Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:23:02.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cain and Abel: Two Aristocrats and the Early Victorian Factory Acts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Peter Mandler
Peter Mandler
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In November 1844 the young Lord Ashley, not for 16 years to become the seventh earl of Shaftesbury, was in search of a public school for his son and heir, Anthony. ‘I fear Eton,’ he confided to his diary:

…it makes admirable gentlemen and finished scholars, fits a man, beyond all competition, for the dancing-room, the Club, St James' Street, and all the mysteries of social elegance; but it does not make the man required for the coming generation. We must have nobler, deeper, sterner stuff; less of refinement, and more of truth; more of the inward, not so much of the outward gentleman; a rigid sense of duty, not a ‘delicate sense of honour’; a just estimate of rank and property, not as manners of personal enjoyment and display, but as gifts from God, bringing with them serious responsibilities, and involving a fearful account; a contempt of ridicule, not a dread of it; a desire and a courage to live for the service of God, and the best interests of mankind, and by His grace, to accomplish the baptismal promise… Unless we have such men as these for our successors, goodbye to the British Empire.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 83 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Broadlands papers SHA/PD/3, Ashley's diary, 21 Nov. 1844.

2 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/3, 26 Oct. 1844; SHA/PD/4, 31 Oct. 1846; SHA/PD/5, 5 June 1848.

3 His epitaph for Lady Holland, the whig doyenne of the 1820s and 1830s, was: ‘a long life of sensual indulgence, of violated obligations, and bitter and scornful infidelity’. Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/3, 17 Nov. 1845.

4 For a few recent examples, see MacDonagh, Oliver, Early Victorian government 1830–1870 (London, 1977), pp. 59–61Google Scholar; Henriques, Ursula, Before the welfare state: social administration in early industrial Britain (London, 1979), pp. 88–9Google Scholar; Hamburger, Joseph, ‘The whig conscience’, in Marsh, Peter (ed.), The conscience of the Victorian state (Syracuse, N.Y., 1980), pp. 20–1, 26–32Google Scholar. See also Southgate, Donald, The passing of the whigs, 1832–1886 (London, 1962)Google Scholar, for an earlier but still respected verdict.

5 For recent views on the whigs' purely political importance, see Kriegel, Abraham D. (ed.), The Holland House diaries (London, 1977)Google Scholar, introduction; Mitchell, Leslie, Holland House (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Kriegel, Abraham D., ‘Liberty and whiggery in early nineteenth-century England’, Journal of Modem History, LII (1980), 253–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newbould, Ian D. C., ‘Whiggery and the dilemma of reform: liberals, radicals and the Melbourne administration, 1835–9’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LIII (1980), 229–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 For negative verdicts, see Kriegel (ed.), Holland House diaries, xxxii–xxxiii; Driver, Cecil, Tory radical: the life of Richard Oastler (New York, 1946), p. 426Google Scholar; Ward, J. T., The factory movement, 1830–1855 (London, 1962), pp. 418–26, 476–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An exception to this general rule has been Roberts, David, Victorian origins of the welfare state (New Haven, 1960), pp. 98–9, 138–9Google Scholar, and Paternalism in early Victorian England (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), pp. 229–31, 263–5Google Scholar. Dunkley's, Peter analysis of whig attitudes to the new Poor Law takes the whigs more seriously as whigs, and not simply as empty vessels, but still argues that on this issue whig leaders accepted all the crucial assumptions of the political economists. ‘Whigs and paupers: the reform of the English Poor Laws, 1830–1834’, Journal of British Studies, xx (1980–1981), 124–49Google Scholar.

7 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/2, 1 and 24 Oct. 1840, 25 Jan. 1843; SHA/PD/3, 27 Dec. 1843; SHA/PD/4, 10 Jan. and 8 Oct. 1846.

8 Mitchell, Holland House, p. 17.

9 That the Devonshire House circle of the age of Fox receives attention denied the Stafford House circle of a later generation is a minor example of the phenomenon described below, pp. 104–5. Lonsdale, Henry, The worthies of Cumberland (London, 1874), pp. 126–8Google Scholar.

10 Finlayson, Geoffrey B. A. M., The seventh earl of Shqftesbury, 1801–1885 (London, 1981), p. 19Google Scholar.

11 [British Library], Add[tional] MSS 52010 (Holland House papers), fo. 158: Morpeth to Henry Fox, 16 Jan. 1823.

