RICH, Henry (1797-1869), of 47 Mount Street, Grosvenor Square; later of 19 Charles Street, Berkeley Square; later of 28 Chapel Street, Grosvenor Square, London.

A self-described ‘Whig to the backbone’, Rich’s parliamentary career spanned four decades, during which he took a particular interest in Indian and military questions.3York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. He held office under Melbourne and Russell, but his opposition to his former colleagues after 1852, when he was excluded from office, prompted jibes about ‘the squeak of a pig that had got no teat’.4Hansard, 3 May 1853, vol. 126, c. 1072. Though dogged in his scrutiny of ministers thereafter, his party loyalties remained sufficiently strong for him to resign his Richmond seat in 1861 to create a vacancy for the solicitor-general.

Rich was one of several illegitimate children of Admiral Sir Thomas Rich, who died without legitimate issue in 1803, when the baronetcy became extinct.5Burke’s extinct and dormant baronetcies (2nd edn., 1844), 441. While two of Rich’s older brothers followed their father into high-ranking naval careers, he joined the army.6The Standard, 4 Nov. 1863; Morning Post, 8 Sept. 1866; IGI; Gent. Mag. (1866), ii. 560. Admitted to Sandhurst in October 1810 aged 13, he enlisted as an ensign in the 65th Foot in 1812, becoming a lieutenant the following year.7Sandhurst register; Army List (1816). He served in India, and received a medal after fighting at Poonah and Kirkee in 1817.8Dod’s parliamentary companion (1857, new parliament), 270. Rich moved to the half-pay list in 1820, and began his studies at Cambridge the following year, graduating in 1825.

Rich soon acquired a reputation as ‘a literary gentleman of first-rate talent’.9Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832. The daughter of Herodias was described by one reviewer as the work ‘of a scholar, and a writer who has no little insight into the springs of human feeling’: The Metropolitan, 2 (Sept. 1831), 120. His early works included a tragedy, The daughter of Herodias (1831).10Between 1831 and 1833 Rich wrote four articles for the Edinburgh Review, on Portugal, Poland, Spain and Turkey. His well-informed Edinburgh Review articles on European history and politics apparently received the tacit approval of Palmerston, then foreign secretary, who described Rich’s 1832 piece on Poland, which he read prior to publication, as ‘an admirable review’.11J.H. Gleason, The genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain (1950), 124. Blackwood’s Magazine praised Rich as ‘the ablest writer on Reform’ for his What will the Lords do? (1831).12H. Rich, What will the Lords do (4th edition, 1831). These works, together with Whig government, or Two years’ retrospect (1832), confirmed him as ‘a strenuous supporter’ of the Whig ministry, and he stood at Knaresborough at that year’s general election.13Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1832. Despite a creditable hustings performance, which showed him to be ‘a man of very sound judgement, a close and able reasoner’,14Ibid. the belief that he was the ‘nominee’ of the Whig duke of Devonshire, who had a seat at nearby Bolton Abbey, told against Rich, who polled third.15Daily News, 29 Mar. 1849.

He offered again in 1835 when he decried his opponents’ attempts to blur party lines, contending that ‘party distinctions were the safeguards of a man’s honour’. He wished to reform established institutions, notably the Church, but disclaimed any desire to destroy them. He advocated ‘the freedom of our consumers from shackles’ and believed that the suffrage could not be extended without improved education.16York Herald, 17 Jan. 1835. He again polled third. He continued his political writings with articles for the Edinburgh Review on Tory and Reform associations (1835) and Orange associations (1836).17H. Rich, ‘Tory and Reform Associations’, Edinburgh Review (1835), lxii. 167-84; idem., ‘Origin, nature and tendencies of Orange Associations’, Edinburgh Review (1836), lxii. 471-522. In 1837 he produced an ‘excellent’ pamphlet backing the Whig government’s church rates proposals, and his What Next? Or The Peers and the third time of asking advocated extensive reform of the Lords, including the creation of life peerages, to circumvent obstruction.18A.D. Kriegel, The Holland House diaries 1831-1840 (1977), 358; H. Rich, Will you have your church repaired? (1837); idem., What Next? Or The Peers and the third time of asking (1837), 3, 20.

