HODGSON, Richard (1812-1877), of 5 St. James’s Square, London, Mdx. and Stelling Hall, Northumb.

Christened ‘King Richard’ for his ruthless business leadership, Hodgson was best known to the public as chairman of the North British Railway. A direct descendant of William Hodgson, sheriff of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1474, his father, John, owned the 800 acre, coal-rich estate of Elswick on the outskirts of the city. His elder brother, John Hodgson Hinde, MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1830-35 and 1836-47, inherited the estate upon coming of age in 1827. 1Leeds Mercury, 26 Dec. 1877.

At the 1837 general election, Hodgson came forward as a Conservative for Berwick-on-Tweed and, after a keenly fought contest, narrowly topped the poll. Initially silent in the Commons, he generally voted with the Conservatives, although his opposition to the Maynooth grant, 23 June 1840, and to the poor law amendment bill, 8 Feb. 1841, saw him dividing in minorities against Peel. Returned in second place on a protectionist platform at the 1841 general election, Hodgson wrote to Peel to put himself forward for a government post, which the new premier politely rebuffed.2BL Add. MSS. 40486, ff. 197-99. He divided with Peel for the property tax bill, 31 May 1842, and consistently voted with him during the factory bill debates in 1844. He remained, however, staunchly opposed to the new poor law amendment bill, and voted against repeal of the corn laws, 15 May 1846.

Hodgson found his feet as a parliamentarian in 1844 during the debates on railway legislation. A shareholder in the Glasgow and Ayr railway company, he frequently intervened to argue that parliament should refrain from delaying railway bills. Along with his fellow Northumbrian MPs, who were wary of the attempts of the Peel ministry to ensure that the state could exercise purchasing power over future railways, he divided against the second reading of the railways bill, 11 July 1844. Maintaining his opposition to state intervention, he also protested strongly against Joseph Hume’s motion to restrict railway companies applying for additional credit to raise capital, 14 May 1847.

At the 1847 general election, Hodgson was brought forward to replace his brother at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but, because of his protectionist sympathies, he finished bottom of the poll. Undeterred by further defeats at Berwick-on-Tweed in 1852 and 1853, he contested that constituency again at a by-election in August 1859, triggered by Ralph Earle, a Conservative, taking the Chiltern Hundreds almost immediately upon his election. Hodgson lost by one vote and a subsequent commission of inquiry into the 1859 elections at Berwick-on-Tweed found him personally guilty of bribery.3The Times, 16 Feb. 1861. Eventually re-elected to the Commons after defeating a Liberal opponent at the Tynemouth by-election of April 1861, he made a lengthy speech in the Commons in an attempt to clear his name. The attorney general, however, upheld the inquiry’s verdict, but there was no prosecution.4Hansard, 29 Apr. 1861, vol. 162, cc. 1214-9.

As Conservative member for Tynemouth, Hodgson made a number of interventions in the Commons on behalf of the shipping interest, but his motion to repeal a clause in the Merchant Shipping Act, in order to ensure that shipowners once again became liable for their vessels when the employment of pilots was compulsory, came to nothing, 19 June 1862. He was also a constant critic of the cost of private bills, sitting on the related 1862 and 1863 select committees,5PP 1862 (444), xvi. 208; PP 1863 (385), viii. 205. and subsequently moving a resolution to limit this ‘crying evil and injustice’, which was later withdrawn, 17 Feb. 1863. It was railway legislation, however, that continued to be the major focus of his contributions. He warned against government regulation of speeds of travel on the railway, 10 July 1863, and, addressing the issue of accidents, stated that he ‘would never sanction the principle that a government department should interfere with the internal arrangements of the railways’, 6 Mar. 1865. A member of the 1864 select committee on the powers of railway companies, he was particularly keen to determine from witnesses the means adopted to overcome opposition from steamboat companies.6PP 1864 (141), xi. 95. His subsequent motion that traffic agreements between railway and steamboat companies be referred to the committee on canal and railway bills was passed, 26 Apr. 1864, but went no further before the dissolution the following year.

Defeated by the Liberal George Otto Trevelyan at the 1865 general election at Tynemouth, where he had cut an unpopular figure, Hodgson devoted his energies to the North British Railway. Appointed chairman in 1855, he had already overcome fierce competition from the Caledonian Railway to secure the Border Union (North British) Railway Act, 21 July 1859, which sanctioned the construction of the border railway from Carlisle to Hawick. He became embroiled in scandal, however, in 1866 when it emerged that he had substantial holdings in the Scottish Wagon Company, which had been established to supply rolling stock to the North British Railway on a deferred payment basis. He was subsequently forced to resign and his career ended in disgrace.7J. Thomas, North British Railway (1969), i.

Hodgson came forward at Berwick-on-Tweed once again at the 1868 general election, but, having already suffered three previous defeats there, his campaign was essentially futile, and he finished last. On the death of his elder brother, John, in 1869, he inherited the family estate at Fryerside, County Durham, and consequently assumed the name of Huntley, his mother’s maiden name, the following year. He returned to public life in 1877 as high sheriff of Northumberland, but died, at home in Edinburgh, before completing his year in office. He was survived by his only daughter, Katherine Edith Isabella. A small selection of his correspondence, mainly with Peel, is located in the British Library.8BL Add. MSS. 40486, ff. 197, 199; 40518, ff. 321, 323; 40520, ff. 153, 157; 40527, ff. 121, 124; 40563, ff. 163, 171; 40578, ff. 285, 289; 43244, ff. 285, 289.