12 Ibid.

13 Finlayson, Shaftesbury, pp. 18–19; Add. MSS 52010 (Holland House papers), fos. 95–6: Morpeth to Henry Fox, 4 Oct. 1820.

14 Ibid. fos. 150–1, Morpeth to Henry Fox, 3 Oct. 1822.

15 Finlayson, Shaftesbury, pp. 20–21.

16 Ibid. p. 28; Lonsdale, Worthies of Cumberland, pp. 134–5.

17 Hansard, 2nd ser., xvi, 849–54; Broughton, Lord (John Cam Hobhouse), Recollections of a long life, 4 vols. (London, 1909–1911), III, 173Google Scholar.

18 Hobhouse drafted a memorandum, unaddressed but apparently meant for Morpeth, urging just such a course so that Morpeth ‘would be able in an emergency to direct the people and to dictate to the sovereign’. Add. MSS 47226 (Broughton papers), fos. 90–1, n.d.

19 Broughton, Recollections, IV, 36. See also the L[eeds] M[ercury], 29 May 1830, for an early recognition of Morpeth's potential.

20 Hodder, Edwin, The life and work of the seventh earl of Shqftesbmy, K.G., 3 vols. (London, 1887), I, 96–8Google Scholar.

21 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/i, 24 Sept. and 28 Apr. 1828.

22 Ibid. 28 Apr. and 25 Dec. 1828.

23 Ibid. 5 Feb. 1829. Morpeth's treatment of the house was notoriously casual. On one occasion he played leapfrog with Spring Rice in the lobby; on another he sat on a table in the house ‘in a decidedly unparliamentary position’ until called to order by the Speaker. Illustrated London News, 15 Oct. 1842; M[anchester] G[wrdian], 3 Apr. 1847.

24 Hansard, 2nd ser., XIII, 451. For Doherty's involvement and connexion with Hobhouse, see note 29.

25 In this, he differed from Francis Place, who was both more sceptical of aristocratic independence and more attached to Ricardian political economy. Zegger, Robert E., John Cam Hobhouse: a political life, 1819–1852 (Columbia, Mo., 1973), pp. 88–95, 168–70Google Scholar.

26 Hobhouse approached Peel about new factory legislation in March 1825. Peel fobbed him off to Huskisson, who fobbed him off to Mark Phillips of Manchester, who fobbed him off to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Broughton, Recollections, III, 95.

27 Zegger, Hobhouse, pp. 109–10.

28 Woollen mills traditionally ran a shorter workday than worsteds, although even this could mean 13 hours labour. LM, 30 Oct. 1830.

29 Kirby, R. G. and Musson, A. E., The voice of the people: John Doherty, 1798–1854, trade unionist, radical and factory reformer (Manchester, 1975), pp. 364–7Google Scholar. Manchester and Bolton operatives had attempted to arouse interest in Leeds for a 10½-hour day in April, but without notable success. LM, 17 Apr. 1830.

30 ‘Alfred’ (Samuel Kydd), The history of the factory movement, 2 vols. (London, 1857), I, 88–91; Driver, Tory Radical, pp. 188–9.

31 LM, 16 Oct. 1830.

32 LM, 20 and 27 Nov. 1830.

33 Driver, Tory radical, pp. 58–61; ‘Alfred’, History of the factory movement, 1, 106–8.

34 LM, 20 Nov. 1830.

35 As late as April the short-time committee was still passing motions of support for Hobhouse and Morpeth's ‘manly, independent, and humane’ conduct of the matter. For the role of the factory question in the Yorkshire general election, see reports in LM, 27 and 30 Apr. 1831. For the compact, see Driver, Tory radical, pp. 86–9.

36 Hobhouse's efforts for the bill are detailed in Add. MSS 56555 (Broughton papers), Hobhouse's diary, 29 and 30 July 1831. Hobhouse was ‘very angry’ with ministerial indifference and flip-flops. See also Driver, Tory radical, pp. 90–5; ‘Alfred’, History of the factory movement, 1, 114–15.

37 ‘Alfred’, History of the factory movement, 1, 127, 130–1.