In July 1837 Rich’s steadfast Whiggery was rewarded with his appointment as a groom in waiting to Queen Victoria.19London Gazette, 17 July 1837. A correspondent to The Times suggested that Rich owed his appointment to being ‘a protégé of Lord Lansdowne’, but this may not be accurate, as the same source provided a mistaken account of Rich’s parentage: The Times, 29 Aug. 1837. He topped the poll at Knaresborough at that month’s general election. Speaking ‘ably and with honesty’ on the hustings,20Morning Chronicle, 28 July 1837. he reiterated his desire to improve rather than destroy established institutions.21Leeds Mercury, 29 July 1837. Favouring ‘the liberal rather than... the harsh side of authority’, he wished to ‘promote the employment, the health & the instruction of the poor classes’ and attain ‘cheap government – pure law – and prompt justice’.22Dod MS, iii. 929.

Rich is not known to have served on any committees in his first Parliament, and his contributions to debate were infrequent, though generally lengthy. His maiden speech was on the compensation claim of Baron de Bode, whose family property in Alsace had been confiscated after the French revolution. Dismissing de Bode’s claim to be a British subject, Rich argued more broadly that the Commons should not ‘become a House of appeal rather than a Legislative Assembly’, 22 Feb. 1838. The following month he defended ministers against attacks on their Canadian policy, 7 Mar. The Morning Post suggested that he had learnt this speech by heart, but ‘did not exhibit much head’.23Morning Post, 8 Mar. 1838. He also demonstrated his loyalty to ministers in the division lobbies, supporting them on slave apprenticeships, 30 Mar., 28 May 1838, and the Irish church, 15 May 1838. Having voted with Charles Villiers on the corn laws in 1838 and 1839, he spoke in his support, 2 Apr. 1840, warning the landed interest that ‘this was their East Retford’ and they should ‘be wise in time’ by accepting a moderate fixed duty. The Morning Post again accused him of memorising his speech, ‘but with so much carefulness... as not to break down – an accident that did happen to him some two years ago’.24Morning Post, 3 Apr. 1840. Rich attempted to bring in a bill to abolish public executions, but withdrew his motion, 16 Feb. 1841.25D.D. Cooper, The lesson of the scaffold (1974), 102-5. He rallied to ministers on Peel’s confidence motion, 4 June 1841.

Somewhat unexpectedly, Rich did not seek re-election in 1841. In correspondence with Peel that September he revealed that he had decided two or three years earlier to retire at the dissolution ‘in consequence of several losses (pecuniary)’. He had hoped that by giving up his seat he could retain his household appointment (and the income), even with a change of ministry. He told Peel, not entirely accurately, that after making this decision he had ‘refrained from... active support of my party... never speaking or writing on any party question – declining parliamentary official place... keeping clear of electioneering matters and finally refusing a secure seat’.26H. Rich to Sir Robert Peel, 10 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, f. 118. See also Rich to Peel, 6 Sept. 1841, Add. 40487, ff. 232-3. Despite Rich’s disavowal of partisanship, Peel rejected his pleas to remain in office.27Peel to Rich, 9 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, ff. 116-17; 12 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, f. 120.

