Best’s father, after a Commons career in which he abandoned his ‘early politics ... of a liberal tendency’ to become an unbending Tory, achieved his ambition of a seat on the bench in 1818. He was known as the ‘judge advocate’ on account of his political bias, and his conduct in summarily fining Thomas Davison, on trial for blasphemous libel, a total of £100 for contempt of court was noticed in the House, 23 Feb., 19 Apr. 1821. His indifferent professional reputation did not prevent his promotion to chief justice of common pleas in 1824, but lord chancellor Lyndhurst later condemned him as ‘a bad judge, violent and intriguing, and knowing law only by scraps’. He obtained the peerage which he coveted in 1829, in what was widely seen as ‘a wretched job’: ministers, anxious to make James Scarlett* attorney-general, but embarrassed by the pretensions of Nicholas Tindal*, the solicitor-general, persuaded the chief justice to make way for Tindal in return for a coronet. His retirement was officially ascribed to ill health, which entitled him to an annual pension of £3,750 under the relevant statute. Despite being theoretically incapacitated by ‘permanent bodily infirmity’, he was subsequently made a deputy Speaker of the Lords to assist the chancellor in deciding Scottish appeals, for which task he was generally thought to be ‘totally unfit’. Ministers brushed aside a Whig protest against this transaction in the Commons, 1 Mar. 1830. Frequently wracked by gout, he ‘used to be carried into the [Lords] in an armchair, from which he was permitted not to rise whilst speaking’.
Best was educated for the bar, but did not practise. At the general election of 1831 he was returned for Mitchell in a coup engineered by the Ultra Tory Lord Falmouth, who managed to oust the Member sitting on the Whig interest.
With Mitchell disfranchised by the Reform Act, Best did not seek another seat at the general election of 1832. In 1835 he offered for Shaftesbury as ‘a friend to agriculture’, who desired ‘a fair and equitable commutation of tithes’, as an opponent of certain ‘obnoxious clauses’ of the Poor Law Amendment Act, and as one who favoured ‘the correction of abuses’; he was defeated. He stood for Barnstaple in 1837, describing himself as ‘a Conservative in the strictest sense of the word’, who wanted justice for the Dissenters and the Irish, provided it was not to the detriment of established interests. He confessed that he was ‘not fitted for public life’, but warned that ‘the people ... were rolling about from one change to another like drunken men, led astray from one dreadful speculation to another, awaiting a dreadful blow to stun them into sobriety’, which he ‘wished to avert’; he came bottom of the poll.