38 See his open letter in LM, 5 Nov. 1831.

39 Parliamentary papers 1831–2, xv, 9806 (Oastler), 9361, 9371 (Bull). Morpeth, Hobhouse, Strickland and other whigs and liberals sat on this select committee, but it was Sadler's show and they played little part. The MG blamed the committee's imbalance on ‘some kind of house of commons manoeuvre which we do not clearly understand’ (31 Mar. 1832) and urged the appointment of a royal commission (7 Apr. 1832). The LM placed itself firmly between the ten-hours party and the hard-line manufacturing lobby centred in Halifax (5 May 1832).

40 Quoted by Driver, Tory radical, pp. 192–3.

41 A LM editorial had urged such a course upon him in December 1832 (29 Dec. 1832).

42 Hobhouse, preoccupied with new ministerial duties, had entrusted his interest in the question to Morpeth. Add. MSS 47226 (Broughton papers), fos. 169–72: Morpeth to Hobhouse, 19 and 20? Jan. 1833; Carlisle MSS, Castle Howard, J19/1/6/66, Lady Carlisle to Morpeth, 23 Jan. 1833.

43 Despite Driver, Tory radical, pp. 209–10, it does not appear that Bull had any authorization from the January short-time congress. See the report of the congress in MG, 19 Jan. 1833.

44 Hodder, Shaftesbury, 1, 146, 148.

45 Finlayson, Shqftesbury, pp. 74–6, suggests that Ashley's aristocratic blood was in Oastler's eyes a disability, but the reverse must have been true. Oastler shared with Cobbett at the time the view that the tory aristocracy were better practical reformers than middle-class Liberals and Radicals. He became somewhat disillusioned with the tory party after it capitulated to the New Poor Law in 1834, but his faith in the aristocracy remained unshaken. Ward, Factory movement, pp. 130–134, 136; Driver, Tory radical, p. 294.

46 Ashley was amused by Lord John Manners' feudal posturing, but also saw him as a tractarian rival for popular affections: Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/3,4 Sept. and 7 Oct. 1844. Morpeth's verdict was that ‘“Young England” has rather too much of Old England for me’: LM, 22 Feb. 1845.

47 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/2, 4 July 1841. Ashley sought part of this vision in the ‘primitive simplicity’ of his own St Giles. Ibid. 25 Dec. 1841.

48 Hodder, Shaftesbuty, 1, 148–9; Finlayson, Shqftesbury, pp. 72–3.

49 Quoted by Driver, Tory radical, pp. 214–15. Oastler's view was echoed by The Times (7 Feb. 1833) and even by Donald Southgate, Passing of the whigs, pp. 146–7, who ‘spontaneously applauds’ Oastler's outburst. Southgate goes further, implicating Morpeth in a mill-owner plot – ‘an entirely discreditable design’, unless he genuinely believed that ten hours would ruin the textile industry. Morpeth certainly did not believe this in 1833 – his position was a parliamentary one although he may have changed his mind by 1847 when he voted against the 2nd reading of the Ten Hours Act.

50 Morpeth was very unwilling to withdraw, but a freak of scheduling made it impossible for him to receive leave from the house before Ashley. LM, 9 Mar. 1833.

51 LM, 16 Mar. 1833; MG, 23 Mar. 1833.

52 It is not my intention to draw conclusions on precisely how and why Althorp's Act resulted from the foregoing conflict. Suffice it to say that I agree with Ursula Henriques' conclusion that Althorp deserved no personal credit for the Act that bears his name: Henriques, Before the welfare state, p. 89. More work needs to be done on the relationship between pro- and anti-factory reform elements within the cabinet, and between whigs and Benthamites.

53 See Ashley's and Brotherton's observations to this effect in 1839. Hansard, 3rd ser., XLV, 892; XLVIII, 1067.

54 It was often alleged after 1833 that manufacturers had supported Althorp's Act because they knew it to be unenforceable. This may indeed have been the case, but Morpeth and many other whigs cannot be implicated. It might with some justice be added that Ashley's personal intransigence in 1833 was as responsible for the form the Act took as any positive initiative on the ministry's part.

55 LM, 9 Mar. 1833.

56 Carlisle MSS, J19/8/6, Morpeth's journal, 20 Feb. 1845; J18/3/–, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, n.d. but probably autumn 1837. This latter judgement was repeated on his next visit, in January 1839, when he deplored ‘Manchester Society's’ lack of interest in popular agitation: J18/3/–, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, 14 Jan. 1839.

