LYON, William (1807-1892).

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press

Constituency

Dates

7 Mar. 1831 - 1832

Family and Education

bap. 7 July 1807,1 5th s. of David Lyon (d. 1827), W.I. merchant, and Isabella, da. of John Read of Cairney, Forfar; bro. of David Lyon*. educ. Harrow 1820. m. 28 June 1860, Louisa Maria Sporle, da. of Henry Valentine Smith (alias Swanborough) of Albert Terrace, Mdx., 3s. suc. bro. David to Goring, Suss. and Balintore Castle, Forfar 1872. d. 5 Apr.1892.

Offices Held

Cornet 8 Drag. 1823, lt. 1825, capt. 1826; capt. (half-pay) 6 W.I. Regt. 1833; maj. (ret.) 67 Ft. 1841-d.

Biography

Lyon, who inherited £100,000 from his father on coming of age, had a brief army career.2 At the general election of 1830 he and William Williams, sheriff of Glamorgan, stood jointly for Seaford, apparently in response to an invitation from a group of electors in rebellion against the patron Lord Seaford, whose son Augustus Ellis and coadjutor John Fitzgerald were the sitting Members. While Lyon and Williams, who claimed to favour ‘retrenchment and reform of abuses’, stressed their championship of electoral ‘independence’, the contest had strong political overtones: Seaford, his son and Fitzgerald were followers of Canning’s political heir Huskisson; and the intrusion of Lyon and Williams, who were said by their opponents to have been sent down and subsidized by the treasury, was seen as part of the Wellington ministry’s vendetta against the Canningite rump. Five votes tendered for Lyon and Williams were rejected by the returning officer, leaving Lyon four behind Ellis in third place. Although he failed to enter into recognizances in support of his own petition, that lodged in the names of five electors was pursued to a successful conclusion, 7 Mar. 1831, when Lyon was seated in place of Ellis.3 In his maiden speech, 9 Mar., he condemned the Grey ministry’s ‘revolutionary’ reform bill, which infringed chartered rights and, in the case of Seaford, passed ‘a sentence of annihilation’. He voted against the second reading, 22 Mar., and for Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831.

At the ensuing general election he came in unopposed for Seaford. At the nomination he stated his belief that

no reform was necessary. If populous towns ought to be represented, then give them the Members from those boroughs which were disfranchised for their venality and corruption, and give them also the Members for those nomination boroughs which the nominees [sic] were willing to resign. He thought that the Members who were returned for close boroughs had the interest of Birmingham, Manchester and such other towns as much at heart as any Members would have if returned for those places, because they would not be fettered by local prejudices.4

He voted against the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, and for use of the 1831 census as a basis for disfranchisement, 19 July. On the proposal to disfranchise Seaford, 26 July, he cited his own success as proof that it was not ‘under nomination’; his suggestion that it be united with Hastings on the model of Sandwich and Deal was disregarded. He voted in favour of allowing the freeholders of the four sluiced boroughs to retain their votes, 2 Sept. He divided against the passage of the bill, 21 Sept., and the second reading of the revised measure, 17 Dec. 1831. His only other known vote against it was on the enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb. 1832. He voted against government on the Russian-Dutch loan, 26 Jan., 12 July, and was in the minority of 16 against the Greek loan, 6 Aug. 1832.

By his own later account, Lyon ‘retired into private life, living chiefly abroad’, after the disfranchisement of Seaford.5 He was in England in 1837, when he unsuccessfully contested Lewes as a Conservative at the general election; and Disraeli encountered him in London in 1841.6 Five years later he had taken up residence at 22 Park Lane. By then he had undergone a political transformation, converted by his belated recognition of ‘the errors of a system of restriction and protection’ into ‘a free trader and a Liberal’. It was in this guise that he stood in 1859 on a vacancy for Marylebone, where his recent work as member for St. George