LEGGE, William Walter, viscount Lewisham (1823-1891), of Sandwell Hall, Staffordshire; Patshull Hall, Staffordshire; Blackheath, Kent; Woodsome, Yorkshire

‘An enthusiastic Tory’, Lewisham did not play ‘any distinguished part’ in the Commons before succeeding his father as the 5th earl of Dartmouth in 1853.1R.H. Trainor, ‘Peers on an industrial frontier: the earls of Dartmouth and of Dudley in the Black Country, c. 1810 to 1914’, in D. Cannadine ed., Patricians, power and politics in nineteenth-century towns (1981), 69-132 (at 97); Birmingham Daily Post, 5 Aug. 1891. However, thereafter he had ‘great interest and some influence in Tory politics in the Black Country, especially in West Bromwich and Wolverhampton where he encouraged Conservative organisation and campaigns through subscriptions and vigorous speeches’.2R.H. Trainor, Black Country élites: the exercise of authority in an industrialised area, 1830-1900 (1993), 212. Although he was ‘not a skilled orator’, Lewisham was ‘modest and endowed with a deep sense of duty’.3Trainor, ‘Industrial frontier’, 89.

The Legge family, earls of Dartmouth, owned land in Kent and the West Riding, but it was their estates in Staffordshire, acquired in 1701, which became increasingly lucrative due to mining royalties and urban development. Smoke pollution forced them to abandon the family’s Staffordshire seat of Sandwell Hall for nearby Patshull Hall, purchased from the Pigot family for £297,000 in 1848.4Ibid., 74-5. Lewisham’s father, William Legge (1784-1853), 4th earl of Dartmouth, had briefly represented Milborne Port in 1810 before succeeding and was described by the Whig Lord Hatherton as ‘the active manager of the Staffordshire Tories’.5HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 404; Hatherton Journal, 10 July 1837, Staffordshire Record Office, D1178/1. Lewisham had strong connections to other local Conservative noble families, such as the Chetwynd-Talbots, Earls Talbot, through his mother, and through marriage, to the Finches, earls of Aylesford.

Describing himself as an ‘unreserved Conservative’, Lewisham came in unopposed for South Staffordshire at a by-election in February 1849, offering support for the established church and opposition to any further endowment of Roman Catholicism.6The Times, 25 Jan. 1849, 20 Feb. 1849. However, Lewisham was forced to reassure local ironmasters that he would further their interests and told them that he sought election because he was ‘tired of being an idle man’.7The Standard, 26 Jan. 1849; Trainor, ‘Industrial frontier’, 85. Although he was sceptical about free trade, Lewisham thought it should be given a fair trial.8The Times, 20 Feb. 1849.

Lewisham is not known to have spoken or served on any committees during his Commons career. He voted in 44 (22%) out of 198 divisions in the 1849 session and 31 (12%) out of 257 in the 1852-3 session.9Hampshire Telegraph, 20 Oct. 1849; Daily News, 21 Sept. 1853. When present, he followed a Derbyite line. He opposed the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, supported Berkeley’s motion to reconsider the corn laws, 14 May 1850, and backed Disraeli’s motions for agricultural relief in 1849, 1850 and 1851. He also endorsed proposals to repeal the malt duty. He opposed the various schemes of political reform proposed in the late 1840s and early 1850s. Lewisham was again returned unopposed at the 1852 general election but was forced to deny that he and his leader Lord Derby were ‘throwing overboard all their previous convictions’ by abandoning protection. Although he was keen to redress farmers’ grievances, he had been convinced by party leaders that the restoration of protection would lead to a fearful ‘commotion’ among the working classes. He thought that some of the ‘very violent language’ used by protectionists, particularly against Peel, had damaged their cause, and believed that the renouncement of protectionism was essential to secure his return.10Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 June 1852. Lewisham backed Disraeli’s budget, 16 Dec. 1852, and opposed Jewish relief and the abolition of church rates.

On his succession to the peerage in November 1853, Hatherton observed that ‘Lewisham will reap all the advantage of the public education he has had as a county member. The peerage is much nourished by the opportunities of imbibing fresh views & principles’.11Hatherton Journal, 25 Nov. 1853, Staffs. RO, D260/M/F/26/63. He made few speeches in the Lords, but was active in promoting local Conservatism through speeches and subscriptions.12Trainor, Black Country élites, 206, 212; He was the first president of the Midland Union of Conservative Associations and a patron of local Primrose League habitations and working-class Conservative clubs.13Birmingham Daily Post, 5 Aug. 1891. Appointed lord lieutenant of Staffordshire in 1887, Dartmouth’s promotion of Conservatives to the magistrates’ bench aroused some controversy.14Trainor, ‘Industrial frontier’, 97. He owned 18,518 acres yielding an annual income of £58,657 in the early 1880s.15Ibid., 75. By this time urban development had made the family’s Kent and Black Country estates increasingly lucrative, and mining revenues from the latter remained substantial. This effectively insulated Dartmouth’s income from the agricultural depression.16Ibid., 75-7. On his death in 1891 Dartmouth’s personal and real estate was valued at £1.9 million.17Ibid., 76. He was succeeded by his elder son William Heneage Legge, 6th earl of Dartmouth (1851-1936), who as viscount Lewisham was Conservative MP for East Kent, 1878-85 and Lewisham, 1885-91.18M. Stenton and S. Lees, Who’s who of British Members of Parliament (1978), ii. 218.