of the Bishop of Durham, 18 July and 22 July 1861. A supporter of the secret ballot, he was in minorities for Locke King’s county franchise bill, 11 Mar. 1861, and Edward Baines’s borough franchise bill, 11 May 1864. Although he had voted against Palmerston’s conspiracy to murder bill, 18 Feb. 1858, he consistently backed the premier during his second ministry, and his loyalty was rewarded after the 1865 general election when he was appointed a lord of the admiralty. Fenwick duly sought re-election, but after a fractious contest where illness prevented him from appearing in person, he was defeated by his Liberal challenger.6Newcastle Courant, 2 Mar. 1866; Examiner, 3 Mar. 1866; T.J. Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms in reformed England: case studies from the North-east, 1832-74 (1975), 125-6.

Following his defeat, one sympathetic commentator insisted that Fenwick had been ‘a very industrious and intelligent member of the House of Commons’.7Examiner, 3 Mar. 1866. Any ambition to return to Parliament, however, was thwarted by continuing ill health, and he died at home at Lansdowne House, Richmond, in April 1868. He was succeeded by his only son, Henry Thomas, Liberal member for the Houghton-le-Spring division of county Durham, 1892-1895.