57 Morpeth and Dickens first met at a banquet given for Dickens by leading whig social reformers before his departure for the Continent in June 1844. In 1846 Dickens approached Morpeth about a job in some branch of the education or public health service. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/3, 18 June 1844; Carlisle MSS, J19/1/42/12, Dickens to Morpeth, 20 June 1846.

58 Morpeth's mother, quoting a dinner party of notables, including Hobhouse, Brougham and Macaulay. Carlisle MSS, J19/1/6/66, Lady Carlisle to Morpeth, 23 Jan. 1833.

59 Thompson, F. M. L., ‘Whigs and liberals in the West Riding, 1830–1860’, English Historical Review, LXXIV (1959), 220–3Google Scholar.

60 Baines's only contact with Morpeth came with electoral matters. See, for instance, his letters to Morpeth, Carlisle MSS, J19/1/7/39, 71; 27 Dec. 1834 and 15 Apr. 1835. On a visit to a Manchester silk mill in January 1834, Morpeth seemed surprised to find the proprietor ‘very cross, very sore about the Factory Bill and the abuse of the Masters – would talk of nothing else’: Carlisle MSS, J18/3/–, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, 18? Jan. 1834.

61 In 1837 Morpeth polled what was reputed to be the highest total vote ever for an Fraser, M. P. D., ‘The fruits of reform: Leeds politics in the eighteen-thirties’, Northern History, VII (1972), 104Google Scholar; Thompson, ‘Whigs and liberals’, p. 216.

62 Ward, Factory movement, pp. 47–8.

63 The issue of the 1841 election is complicated by the fact of defections on the left as well, in the form of a Chartist candidate. Some whigs blamed the West Riding defeat on this. Carlisle MSS, J19/1/32/44, Lady Palmerston to Lady Carlisle, 17? July 1841.

64 Many instances could be given. The Spectator was fond of criticizing whig leaders for this foible; see, for instance, its celebrated editorial on ‘The new faith’ in state intervention, 13 Apr. 1844. There is much evidence of whig frustration with the straitjacket of political economy in early factory debates; a minor example is Lord Nugent's parting shot in March 1832, Hansard, 3rd ser., XI, 398.

65 Speech at Leeds, LM, 22 Feb. 1845.

66 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/3, 27 Dec. 1843; SHA/PD/4, 6 May 1846.

67 See profiles in Illustrated London News, 15 Oct. 1842, 24 Mar. 1855; Martineau, Harriet, Biographical sketches (New York, 1869), pp. 369–80Google Scholar; Grant, J., Random recollections of the house of commons (London, 1836), pp. 209–13Google Scholar; Francis, G. H., Orators of the age (New York, 1864), pp. 159–66Google Scholar.

68 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/2, 24 Aug. 1840; SHA/PD/5, 21 Mar. 1848.

69 On rare occasions he claimed stature as the representative of the operatives. But a more ‘virtual’ representation it is hard to imagine. Such language was not Ashley's natural idiom.

70 Speech at Leeds, LM, 22 Feb. 1845. Morpeth was not an enthusiast for the amateur theatricals which were a common country-house amusement. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/6, 1 Jan. 1845.

71 LM, 10 Jan. 1846.

72 Carlisle MSS, J19/1/39/66, Lady Carlisle to Morpeth, 7 June 1845; also Morpeth's journal, J19/8/7, 20 Apr. 1845; J19/8/8, 10 Aug. 1845.

73 Morpeth's journals for 1844, J19/8/4, 5 passim.

74 Morpeth's journal, J19/8/7, 7 Apr. 1845. The geologist Adam Sedgwick, who reviewed the Vestiges for the Edinburgh Review, wrote: ‘From the bottom of my soul I loathe and detest the Vestiges.’ For this and other interesting comments on whig and tory reactions to the Vestiges, see Millhauser, Milton, Just before Darwin: Robert Chambers and Vestiges (Middletown, Conn., 1959), pp. 119–24Google Scholar.

75 Morpeth's journal, J19/8/14, 7 Jan. 1847; J19/8/16, 14 Jan. 1848; Carlisle MSS, J18/3/–, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, 23 Mar. 1846.

76 Metaphysics, he admitted, was somewhat ‘bewildering’. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/3, 1 May 1844, but see also J19/8/17, 31 May 1848.

77 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/5, 23 Aug. 1847; SHA/PD/4, 26 Mar. 1846.

