ROUSE BOUGHTON (formerly BOUGHTON ROUSE), Sir Charles William, 9th Bt. (1747-1821), of Rouse Lench, Worcs. and Downton Hall, Salop.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
bap. 16 Dec. 1747, 6th s. of Shuckburgh Boughton of Poston Court, Herefs. by Mary, da. of Hon. Algernon Greville. educ. Hereford. m. 3 June 1782, Catherine, da. and h. of William Pearce Hall of Downton Hall, 1s. 3da. suc. cos. Thomas Philips Rouse to Rouse Lench 1768 and took additional name of Rouse; by royal lic. to use name of Rouse before or after that of Boughton 13 May 1791, placed Rouse before instead of after Boughton. cr. Bt. 28 July 1791; suc. bro. Edward as 9th Bt. 26 Feb. 1794.
Writer, E. I. Co. (Bengal) 1764; Persian interpreter 1768; factor and supervisor, Bhadshai 1770; jun. merchant 1773; judge, sadar diwani adalat 1773, pres. 1774; import warehouse keeper 1774; chief at Dacca 1775; sent merchant 1776; out of service 1778.
Sec. to Board of Control Sept. 1784-May 1791; commr. of audit Jan. 1800-d.
Capt. commdt. Chiswick vols. 1798; maj. Somerset Place vols. 1803, lt.-col. 1804.
Boughton Rouse (as he then was) knew by March 1789 that he could not expect to be returned again for Evesham and informed Pitt of it. He did not contest the general election of 1790 and in May 1791 was dismissed ‘with a consolatory baronetcy’ from his post as chief secretary to the Board of Control, where he had put forward his own views to the annoyance of Henry Dundas.1 In the same year he published a lengthy Dissertation concerning the landed property of Bengal. In May 1795 he applied unsuccessfully to Pitt for reinstatement at the Board of Control, following the death of Henry Beaufoy. In February 1796, in quest of a seat in Parliament, he approached Lord Ailesbury without success.2 At the general election that year he came in for Bramber on the 5th Duke of Rutland’s interest as a supporter of Pitt.
In the first session of the new Parliament, apart from being chairman of the Malmesbury election committee, he spoke several times on Indian affairs. On 14 Oct. 1796 he moved for information on East India Company finances and on 20 Dec. approved the status quo, hoping that India would be a perpetual source of profit to England. On 22 Dec. he spoke against attempting to form a code of criminal law for India. His chief interest in a parliamentary seat was probably as a means of obtaining a place under government, especially as his elder brother had in 1794 left all the family estates, to the value of £50,000, to his daughters by a maidservant. He was a defaulter on 3 Apr. 1797, but voted for Pitt’s triple assessment, 4 Jan. 1798, and was a government teller on 22 June 1798 and 12 Oct. 1799. Writing to Pitt from his sickbed on 14 Feb. 1799, ‘on the strength of the assurance you kindly gave me in 1791 of your disposition to consider my claim to some compensation for loss of office’, he referred to his 15 years of steady attachment to him and support of his government, and added, ‘Should your favourable regard place me in any office compatible with a seat in Parliament, my re-election would be sure at a certain expense’.3 But he did not insist on remaining in Parliament and his appointment on 6 Jan. 1800 as an audit commissioner vacated his seat. He died 26 Feb. 1821.4