Subject overview
 |
| Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Clinton, 4th Duke
of Newcastle. |
Henry Pelham Fiennes Pelham Clinton, fourth duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne
(1785-1851) was one of the most important figures in early-nineteenth
century Nottinghamshire. He was also one of the most unpopular. His importance
derived from three sources - economic, social and political. Economically,
Newcastle inherited substantial landed interests in the county on succeeding
to the title in 1795 (as a minor, the estates were governed by trustees
until he attained his majority in 1806). These estates derived from the
complex genealogical foundations of the family and its attendant economic
fortunes. The title of Newcastle-under-Lyne (or ‘Line’ later known as ‘Lyme’)
was granted in 1756 to Thomas Pelham-Holles (1693-1768), fourth duke
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (a title deriving from the time of William Cavendish
in 1665 and proceeding thereafter by descent and re-creation). Pelham-Holles
had no male issue and the new title enabled the estates to descend to
his nearest male heir, his nephew by marriage, Henry Fiennes Clinton
ninth Earl of Lincoln (1720-94), who became second duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne
in 1768 (the title of Newcastle-upon-Tyne ceasing with Pelham-Holles'
death). The same year, the new duke settled upon Clumber Park as the
principal family seat in North Nottinghamshire. Through the Cavendish,
Holles and Pelham-Holles Dukes of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the Dukes of Newcastle-under-Lyne
inherited substantial landowning interests; in Nottingham, for example,
both the Castle and Park as well as the former property of the Earls
of Clare, including Thurland Hall, came into their possession. The family
also had long-established links with Retford and Newark that brought
them parliamentary influence and rights of clerical patronage (i.e. the
right of appointment to a number of Anglican livings) in the county.
Socially, the Dukes of Newcastle derived prominence from their superior
position in the social hierarchy (being second only to royal dukes in
the House of Lords) and through the accumulation of local offices and
titles such as Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of Nottinghamshire.
Thomas, third duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne (1752-95), also served as
a Member of Parliament and fought in the American Wars of Independence.
Politically, through their pre-eminent property interests, the Dukes
of Newcastle had electoral influence in two Nottinghamshire boroughs,
Newark and East Retford, together with seats in Yorkshire (Aldborough
and Boroughbridge) and could not be ignored in respect of the county
representation for Nottinghamshire. These interests were carefully cultivated
by the second duke in preference to pursuing a national political career
of the sort that had been exhibited by Thomas Pelham-Holles and his brother,
Henry Pelham, both of whom served George II as Prime Minister.
 |
| Georgiana, 4th Duchess of
Newcastle. |
The fourth duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne came to represent unyielding
opposition to change in all its forms during the period in which he held
the title - and it was this which made him so unpopular. Domestically,
Newcastle found a loving and attentive wife in Georgiana Miller Mundy
(1789-1822) who bore him ten surviving children (six sons and four daughters)
in a marriage of fifteen years. This period saw Newcastle concentrate
on the development of Clumber Park, assisted by Georgiana's own substantial
income, whilst politically he retained his support for various 'Tory'
ministries of the day. At the same time, Newcastle managed to obtain
a number of personal honours - including the Lord Lieutenancy of Nottinghamshire,
the Rangership of Sherwood Forest and Folewood Park and installation
as a Knight of the Garter. Domestic seclusion at Clumber was a marked
contrast with Newcastle’s youth and upbringing, during which he had attended
Eton (1796-1801) but then, rather than proceeding to University, had
visited France during the Peace of Amiens (1802-1803). Upon the breakdown
of that peace, Newcastle, his mother and her new husband found themselves
unable to return to England, remaining in wartime France until 1806.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, the experience seems to have
entrenched Newcastle's distrust of foreigners (especially the French)
and he rarely travelled abroad thereafter.
The early-nineteenth century saw growing demands for political, religious
and social reform - notably the extension of parliamentary representation
to unrepresented industrial towns such as Birmingham and Manchester and
the erosion of electoral influence of the sort enjoyed by peers and 'boroughmongers'
like Newcastle. Matters were given new impetus with the breakdown of
the Tory ministry during the late-1820s. By this time, Newcastle had
been widowed and gradually began to take more interest in national political
affairs, turning his electoral influence towards returning acknowledged
(or prospective) defenders of the status quo. Newcastle was an infrequent
parliamentary speaker, but used his electoral patronage and published
letters, speeches and addresses to defend the established constitution
of Church, Crown and Aristocracy. Locally, Newcastle was isolated and
abused for his obstinacy and his 'reactionary' political outlook and
often found his political views at variance with those of his peers.
