HUNT, George Ward (1825-1877), of Prince of Wales Terrace, Kensington, London and Wadenhoe House, Oundle, Northants.

Blessed with the ‘sagacity of the elephant, as well as the form’, Hunt, who measured 6 foot 4 inches and weighed over 25 stone, represented Northamptonshire North as a Conservative between 1857 and 1877, after failing to get elected for Northampton in 1852 and 1857. His eye for detail and practical legal experience, especially in electoral matters, rather than his flair for debate, prompted his speedy ascent through the ranks of the Conservative party. He became financial secretary to the treasury under Derby in 1866, and served as chancellor of the exchequer in the first Disraeli government. His inability to locate his dispatch box in 1868 is often cited as historical precedent for the custom of the chancellor holding up their red box outside 11 Downing Street on budget day.

A distant descendant of Colonel Thomas Hunt (1599-1699), who had sat as a parliamentarian for Shrewsbury between 1645 and 1653, and the only son of a ‘well connected country clergymen’, Hunt was educated at Eton and Christchurch, before being called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1851.1Northampton Mercury, 4 Aug. 1877; B. Burke, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry (1875), i. 670. He practiced on the Oxford circuit, but preferring politics, and following a requisition from 200 Northampton Conservatives in 1852, announced his candidacy for the borough in the week prior to that year’s election. He was an unknown in the town and his opponents referred to him simply as ‘Hunt of Wadenhoe’. He promised to give ‘a general, but not a blind support’ to the Derby government and agreed to the maintenance of free trade, so long as a measure of agricultural relief that did not raise the ‘price of the poor man’s loaf’ could be identified. He also spoke in favour of educational reform, limited parliamentary reform, economy and ‘tolerance to all religious sects’. He was opposed to the Maynooth grant and the ballot.2Northampton Mercury, 3 June 1852, 10 June 1852. Hunt polled third, 80 votes behind his nearest Liberal rival.

He decided not to contest an 1855 by-election in the borough, but promised local Conservatives that he would come forward again at the next general election. While Hunt was holidaying in Egypt in 1857, the general election was called and his absence from the town during canvassing prompted rumours that he had fallen ill. His supporters insisted he was in rude health, and that he would return in time for the nomination.3Ibid, 21 Mar. 1857. They were subsequently left shamefaced by his absence from the hustings, where Hunt was mocked for prioritising his travels over his constituency – ‘they [Northampton’s Conservatives] might have adopted him [Hunt] as one of the Pyramids, or he might be a mummy’, his Liberal opponent quipped.4Ibid, 28 Mar. 1857. He polled third.

Hunt came forward for a by-election at Northamptonshire North later that year, his selection reportedly startling Northamptonshire’s established gentry – ‘what, a parson’s son and a lawyer represent Northamptonshire!’5Ibid, 23 May 1874. He vowed to ‘strengthen the hands of the Government of the day in dealing with the fearful Mutiny in British India’ and consider a ‘relaxation’ in the ‘Monetary Laws with a view to restore confidence in the credit of the country’.6Ibid, 5 Dec. 1857. He was continually mocked on the hustings for holidaying in Egypt during Northampton’s previous election, but also for spending too much time dining and drinking instead of canvassing. Hunt excused his lacklustre canvassing on account of ill health; he suffered from frequent attacks of gout throughout his adult life. At the nomination, he termed himself a ‘Churchman’ and a ‘Conservative’, and consented to a slight reduction in the borough and county franchise, so long as ‘a proper balance was preserved between different interests’ in the electoral system. He comfortably defeated his Liberal rival.

Hunt wasted little time in getting involved in the Commons, speaking within days of being sworn in to express his opposition, on legal grounds, to Palmerston’s conspiracy to murder motion, which he also voted against, 9 Feb. 1858. He subsequently voted with the Conservative leadership in the majority that defeated the conspiracy to murder bill and brought down the Liberal government, 19 Feb. 1858. Aside from voting with anti-Catholics for Spooner’s anti-Maynooth motion, 29 Apr. 1858, he divided with the Conservative administration on most issues, including Derby’s reform bill, 31 Mar. 1859.

