The Astleys were an ancient Norfolk family who had often represented the county. Astley’s son Jacob told Lord Melbourne in 1838, in applying for a peerage, that his family had contested the county 18 times since the Restoration and come in ten times unopposed.
this, he apprehended, they had no right to demand of him, as he had made no promise, signed no test, but would always be guided in his parliamentary duty, by the dictates of his own conscience. How could he prove his attachment to the Constitution by committing himself to any particular persons?
Morning Chron. 25 Sept. 1797; Norf. RO, Hammond mss, Astley to Hamond, 15, 16 Sept., election addresses 19, 22, 24 Sept., Salmon to Hamond, 18 Oct., Coke to same, Tues. [3 Oct. 1797]; Add. 19114, f. 4; Norf. Chron. 18 Nov. 1797.
Suspicions of his Whig inclinations proved to be not unfounded, for although one commentator could write in 1802 that Astley’s ‘political character has not yet been marked by any decided political conduct’, Coke admitted that ‘a most desirable unison’ of ‘sentiments and opinions’ had existed between them since Astley came into Parliament. Astley deemed it prudent to allege that he had ‘never in his life had any political conversation’ with Coke and was ‘widely independent in his public duty’.
The contested election of 1802 was directed against Astley, who was vilified as a son, husband and landlord. He subsequently obtained damages of £2,000 (he claimed £10,000) for a libel that he was ‘a liar, a coward, an assassin, a scoundrel, a murderer; and he murdered his own father’; counsel for the defence asserted that Astley’s father maintained that his son’s misconduct and unkindness had broken his heart. His wife denied on the hustings that he beat her. In reply to the charge of ‘general inefficiency in a public station’, Astley admitted that he found it difficult to speak his mind in public.
His return in 1802 was secured by Coke’s assistance.
Astley voted in support of the Grenville ministry’s repeal of the Additional Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806. By June he thought their support was declining and seemed to blame William Windham’s vagaries. In August 1806, faced with another contest, Astley withdrew and gave his interest to Windham, subscribing £2,000 to the Whig election fund. His son later claimed that he was promised a peerage in return, though this was denied at the time.
Having resumed his seat in the last weeks of the Grenville administration, Astley paired in favour of Brand’s motion following their dismissal, 9 Apr. 1807, but, taking two leaves of absence in 1808, did not again appear in the Whig minority lists until 21 Feb. 1809, when he voted against the convention of Cintra. On 17 Mar. he joined the minority twice on the misconduct of the Duke of York; on 1 May voted with them on the Dutch commissioners and on 11 May for Madocks’s motion against ministerial corruption. On 30 Mar. 1810 he voted for the censure on the Scheldt expedition and on 5 Apr. opposed the motion to commit Burdett to the Tower. The Whigs had lately listed him among their adherents. On 30 May he voted for Tierney’s motion on the droits of Admiralty and against the government on the Regency proceedings, 29 Nov., 1, 21 Jan 1811. His next known minority vote, 14 Apr. 1812, was against McMahon’s appointment as private secretary to the Regent and on 4 May he supported the sinecure offices bill. On 24 Apr. 1812 and throughout 1813 he favoured the Catholic claims. He opposed the vice-chancellor bill, 11 Feb. 1813, and supported the sinecure regulation bill, 29 Mar. No minority vote is known after the session of 1813, when he was a member of the select committee on the corn trade. He took leaves of absence for illness, 28 Apr. and 24 May 1815 and again on 7 Mar. and 24 Apr. 1816.
Unlike his father, Astley was nervous and suspicious, ‘forever worrying about his reputation, his support in the county and the techniques by which he might retain it’.