78 M. W. Thomas's conclusion – that Graham was committed to ‘reform on the grand scale’ – is difficult to square with Ashley's own verdict. Graham's chief asset was a thumping parliamentary majority, but he was personally antagonistic to factory reform. Thomas, M. W., The early factory legislation (Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, 1948)Google Scholar.

79 See Doherty's appeal at the Wibsey Low Moor rally, 1 July 1833, in LM, 6 July 1833, and ‘Alfred's’ verdict, History of the factory movement, 11, 58–64.

80 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/2, 4 July 1840.

81 Ibid. 24 Feb. 1842.

82 Ibid. SHA/PD/3, 8 July 1843. In 1844, when Ashley won his short-lived victory against the government on a ten-hours amendment, these political considerations were put aside, all glory again going to God. Ibid. 19 Mar. 1844.

83 Ibid. 14 May 1844.

84 Hansard, 3rd ser., XCII, 306–13. Russell was joined in this division by seven other whig aristocrats, including Morpeth's brother Charles.

85 P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], Russell papers, P.R.O. 30/22/6B, fos. 180–3, Ashley to Lord John Russell, 2 Mar. 1847 (2); Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/4, 10 Feb., 9 and 22 Mar., 23 Apr. 1847.

86 Indeed, since his appointment as chief secretary for Ireland in 1835, his political energies had been absorbed in Irish questions. He admitted, shortly after his 1841 defeat, that ‘I have not thought much of Yorkshire during the last 6 years, and have had little to do with anything but Irish concerns.’ Carlisle MSS, J20/2/–, Morpeth to Charles Howard, 13 July 1841.

87 LM, 3 Feb. 1844 echoed this hope. The move surely made Russell's ‘conversion’ easier. P.R.O., Russell papers, P.R.O. 30/22/4C, fos. 146–8, D. Le Marchant to Russell, 22 Jan. 1844.

88 Hansard, 3rd ser., LXXIV, 1020–1108. Charles sat for East Cumberland, Edward for Morpeth. Morpeth was himself agonized, and ‘rejoiced that I had no vote to give on so immensely difficult a point’. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/2, 18 Mar. 1844.

89 Carlisle MSS, J18/9/–, Charles Howard to Lady Carlisle, 19 and 22 Mar. 1844. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/2, 24 and 27 Mar. 1844.

90 Cobden's speech at a Leeds Free Trade rally, LM, 29 Nov. 1845.

91 Carlisle MSS, J19/1/41/19, Baines to Morpeth, 30 Jan. 1846. This is part of a regular correspondence between the two during the by-election campaign.

92 Greg had met Morpeth through Harriet Martineau, while on holiday in the Lake District in July 1845. Morpeth's journal, J19/8/8, 21 Jul. 1845; Carlisle MSS, J19/1/41/43, 49, W. R. Greg to Morpeth, 14 and 20 Feb. 1846.

93 Emphasis mine. Ibid. J19/1/41/86, Edward Akroyd to Morpeth, ? May 1846. Another manufacturer, probably James Marshall, pressed Morpeth to lead ‘a decisive and authoritative rejection’ often hours in favour of an 11 hours compromise; then, having secured his agreement, began to urge a retreat even from 11. J19/1/41/81, 86, James Marshall? to Morpeth, 2 and 8 May 1846.

94 Hansard, 3rd ser., LXXXVI, 1023–8.

95 Morpeth's journal, J19/8/11, 29 Apr. 1846; Carlisle MSS, J18/3/–, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, 15 May 1846.

96 Morpeth's journal, J19/8/11, 22 May 1846. He had at least the shame to dread a dinner the next evening, where Ashley was present and ‘looked sorrowfully grave’ at their encounter. Ibid. 23 May 1846.

97 Morpeth's journal, J19/8/14, 17 Feb., 3 and 17 Mar. 1847.

98 Carlisle MSS, J19/1/6/66, Lady Carlisle to Morpeth, 23 Jan. 1833.

99 Kriegel (ed.), Holland House diaries, pp. xxi–xxii.

100 Fitzwilliam had the added interest of a Yorkshire landowner, but his violence on the issue stands in even sharper contrast to the younger Morpeth's as a result. He realized, as Russell surely did, that the normal day for all women and minors meant in practice the normal day for all, whereas the 1833 Act had not. P.R.O., Russell papers, P.R.O. 30/22/4C, fos. 178–80, Earl Fitzwilliam to Duke of Bedford, 1 Apr. 1844.