His attendance of the division lobbies was around average for the parliament, but when present he proved a feisty backbencher. In April 1858 he was a member of a deputation that called on Derby to oppose the abolition of church rates.7Essex Standard, 23 Apr. 1858. Following the Edward Glover controversy, he threatened to move an amendment to the property qualification bill, in order to remove MPs’ privilege of freedom from arrest, 2 June 1858, and subsequently introduced a freedom from arrest bill, on the basis that ‘men of straw’ could now sit in the Commons following the abolition of the property qualification, 30 June 1858.8PP 1857-8 (116), iii. 521; K. Rix, ‘Glover, Edward Auchmuty’, HP Commons, 1832-68. He agreed to withdraw the bill ahead of its third reading at Disraeli’s request, 20 July 1858. He also voiced his opposition to the ballot, stating that ‘he would not be a party to the establishment of a system which would send an elector into a dark room to drop a ticket into a box and come out to lie’, 8 June 1858. He successfully moved to delay the conveyance of voters bill until a solution such as voting papers was introduced, 2 Mar. 1859, and spoke several times on legal issues. He sat on no select committees during the parliament, but he did introduce a failed Weights and Measures Act amendment bill, 22 Mar. 1859.9PP 1859 sess. 1 (92), ii. 923; PP 1861 (0.102), l. 67.

He came forward on a joint ticket with his fellow Conservative incumbent in 1859, and his address to electors promised to consider any reform bill ‘conceived in a moderate and constitutional spirit’.10Northampton Mercury, 9 Apr. 1859; 16 Apr. 1859. On the hustings he informed electors that he believed Russia and France had made a pact against Britain and that ‘every hour’ he ‘expected to hear the peal of war thunder’. He also spoke in favour of a £6 borough franchise and £20 county franchise.11Stamford Mercury, 6 May 1859. He was returned second in the ensuing contest.12Northampton Mercury, 14 May 1859.

Hunt made a significant contribution to parliamentary debate, legislative drafting and select committee work during the subsequent parliament, which, by August 1863, had brought him to the attention of the Conservative leadership.13Disraeli to Derby, 22 Jan. 1862, 5 Aug. 1863: Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1860-1864, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2009), xiii. 163, 288. He took a particular interest in the fine details of legislation regarding electoral practices, legal reform and the Church, and demonstrated some attention to the administration of national finances.

While Hunt did not err from his moderate stance over franchise reform during the parliament, he introduced and supported several measures intended to increase the efficiency of the electoral system. He contributed regularly to debate over the 1860 corrupt practices bill, which he supported, and sought to move an instruction for increased facilities for polling during committee debate on that year’s failed reform bill, 4 June 1860. In 1861 he was an active member of the select committee on university elections, and to the annoyance of the government moved a number of successful minor amendments to the proxy voting clauses of that year’s successful university elections bill, 12 July 1861.14PP 1861 (297), xiv. 341. He called for the speedier publication of election accounts, 9 Feb. 1863, and after an active membership of the 1863 election petitions committee, introduced an election petitions bill in June 1863 that sought to reduce levels of opportunistic petitioning by making it harder for petitioners to withdraw their petitions at a future date, 10 June 1863. The bill reached committee, but was postponed, 2 July 1863.15PP 1863 (457), vi. 1; PP 1863 (124), ii. 143. He was an active member of the 1864 select committee on the registration of county voters, during which he lobbied for the provision of powers to revising barristers to ensure better order in the registration courts, 16 Feb. 1864.16PP 1864 (203), x. 403. He subsequently questioned the wisdom of the failed 1864 county voters registration bill, which he warned threatened to introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into the registration process by making clerks of the peace complete preliminary checks on registration lists, 15 June 1864. He successfully introduced and stewarded his own, simplified, county voters registration bill the following year, which sought to make it harder for local organisations to make frivolous objections to county voters, 8 Mar. 1865.17PP 1865 (59), i. 291; 28 Vict. c. 36.

His legalistic outlook was also reflected in his regular involvement in debate over the practicalities of law enforcement, and he frequently sought to reduce any impact that proposed legislation might have on law officers and the courts. For example, he sought clarity on how justices might implement legislation that proposed to regulate the sale of alcohol, 17 May 1860, the selection of jury lists, 28 May 1862, and the technical processes surrounding the declaration of insane prisoners, 15 Feb 1864. He was also an active member of the 1862 select committee on prosecution expenses and the 1865 select committee on the prisons bill.18PP 1862 (401), xi. 1; PP 1865 (280), xii. 425. He helped to draft the failed 1862 sale of beer bill, which sought to restrict publicans from blackmailing their customers into consuming further beer by removing their ability to threaten legal action over small debts, 9 July 1862, and was an active advocate of increased monitoring of returned convicts, or ‘ticket-of-leave’ men, proposing several successful amendments to the penal servitude act amendment bill throughout 1864.19PP 1862 (159), v. 51.