Rich resumed his writing for the Edinburgh Review and published What is to be done? or, Past, present and future (1844), in which he acknowledged Peel’s ‘general abilities as a statesman’, but nonetheless dismissed him as ‘a second-rate man’.28H. Rich, ‘Swinburne on the courts of Europe’, Edinburgh Review (1841), lxxiii. 461-86; idem., ‘Mellingen on duelling’, Edinburgh Review (1842), lxxv. 422-52; What is to be done? or, Past, present and future (1844), 37. It was reported in February 1846 that he would contest Knaresborough at the next opportunity.29Bradford Observer, 19 Feb. 1846. However, he came in for a vacancy at Richmond that April, offering as ‘a Liberal and Free Trader’.30Morning Post, 2 Apr. 1846. Backed by the borough’s electoral patron, the earl of Zetland, he never faced a contest for this seat. Addressing electors following his return, he argued that corn law repeal would not have the ill effects feared by the agricultural interest, and voiced his opposition to ‘the brute force of coercion bills’ in Ireland.31York Herald, 11 Apr. 1846. His first speech back at Westminster took the same line, opposing the Irish coercion bill, 27 Apr. 1846. He remained silent on corn law repeal, as ‘the policy of those who opposed the measure, was delay, and I therefore felt that those who said the least did the most’, but divided for it, 15 May 1846.32York Herald, 18 July 1846. Drawing on his experience as a director of the South-Eastern railway, Rich was an assiduous questioner of witnesses to the inquiry into the living and working conditions of railway navvies.33The Times, 30 June 1845; PP 1846 (530), xiii. 426. An 1845 return listed Rich’s railway investments as £287,400, but this was as a director on behalf of shareholders: PP 1845 (317), xl. 111; Morning Post, 28 June 1845. In July 1846 he was appointed as a lord of the treasury in Russell’s new ministry, at a salary of £1,200,34Dod’s parliamentary companion (1851), 239. whereupon he resigned as a railway director.35The Standard, 11 Sept. 1846. He resumed his railway directorship in 1852 and held it until 1866 when he retired: The Times, 5 Mar. 1852; The Standard, 9 Mar. 1866. At the necessary by-election, he described Russell as a ‘good husbandman’ guiding the plough, with Rich one of his ‘humble but willing horses’.36York Herald, 18 July 1846. He was again unopposed at the 1847 election.

Although his proposer at the 1846 by-election contended that Rich ‘had the power to command... the attention of the... Commons on all proper occasions’, he does not appear to have contributed to debate while at the treasury, where he took a particular interest in superannuation.37Ibid. Rich served on the treasury committee on superannuation from 1846: PP 1857 sess. 2 [2216], xxiv. 391. He was the prime mover behind an 1847 Act regulating superannuation allowances for the Irish constabulary (11 Vict., c. 100).38PP 1847 (618), i. 189; PP 1847-48 (543), xviii. 166. Active in the committee-rooms, he served on the 1849 inquiry into schools of design, which recommended an increased government grant.39PP 1849 (576), xviii. 2. He disagreed with Thomas Milner Gibson, chairman of the 1851 committee on the newspaper stamp, who favoured repeal of the stamp duty, proposing his own draft report which argued for retaining the duty as a source of revenue and safeguard against piracy. Rich’s hostility contributed to the watering-down of the final report, which concluded that news was ‘not a desirable subject of taxation’, rather than whole-heartedly endorsing repeal.40PP 1851 (558), xvii. 2. Rich also served on the committee which recommended the adoption of perforations for postage stamps.41PP 1852 (386), xv. 2.

While in office Rich was a fairly assiduous attender, present for 58% of divisions in the 1849 session.42Hampshire Telegraph, 20 Oct. 1849. He gave steady support to Russell’s ministry, consistently backing Catholic relief, removal of Jewish disabilities and free trade, and rallying to Palmerston on the Don Pacifico question, 28 June 1850. He opposed the abolition of church rates, 13 Mar. 1849, and routinely divided against Hume’s ‘Little Charter’. Although he opposed Locke King’s county franchise bill, 2 Apr. 1851, he reversed this vote, 27 Apr. 1852. He seconded Russell’s unsuccessful motion to postpone the second reading of the Derby ministry’s militia bill, 23 Apr. 1852. Drawing on his military experience, Rich argued that ‘to make a good and efficient soldier, required time and patient instruction’, and recommended the recruitment of volunteers rather than resorting to bounties; training police in the use of arms; and greater use of battalions of military pensioners.43Their motion against the bill was defeated by 315 votes to 165, 26 Apr. 1852. He moved unsuccessfully to postpone the bill’s third reading, 7 June 1852.