101 See Kriegel, ‘Liberty and whiggery’.

102 It has become common to speak of ‘Whig ideology’ solely with reference to these more articulate elements. Hamburger, ‘The whig conscience’; Kriegel, ‘Liberty and whiggery’; Kriegel (ed.), Holland House diaries, introduction. But Holland House in particular, if it ‘represents’ whiggery, does so primarily for the pre-1830 generation.

103 See note 100 above.

104 Ward, Factory movement, pp. 396–7. See also Roberts, David, ‘Lord Palmerston at the home office’, The Historian, XXI (1958–1959), 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 See Holland's judgements, Kriegel (ed.), Holland House diaries, pp. 347, 357. Morpeth and Howick were crucial figures in the abortive Russell ministry of December 1845. It was thought that Morpeth was to be home secretary, although Russell preferred to promote George Grey and assign Morpeth to the Woods and Forests, the public works department of the time. This is the office which he held in the ministry which Russell did form in 1846. In 1845, Howick even proposed Morpeth as foreign secretary. LM, 13 Dec. 1845; Morpeth's journal, J19/8/10, 19 and 20 Dec. 1845; 3rd Earl Grey's papers, University of Durham, C3/12, Howick's journal, 18 Dec. 1845.

106 For this view of Peel and liberal toryism as progenitors of an anti-interventionist Gladstonian liberalism, see Hilton, Boyd, ‘Peel: a reappraisal’, Historical Journal, XXII (1979), 585–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hilton's understanding of the Peelite moral and political sensibility tacitly underscores its contrasts to the whig world-view. I share this view and not the contrary view sketched out in Newbould, ‘Whiggery and the dilemma of reform.’

107 Between them, Clarendon and Granville served as foreign secretary for 16 of the 24 years of liberal governments between 1852 and 1885. Clarendon was two years Morpeth's senior, Granville somewhat younger. Granville was Morpeth's cousin and entered parliament in 1837 for the same family borough of Morpeth. In 1855, he was approached to lead his party in the house of lords after Morpeth (then Carlisle) refused the honour, and but for one brief interlude held the post until 1891. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, The life of Granville George Leveson Gower, second earl Granville, 2 vols. (London, 1905), 1, 26, 96–7Google Scholar.

108 See, for instance, Kriegel, ‘Liberty and whiggery’, 273–4, where Morpeth and Howick are pigeon-holed under ‘earnestness and sobriety’. There was nothing sober about Morpeth.

109 In a characteristically intellectual approach, Morpeth once urged upon Lady Holland ‘a fair hearing to the pretensions of revelation…to help you make up your mind whether you consider the Gospels authentic’. Add. MSS 51583 (Holland House papers), fos. 111–12: Morpeth to Lady Holland, 20 Mar. 1844.

110 Speech at Leeds, LM, 22 Feb. 1845. Morpeth thus demonstrates less faith in the principle and practice of free agency than his seniors responsible for the earlier poor-law reform. Dunkley, ‘Whigs and paupers’, pp. 140, 146.

111 Note, for example, the mixture of discourses in Morpeth's equation of the millowners' responsibilities with ‘the Lords of Blenheim and Belvoir’. Hansard, 3rd ser., XIX, 231–2.

112 See his speech at Wakefield, in which he did glimpse some hint of this future. LM, 4 May 1844.

113 See Roberts, Paternalism, pp. 2–5, for definitions of paternalism used here.

114 See Morpeth's speech at Bradford at the height of the ten-hours agitation, LM, 10 Oct. 1846. His interest in mechanics institutes also arose in the period after 1841 when he was forced to re-evaluate his legislative position vis-à-vis the factory question. For an example of blurred distinctions between public and private aid, see his speech at Leeds, LM, 22 Feb. 1845.

115 Carlisle MSS, J19/1/32/22, Lord John Russell to Morpeth, 11 July 1841.

116 Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/4, 31 Oct. 1846.

117 Finlayson, Shaftesbury, pp. 276–8.

118 Carlisle MSS, J19/1/45/56, Ashley to Morpeth, 9 Sept. 1848. Ashley was not being quite honest. On at least one occasion he had suspected Morpeth of personal dishonesty in their relations. Ashley's diary, SHA/PD/4, 6 May 1846.

119 Add. MSS 52010 (Holland House papers), fos. 95–6: George Howard to Henry Fox, 4 Oct. 1820.