Religion provided another motivating factor for Hunt, although by the end of the parliament he had evidently moderated his earlier stance as a ‘Churchman’. He led the successful opposition to the 1861 marriage law amendment bill, which sought to allow men to marry their deceased wife’s sisters, and accused proponents of the similar 1862 marriages of affinity bill of seeking to ‘turn back the tide of civilization’ to a time when ‘“wild in woods the naked savage ran” and intercourse was promiscuous’, 12 Mar. 1862. He took an active interest in ecclesiastical affairs during 1863 and was keen to prevent any legislation that might weaken the parish. Significantly, he was a member of that year’s select committees on the ecclesiastical commission and Church Building and New Parishes Acts amendment bill, and successfully moved to postpone the 1863 burials bill, which he argued ‘would virtually disestablish the Church of England’ by giving dissenting ministers equal powers to their Anglican counterparts, 15 Apr. 1863.20PP 1863 (457), vi. 1, 43. He signalled a tone of moderation in the final two years of the parliament when he voted against the majority of Conservatives in favour of the Roman Catholics oath bill, 17 May 1865. He subsequently called the parliamentary oath ‘an obsolete, a clumsy, and a worn-out contrivance’, confirming that he was ‘prepared to place Roman Catholics on the footing of other Members’, 12 June 1865.

His first major parliamentary intervention on the public finances came in 1862 when he accused Gladstone of encouraging surveyors of taxes to overcharge inhabitants in Northamptonshire, 19 May 1862.21PP 1862 (172), xxx. 25, 49. In the following year he called for Gladstone to increase the qualification for the £60 income tax exemption from £200 to £300, 23 Apr. 1863, and made several minor contributions to debates over fiscal policy. In demonstrating that he was not unwilling to shy away from controversy, his final act of the parliament was to move a successful vote of censure on the lord chancellor for influencing appointments to the Leeds bankruptcy court and the allocation of pensions, which prompted the lord chancellor’s resignation, 3 July 1865.

Hunt was returned without a contest at the 1865 election, where his previous support for the Roman Catholic Oath Act prompted heckles of ‘he’s half a Liberal already’. He defended his vote on the basis that it would have no bearing on the future fortunes of the Church. What mattered more, he argued, was the continued work of hospitable and active ministers at parish level. He also confirmed his continued support for moderate parliamentary, church rate and poor law reform.22Northampton Mercury, 15 July 1865.

A severe outbreak of cattle plague, which had infected 73,549 animals by the end of 1865, provided Hunt with his sole focus during the first part of the subsequent parliament. He was the parliamentary lead for a cross-party group that blamed the Liberal government’s inaction, and inability to comprehend the severity of the outbreak during the latter half of 1865, for exacerbating the outbreak.23The Times, 10 Feb. 1866, 12 Feb. 1866. During the first reading of a government bill to deal with the plague, Hunt took the extraordinary move of placing his own more stringent, self-drafted bill on the table. By contrast with the government’s legislation, which was permissive, his bill sought to impose mandatory national regulations for dealing with the outbreak on the basis that the plague did not abide by administrative boundaries. His bill also called for extremely strict regulations on markets and fairs and for the sanitation of ‘railway trucks, pens, and platforms’, to prevent the spread of disease, 12 Feb. 1866.24PP 1866 (7), i. 481. Hunt was a constant contributor to debate on both bills, and frequently accused the government of playing party politics over the issue. He eventually withdrew his bill after it had received the assent of the Lords, but declared victory as its major provisions were transplanted into an Order in Council, 14 Mar. 1866.25The Times, 30 Mar. 1866. His efforts were congratulated by The Times, and the Order in Council was followed by a virtual cessation in new cases of cattle plague by November that year (down from almost 17,875 a week in February).26S. Hall, ‘The Cattle Plague of 1865’, Medical History, 6, 1, 56.