In 1829, he defended his right to 'do what I will with my own' in electoral
terms by evicting some three dozen tenants who failed to support his
electoral candidate at the Newark by-election of that year. The furore
raised by this led to investigations into Newcastle's administration
of the Crown lands at Newark (which he held on lease). At the same time,
the duke's electoral influence at Retford was being investigated with
a view to disfranchising the borough. Though Newcastle survived both
assaults on his interests (Retford being incorporated with the neighbouring
hundred of Bassetlaw in 1830 and the duke purchasing most of the former
Crown Lands in the mid-1830s), the respite was temporary. When the Parliamentary
Reform Bill was rejected by the House of Lords in October 1831, Newcastle
was an obvious target for recrimination. Nottingham Castle was attacked
and set alight on 10 October 1831 and Clumber was fortified with cannon
and yeomanry in preparation for a possible assault. The duke brought
further obloquy on himself by protesting at being left off the commission
instituted to investigate the Nottingham Riots and criticised the level
of compensation (£21,000) granted to him by Special Assize in 1832. Newcastle
refused to restore the Castle, which had been in a state of disrepair
for some years before the riots, preferring to develop the adjoining
Park into a select residential district for the growing town. However,
the duke’s political disagreements with the Nottingham authorities forestalled
these plans from coming to fruition during his lifetime.
Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, Newcastle sought to extend and augment
the family's property in the county. He sold the (now disfranchised)
Aldborough and Boroughbridge estates and invested substantially in two
new properties - Hafod in Cardiganshire (1833-45) and Worksop Manor,
which he bought from the duke of Norfolk in 1838-39. The manor fabric
was demolished during the 1840s whilst Hafod had to be sold as a result
of Newcastle's increasingly expansive financial commitments.
Politically, Newcastle retained vestigial electoral influence in Newark
and Retford and continued to be an important voice in the county representation.
None of the MPs he returned after 1832, however, were able to stem the
desire for change or satisfy their ducal patron of their political conformity
to his views. Both W E Gladstone (MP for Newark, 1832-46) and Newcastle's
son and heir, Henry Earl of Lincoln (MP for South Nottinghamshire, 1832-46)
travelled an opposite political course towards the more 'liberal' end
of the Conservative party, and resigned their seats in consequence. Newcastle
remained a vocal opponent of change - be it the reform of the Municipal
Corporations (1835), the new County Police (1839) or the Repeal of the
Corn Laws (1846) - and continued to be a figure who raised extremes of
opinion within the county. In 1839 he was dismissed from the Lord Lieutenancy
for an ill-judged correspondence with the Lord Chancellor concerning
the appointment of Nonconformists to the magistracy. In 1846, Newcastle
became a graphic representation of the schism in the Conservative party
created by Peel's decision to Repeal the Corn Laws, when he publicly
came out against Lord Lincoln in the South Nottinghamshire by-election.
The two were only partially reconciled at the time of the duke's death.
Domestically, Newcastle continued to feel a variety of disappointments.
A late attempt at second marriage failed and his daughters remained unmarried
during his lifetime. The troubled history of Lord Lincoln's marriage
to Susan, daughter of the tenth duke of Hamilton, which ended in divorce
in 1850, was a mortification which Newcastle's strong ultra-Protestant
opinions found it hard to reconcile. Two of his sons predeceased him
(Edward in 1842, William in 1850) whilst two others contracted marriages
which were not entirely to their father's satisfaction (Thomas in 1843,
Charles in 1848).
The fourth duke of Newcastle is principally remembered as an anti-hero;
an obscurantist ultra-Tory who stood in the way of change. Yet at his
death, on 12 January 1851, most of those who opposed Newcastle's political
principles were nevertheless willing to acknowledge his strong dedication
to his family, the honest conviction with which he held his political
views and the genuine degree of interest shown in his tenants and estate
workers. The duke interested himself in the history of his family, in
church building, school and hospital provision and in bequeathing a rich
material legacy of property, books, art and documents to his successors.
It was this mixture of political excess and personal conviction that
made him one of the more colourful characters in the history of Nottinghamshire
during this period. |