Re-elected at Richmond in 1852, Rich reiterated his commitment to free trade and praised the Russell ministry’s achievements. He voiced his preference for ‘a regular and disciplined force’ rather a militia, but expressed support for the volunteer movement, noting that he belonged to the Richmond rifle corps.44York Herald, 10 July 1852. He spoke and divided against Disraeli’s budget, 13 and 16 Dec. 1852. He repeated his arguments in favour of a greater reserve force of pensioner battalions, 25 Feb. 1853, and training the police to use arms, 26 Apr. 1853. With no place for him in Aberdeen’s ministry, Rich ‘began to carp and cavil at their measures’, when ‘everybody knew that if he had been in the Government he would have defended and justified the very things he criticised and censured’.45Birmingham Daily Post, 12 Jan. 1863. The Conservative Henry Drummond jibed that Rich’s increasing willingness to challenge ministers was ‘the squeak of a pig that had got no teat’, 3 May 1853. Although Rich declared his ‘unfeigned respect’ for the Aberdeen coalition, which would receive his ‘most cordial support when his conscience would go with them’, the epithet stuck.46Ibid. He did not abandon hopes of joining the administration, asking Aberdeen in July 1854 to consider him as an under-secretary in the war department, where his military experience could prove useful.47H. Rich to Lord Aberdeen, 12 July [1854], Add. 43253, ff. 261-2.

Now a regular speaker, the bulk of Rich’s contributions reflected his experiences in India and the army. He consistently warned against ‘precipitate legislation’ on the government of India, and urged that three principles must be embodied in any reform: ‘accessibility to office... without respect of caste, colour, or persuasion’; constant ministerial responsibility to Parliament; and British liability for its share of the costs of any wars, 30 June 1853. His attempts to insert clauses in the government of India bill affording greater opportunities for natives in the Indian civil service failed, 22, 25 July 1853.48His clause providing for a greater proportion of natives in the EIC’s civil service was defeated by 173 votes to 47, 25 July 1853. He made several interventions on the state of the army, notably in support of Roebuck’s motion for a select committee, 29 Jan. 1855, when he criticised the ‘indecision, weakness, and inaction’ of the Aberdeen coalition. However, he rallied to support Palmerston’s ministry against Disraeli and Roebuck’s censure motions on the Crimean war, 25 May, 19 July 1855. Rich took a keen interest in the management of Sandhurst, serving on a select committee, where he was a well-informed questioner of witnesses.49PP 1854-55 (317), xii. 321. His motion to abolish the sale of army commissions failed as the House was inquorate, 3 July 1855, and he argued to no avail for an inquiry into the practice, 4 Mar. 1856. He also favoured meritocracy in the civil service, 24 Apr. 1856. He demonstrated his expertise on the committee on the 1856 civil service superannuation bill,50PP 1856 (337), ix. 3. and served on inquiries into the refreshment rooms of the House, the Durham election petition and police provision.51PP 1852-53 (138), xxxiv. 286; PP 1854 (459), liii. 10; PP 1854-55 (489), 8; PP 1852-53 (588), xii. 346; PP 1852-53 (603), xxxvi. 2, 162. Although active in the chamber and committee-rooms, Rich was frequently absent from the lobbies, voting in 30 out of 257 divisions in the 1853 session, and 25 out of 198 in 1856.52Daily News, 21 Sept. 1853; J.P. Gassiot, Third letter to J.A. Roebuck: with a full analysis of the divisions in the House of Commons during the last session of Parliament (1857), 23. In contrast with his 1849 vote, he divided for abolition of church rates, 21 June 1854, and consistently thereafter.

Rich’s absence from the crucial division on Cobden’s censure motion over Canton in March 1857 caused ‘some dissatisfaction’ in Richmond, but he justified his neutrality when he addressed voters prior to his re-election that year.53The Times, 17 Mar. 1857. Although he agreed that Bowring had committed ‘an injustice’, he did not vote against ministers ‘because that wrong was not of their doing’. While he would not ‘give a passive adhesion’ to any minister, Palmerston ‘would receive his general support’. He advocated extension of the county franchise and abolition of church rates, but opposed the ballot.54The Times, 24 Mar. 1857.