Hunt also paid close attention to the £14 county franchise clause in the Liberal government’s 1866 reform bill, questioning why such an arbitrary level had been selected. His motion to restrict the franchise to a £14 poor rating failed by seven votes, but he later moved a successful amendment to restrict the franchise to those who had paid their rates in the previous registration year, 11 June, 14 June 1866. He consequently voted with the opposition in favour of Lord Dunkellin’s amendment for a rateable borough franchise, 18 June 1866, which prompted the resignation of Russell’s ministry.

On the basis of his parliamentary record he was appointed financial secretary to the treasury in the subsequent Derby administration. In post he attended diligently to the duties of his office, earning Disraeli’s endorsement as ‘our best man’ by March 1867.27Disraeli to Derby, 16 Mar. 1867: Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1865-1867, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2013), xi. 274. He regularly responded to questions in the Commons on behalf of his department, and paid close attention to his daily bureaucratic responsibilities. He was not afraid to lobby the leadership over budgetary matters – for instance, pressing Derby to place restrictions on naval spending so as to avoid an increase in taxation ahead of the opening of parliament – and aside from a misjudged speech on the extension of advance loans for Irish railway companies, 15 Mar. 1867, he proved an asset to Disraeli and the treasury.28See various entries in Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1865-1867, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2013), xi., in particular, Derby to Disraeli, 2 Feb. 1867, 16 Mar. 1867, 24 Mar. 1867, 236, 274-5, 281-2. Assiduous attendance to departmental responsibilities occupied most of his parliamentary time during 1867. However, he was able to intervene in a debate over Gladstone’s defeated motion for the enfranchisement of compound ratepayers, arguing that in his experience compound householders would not lose out financially if they paid their own rates, and that doing so was one of the ‘duties of citizenship’, 12 Apr. 1867. He attended 147 of 163 divisions during the 1867 session, unsurprisingly voting with the leadership throughout.

Hunt’s excellent performance as financial secretary prompted Disraeli to appoint him as chancellor of the exchequer when he succeeded to the premiership in February 1868. Preparing the Queen for her meeting with Hunt, Disraeli warned her of his ‘remarkable’ appearance: ‘he is more than six feet 4 in stature, but does not look so tall from his proportionate breadth – like St Peters, no one is at first aware of his dimensions’. But, he continued, ‘he has the sagacity of the elephant, as well as the form … simple, straightforward & truthful … & of a very pleasing & amiable expression of countenance’. Disraeli then revealed that Hunt had ‘gained golden opinions in the execution of his office as Sec[retary] of the Treasury, & is so popular … that the opposition even intimated recently that if a new Speaker were required, they were not disinclined to consider Mr Ward Hunt’s claims’.29Disraeli to Queen Victoria, 26 Feb. 1868: Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1868, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2013), x. 82. Hunt was re-elected unopposed at the necessary ministerial by-election, although he was given a scare on the hustings when the division’s radicals won a show of hands for their last-minute candidate, who then withdrew.30Northampton Mercury, 14 Mar. 1868.

Hunt’s sole budget speech was a ‘business-like proposal for meeting the deficit’ that lasted 1½ hours and increased the income tax from 4d. to 6d., 23 Apr. 1868.31Evening Standard, 25 Apr. 1868; W. Monypenny and G. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli (1920), v. 45. It was a poorly attended affair, which The Times attributed to the prior knowledge that all that was likely to be announced was an increase in taxation to fund the ongoing Abyssinian expedition. ‘Within living memory’, the paper wrote ‘there never has been such slackness of attendance … only the Ladies Gallery appeared comfortably full.’32The Times, 24 Apr. 1868; Newcastle Guardian, 25 Apr. 1868. The circumstances surrounding Hunt’s speech were perhaps of more historical significance. To the surprise of members, Hunt was not in place on the front bench ahead of his scheduled start time. According to one contemporary report, rumour had it that ‘Hunt had been seized with an attack of bronchitis’.33Belfast Morning News, 27 Apr. 1868, citing Edinburgh Daily Review. Another contemporary diarist described the ensuing scene:

‘The conservative whips rushed about distractedly, anxiously inquiring everywhere, “Have you seen Hunt? Have you seen Hunt?” The members enjoyed the joke vastly. The suspense, however, did not last long. Not more than five minutes expired when the door swung open and the ponderous form of the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared. A burst of cheering and laugher greeted him as he walked up the House. “But where’s my box?” said he, as he looked at the table. Alas! There was no box. … But here again the suspense was soon ended … a messenger rushed across the lobby with the all-important box in his hand. … Mr Hunt, who, smiling at it lovingly, as a father would at a rescued child, unlocked it, opened it, and began his work’.34W. White, The Inner Life of the House of Commons (1904), ii. 97-8.

