PIERREPONT, Sydney William Herbert, viscount Newark II (1826-1900), of 6 Tilney Street, London and Holme Pierrepont, Nottinghamshire

Pierrepont, styled viscount Newark after the death of his elder brother, Charles, in 1850, represented the southern division of Nottinghamshire for over eight years, but is probably best known in the annals of the county’s political history for losing an 1851 by-election, even though he was backed by all but one of the region’s leading landowners. Newark was the second son of the 2^nd Earl Manvers, one of Nottinghamshire’s wealthiest landowners. Manvers, an anti-Catholic Tory and former naval officer renowned for his ‘amiable, open sailor like habits’, represented Nottinghamshire from 1801 until his succession in 1816, which brought to an end the family’s 38-year occupation of one of the county’s seats.1Hatherton diary, 3 Nov. 1821; HP Commons, 1820-32, vi. 775-6. His brother Charles, with whom he is confused in Michael Stenton’s Who’s who of British Members of Parliament, 1832-1885 (1976), sat as a Reformer for East Retford, 1830-35.2Stenton incorrectly states that Charles sat for Nottinghamshire South: M. Stenton’s Who’s who of British Members of Parliament, 1832-1885 (1976), 284.

As the heir to a major magnate, Newark’s early political ambitions were thwarted by sections of Nottinghamshire’s diverse farming community who were suspicious of the major landowners’ pretensions. In April 1849 he intimated that, providing there was no contest, he would offer for the vacancy at Nottinghamshire South, but according to the duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, who was close to Manvers, the farmers, ‘would not hear of him’, and his candidature never materialised.3Unhappy reactionary: the diaries of the fourth duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1822-1850 (2003), ed. R.A. Gaunt, 156. In February 1851 Newark came forward for a new vacancy in the southern division caused by the death of the sitting member.4For a detailed analysis of the by-election see: J.R. Fisher, ‘The limits of deference: agricultural communities in a mid-nineteenth century election campaign’, Journal of British Studies, 21 (1981), 90-105, and by the same author, ‘Issues and influence: two by-elections in South Nottinghamshire in the mid-nineteenth century’, Historical Journal, 24 (1981), 155-65. Opposed by William Hodgson Barrow, a local solicitor, issues were largely unimportant as both men stood as avowed protectionists.5A full and impartial report of the proceedings connected with an election contest in South Nottinghamshire, February 1851 (1851), 3. It was Newark’s close ties to the division’s major landowners, therefore, that dominated a contest described rather sensationally by Barrow’s election agent as ‘a fight for liberty against slavery’.6Quoted in Fisher, ‘Limits of deference’, 97. Newark, who admitted his ‘own inexperience, and want of practical knowledge as a man of business’, cut an uninspiring figure at the hustings, and after a bitter campaign, he was narrowly defeated by eleven votes.7Report of proceedings, 12. Given the support Newark had from the leading landowners, the result was subsequently cited in a Commons’ debate as proof that the ballot was unnecessary.8Hansard, 14 June 1853, vol. 128, c. 184.

Newark was finally returned for Nottinghamshire South at the 1852 general election. At the nomination he declared that he no longer supported the Maynooth grant and ‘would now offer every possible resistance to the aggressions of the Romish priesthood’.9Nottinghamshire Guardian, 15 July 1852. He was elected unopposed. However, he failed to make any kind of impact in Parliament. He is not known to have spoken in debate and served on only one select committee.10On the Dartmouth election petition: PP 1852-53 (322), xii. 2. His attendance was also far from impressive.11In the 1853 session he voted in 54 out of 257 divisions, and in 1856 he was present for 38 out of 198: Daily News, 21 Sept. 1853; 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), 14.

Maintaining his unwavering support for protection, Newark voted against Villiers’ motion praising the repeal of the corn laws, and abstained from Palmerston’s subsequent motion in favour of free trade, 26 Nov. 1852. On most other major issues he followed Disraeli into the division lobby and voted for his motion condemning the Crimean war, 25 May 1855, though, in opposition to the Conservative leader in the Commons, he divided against Roebuck’s censure of the cabinet, 19 July 1855. He also abstained from Cobden’s censure motion on Canton, 3 Mar. 1857. Explaining his position at the 1857 general election, he gave his staunch backing to Palmerston, arguing that he had ‘upheld on this occasion the interests and the honour of England’, but as a loyal Conservative, he had been ‘unwilling’ to oppose his party in the division lobby.12Nottinghamshire Guardian, 2 Apr. 1857. His abstention did little to undermine his position locally, however, and he was re-elected without a contest.

In another show of support for Palmerston, Newark backed the premier’s conspiracy to murder bill, 19 Feb. 1858. Thereafter he divided steadily with the Conservatives and voted for the Derby ministry’s reform bill, 31 Mar. 1859. At the 1859 general election he was noticeably equivocal over the merits of the bill, but criticised Lord John Russell for not allowing the measure to go as it stood into committee. He called for a moderate measure of reform that ‘recognized the tribute due to increased education and progressive intelligence’ and was returned without a contest for a third time.13Ibid., 5 May 1859. In October 1860 he succeeded his father as 3^rd Earl Manvers and was elevated to the Lords, where he continued to give silent support to the Conservative cause.

Shortly after his succession, Newark rebuilt Thoresby Hall under the direction of the celebrated architect Anthony Salvin. He also took a keen interest in colliery and railway development on the expansive Thoresby estates, which included the village of Laxton, best-known for its preservation of open-field farming during the enclosure schemes of the nineteenth century. He was chairman of the Retford quarter sessions, 1884-93, and on the formation of the Nottinghamshire County Council in 1889, he was elected for the Edwinstowe division, which he represented until his retirement in 1898.14Ibid., 20 Jan. 1900.

Newark died at the family seat of Thoresby Hall in January 1900, following a bout of influenza.15Ibid. He left effects valued at £111,041 11s. 7d.16England and Wales, National Probate Calendar, Index of wills and administration, 1861-1941, 10 Mar. 1900, resworn May 1901. He was succeeded in the earldom by his eldest son, Charles, Conservative MP for Newark, 1885-95, and 1898-1900. The 3^rd earl’s estate papers are part of the Manvers Collection, held by the University of Nottingham.17Nottingham Univ. Lib., Special Collections, MA.