A self-described ‘Whig to the backbone’, Rich’s parliamentary career spanned four decades, during which he took a particular interest in Indian and military questions.
Rich was one of several illegitimate children of Admiral Sir Thomas Rich, who died without legitimate issue in 1803, when the baronetcy became extinct.
Rich soon acquired a reputation as ‘a literary gentleman of first-rate talent’.
He offered again in 1835 when he decried his opponents’ attempts to blur party lines, contending that ‘party distinctions were the safeguards of a man’s honour’. He wished to reform established institutions, notably the Church, but disclaimed any desire to destroy them. He advocated ‘the freedom of our consumers from shackles’ and believed that the suffrage could not be extended without improved education.
In July 1837 Rich’s steadfast Whiggery was rewarded with his appointment as a groom in waiting to Queen Victoria.
Rich is not known to have served on any committees in his first Parliament, and his contributions to debate were infrequent, though generally lengthy. His maiden speech was on the compensation claim of Baron de Bode, whose family property in Alsace had been confiscated after the French revolution. Dismissing de Bode’s claim to be a British subject, Rich argued more broadly that the Commons should not ‘become a House of appeal rather than a Legislative Assembly’, 22 Feb. 1838. The following month he defended ministers against attacks on their Canadian policy, 7 Mar. The Morning Post suggested that he had learnt this speech by heart, but ‘did not exhibit much head’.
Somewhat unexpectedly, Rich did not seek re-election in 1841. In correspondence with Peel that September he revealed that he had decided two or three years earlier to retire at the dissolution ‘in consequence of several losses (pecuniary)’. He had hoped that by giving up his seat he could retain his household appointment (and the income), even with a change of ministry. He told Peel, not entirely accurately, that after making this decision he had ‘refrained from... active support of my party... never speaking or writing on any party question – declining parliamentary official place... keeping clear of electioneering matters and finally refusing a secure seat’.
Rich resumed his writing for the Edinburgh Review and published What is to be done? or, Past, present and future (1844), in which he acknowledged Peel’s ‘general abilities as a statesman’, but nonetheless dismissed him as ‘a second-rate man’.
Although his proposer at the 1846 by-election contended that Rich ‘had the power to command... the attention of the... Commons on all proper occasions’, he does not appear to have contributed to debate while at the treasury, where he took a particular interest in superannuation.
While in office Rich was a fairly assiduous attender, present for 58% of divisions in the 1849 session.
Re-elected at Richmond in 1852, Rich reiterated his commitment to free trade and praised the Russell ministry’s achievements. He voiced his preference for ‘a regular and disciplined force’ rather a militia, but expressed support for the volunteer movement, noting that he belonged to the Richmond rifle corps.
Now a regular speaker, the bulk of Rich’s contributions reflected his experiences in India and the army. He consistently warned against ‘precipitate legislation’ on the government of India, and urged that three principles must be embodied in any reform: ‘accessibility to office... without respect of caste, colour, or persuasion’; constant ministerial responsibility to Parliament; and British liability for its share of the costs of any wars, 30 June 1853. His attempts to insert clauses in the government of India bill affording greater opportunities for natives in the Indian civil service failed, 22, 25 July 1853.
Rich’s absence from the crucial division on Cobden’s censure motion over Canton in March 1857 caused ‘some dissatisfaction’ in Richmond, but he justified his neutrality when he addressed voters prior to his re-election that year.
Again active in debate, Rich pursued his interests in military matters, superannuation and, above all, India, continuing to keep a watchful eye on ministers. Despite his concerns about ‘extravagant expenditure’, he was unable to prevent the second reading of the Superannuation Act amendment bill, 29 July 1857.
In keeping with his attack on Derby’s ministry in A letter to a constituent on government by a minority (1859), Rich opposed it in the confidence vote, 10 June 1859. His general support for Palmerston’s ministry thereafter continued to be accompanied by a willingness to take it to task. He seconded De Lacy Evans’ motion for gradual abolition of the sale of commissions, 6 Mar. 1860. He urged that Russell’s motion to prioritise government business on Thursdays until Whitsun be resisted, ‘considering the many assaults which had been made by successive Governments upon the privileges of private Members’, 2 Apr. 1860. He also spoke, to no avail, against the European forces (India) bill, disliking its proposal to send more regular troops to India in place of local forces, 2 July 1860. As this measure was not deemed a party question, he contended that ‘the friends of the Government were thereby more free to express their opinions’. Aside from a second contribution on this bill, Rich made only one further Commons speech, drawing attention to disturbances in Syria and Lebanon, 3 Aug. 1860. A later account suggested that an appeal by party leaders to his electoral patron, Zetland, may have prompted Rich to cease his criticism of Palmerston’s administration, after which ‘he relapsed into a “silent member,” and went into the lobby with his party with grim dissatisfaction’.
Although not active in public life thereafter, Rich retained his interest in politics, writing in his journal, 23 July 1869, of the need to reform the Lords.