Hunt’s late arrival, and his subsequent inability to locate his budget box, provides a plausible explanation (though unconfirmed) for the custom in subsequent years of the chancellor being asked to display his red box to a crowd outside Downing Street ahead of his budget.35Crowds at Westminster on Budget Day date back to the nineteenth century, Illustrated London News, 2 July 1864; Clare Journal, 1 May 1865. However, the ritual of holding up the dispatch box to the crowd on Downing Street probably originated with Hugh Dalton in 1947, see ‘We’re All in the Secret Now’, British Pathé (1930); ‘Sir John Simon’, British Pathé (1940); ‘Budget day, 1947’, British Pathé (1947). It is only subsequently that Hunt’s story has been linked to the tradition, for example, B. Crystal, A. Russ and E. McLachlan, Sorry I’m British: An Insider’s Romp Through Britain from A to Z (2010), 54; The Times, 18 Mar. 2015.

The majority of Hunt’s short tenure as chancellor was spent defending the government’s reform legislation and responding to his departmental responsibilities. His only additional legislative achievement of substance was the Electric Telegraphs Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 110), which allowed the state to place telegraph networks under public ownership. In future years the legislation failed to raise the level of revenue Hunt had expected due to sustained public pressure for the maintenance of cheap telegraph rates, and the high prices paid to private companies for the acquisition of their networks.36Disraeli to Victoria, 18 July 1868, Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1868, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2013), x. 257; Monypenny and Buckle, Benjamin Disraeli, 46. After the dissolution of parliament, Hunt oversaw arrangements for the duke of Edinburgh’s two-year diplomatic voyage to Asia, started making further arrangements to fund the still ‘heavy supplementary bill for Abyssinia’ and provided tentative support to an admiralty request to purchase the rights to construct the Whitehead torpedo (which were eventually granted in 1871).37Disraeli to Hunt, 30 Sep. 1868, Disraeli to Buckingham and Chandos, 5 Oct. 1868, Disraeli to Montagu Corry, 10 Nov. 1868 Hunt to Disraeli, 16 Nov. 1868: Benjamin Disraeli letters, 1868, ed. M. G. Wiebe et al. (2013), x. 256-8, 368-9, 377-8, 415, 426.

Hunt continued to represent Northamptonshire North until his death 1877 and returned to office in Disraeli’s second government as first lord of the admiralty – inadvertently causing a ‘navy scare’ after exaggerating his Liberal predecessor’s inattention to naval development, 20 Apr. 1874, 30 Apr. 1874.38H. C. G. Matthew ‘Hunt, George Ward (1825-1877)’, Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com; N. A. M. Rodger, ‘The Dark Ages of the Admiralty, Part II: Change and Decay, 1874-80’, Mariners Mirror, 62 (1976), 33-46. Hunt’s period in office is responsible for the ‘hemispherical recess’ termed ‘Hunt’s Bay’ in the admiralty board room table, which was reportedly created to accommodate his well-rounded gut.39L. Gardiner, The British Admiralty (1968), 7, 352; M. M. Schoenberg, ‘Hunt, George Ward: A 19th Century Giant’, Northamptonshire Past and Present, 5, 4 (1976), 349-62. Hunt’s health deteriorated rapidly following his appointment, and the ‘sorrows and scrapes’ of office had reportedly reduced his weight to 25 stone by 1876. Following a severe attack of gout during July 1877, he travelled to Homburg in the hope of restoring his health, but suffered a heart attack on 29 July 1877. He was buried in the English cemetery in Homburg on 31 July.40The Times, 30 July 1877; Northampton Mercury, 4 Aug. 1877; Marquis of Zetland (ed.), The Letters of Disraeli to Lady Chesterfield and Lady Bradford, (1929), ii. 23. His will was declared under £16,000. He was survived by his wife and succeeded by his eldest son George Eden Hunt (1859-1892). His personal papers are held by the Northamptonshire Record Office.41England and Wales, National Probate Calendar, 1877, 525 (6 Oct. 1877).