Again active in debate, Rich pursued his interests in military matters, superannuation and, above all, India, continuing to keep a watchful eye on ministers. Despite his concerns about ‘extravagant expenditure’, he was unable to prevent the second reading of the Superannuation Act amendment bill, 29 July 1857.55On superannuation, see also his speeches of 29 June 1857, 23 July 1857 and 7 Feb. 1859. His vote against Palmerston on the conspiracy to murder bill, 9 Feb. 1858, confirmed that he would not simply toe the party line. When Indian affairs came to the fore as the new Derby ministry dealt with the aftermath of the mutiny, Rich made several contributions on the 1858 government of India bill, hoping to make its governance more responsible and less extravagant.56On India, see his speeches of 23 Apr., 7 May, 17 June, 1 July, 2 July 1858. He again mooted his pet project of a reserve force of army pensioners, 23 Apr. 1858. In his pamphlet Parliamentary reform. What and where (1858), Rich expressed disappointment with what had been achieved since 1832, complaining about the lack of law reform, the ‘hot and cold fits of economy’ rather than consistent retrenchment, and the fact that ‘official responsibility, either by the individual or the department, has become a dead letter’.57Parliamentary reform. What and where (1858), 7-9. Despite also endorsing the removal of small boroughs ‘where dominant interests prevail’,58Ibid., 22. a description which fitted Richmond, he was re-elected there in 1859, when his election address condemned the Derby ministry’s reform bill, against which he had divided, 31 Mar.59York Herald, 30 Apr. 1859.

In keeping with his attack on Derby’s ministry in A letter to a constituent on government by a minority (1859), Rich opposed it in the confidence vote, 10 June 1859. His general support for Palmerston’s ministry thereafter continued to be accompanied by a willingness to take it to task. He seconded De Lacy Evans’ motion for gradual abolition of the sale of commissions, 6 Mar. 1860. He urged that Russell’s motion to prioritise government business on Thursdays until Whitsun be resisted, ‘considering the many assaults which had been made by successive Governments upon the privileges of private Members’, 2 Apr. 1860. He also spoke, to no avail, against the European forces (India) bill, disliking its proposal to send more regular troops to India in place of local forces, 2 July 1860. As this measure was not deemed a party question, he contended that ‘the friends of the Government were thereby more free to express their opinions’. Aside from a second contribution on this bill, Rich made only one further Commons speech, drawing attention to disturbances in Syria and Lebanon, 3 Aug. 1860. A later account suggested that an appeal by party leaders to his electoral patron, Zetland, may have prompted Rich to cease his criticism of Palmerston’s administration, after which ‘he relapsed into a “silent member,” and went into the lobby with his party with grim dissatisfaction’.60Birmingham Daily Post, 12 Jan. 1863. Rich himself blamed his waning parliamentary activity on ‘an affection of the eyes, which renders prolonged reading both painful and injurious’, and he retired on these grounds in July 1861, taking the stewardship of the manor of Hempholme, although he was also motivated by the opportunity to create a vacancy for the newly-appointed solicitor-general, Sir Roundell Palmer.61The Times, 5 July 1861. Press reports hinted that there must be some ‘quid pro quo for this extraordinary piece of self-abnegation’,62The Standard, 5 July 1861. and Rich, having reverted from ministerial critic to ‘obliging Whigling’ once more, was indeed compensated with a baronetcy in January 1863.63Belfast News, 16 Jan. 1863.

Although not active in public life thereafter, Rich retained his interest in politics, writing in his journal, 23 July 1869, of the need to reform the Lords.64Extract from journal of Henry Rich, 23 July 1869, copied into bound volume of Rich’s pamphlets held by British Library [shelfmark: 08139.aaa.88]. He died at the Bull Hotel, Cambridge in November 1869, when the baronetcy became extinct, and was buried in the family vault at Sonning.65United Service Magazine, Dec. 1869, 603; Morning Post, 15 Nov. 1869. His widow Julia inherited £3,000 and a life interest in his estate (valued at under £35,000), which would then pass to his brothers’ children.66Pall Mall Gazette, 15 Jan. 1870. A prominent supporter of Girton College, Cambridge in its early years, she died in 1874.67B. Stephen, Girton College 1869-1932 (1933), 53, 152; Pall Mall Gazette, 10 Aug. 1874.