PARKER, Windsor (1802-1892), of Clopton Hall, Rattlesdon, Suffolk and 20 Duke Street, St. James’s, London

Windsor Parker, who is mistakenly referred to as ‘William Parker’ in Michael Stenton’sWho’s who of British Members of Parliament, enjoyed a distinguished career in the Bengal army before entering the Commons in 1859 as Conservative Member for Suffolk West.M. Stenton, Who’s who of British Members of Parliament, 1832-1885 (1976), i. 301. Born at Worton, Middlesex, he was the eldest son of William Parker, of whom little is known, beyond his ownership of Hardwicke Court, Gloucestershire, between 1808 and 1815. VCH Glos, x. 181-5.Aged eighteen, Parker enlisted with the 6^th Bengal light cavalry and, with the 10^th division, served as adjutant and interpreter at the siege and capture of Bhurtpore, 1825-6, for which he received a medal and clasp. Alphabetical list of the officers of the Bengal army, 1790-1834 (1838), 214-5. In 1827 he was appointed aide-de-camp to Viscount Combermere, the commander-in-chief of the Bengal forces, and was brigade-major to the troops in Malwa and Lucknow, 1829-35, and Oude, 1835-6. Bury and Norwich Post, 2 Feb. 1892. While serving in India, he married Elizabeth Mary Duncan, the daughter of a general in the Bengal army. On his return to England, Parker purchased Clopton Hall and became a prominent figure in the West Suffolk militia. He was appointed high sheriff of the county in 1854.Ibid.

Following the 1859 dissolution, a meeting of electors convened by the West Suffolk Conservative registration committee choose Parker as their candidate to replace the retiring Harry Spencer Waddington. Ipswich Journal, 26 Mar. 1859. With two rival Conservative candidates subsequently coming forward, the contest was an extremely bitter one, with Parker’s opponents claiming that he had been selected at a ‘hole-and-corner’ meeting and that his supporters had seized ‘the whole machinery of the Conservative party to work out the objects of only a section of the Conservative party’. Bury and Norwich Post, 3 May 1859. At the nomination Parker defended the way in which he had been brought forward and presented himself as a champion of the agricultural interest. He also called for the development of British resources in India. He was narrowly elected in second place.Ibid.

A steady attender, Parker was unswervingly loyal to Disraeli on all the major issues of the day, including the Schleswig-Holstein question, 8 July 1864. He also opposed church rate abolition, 14 May 1862, and Radical motions to reform the county and borough franchises. He spoke occasionally and succinctly in debate, with the majority of his contributions reflecting his background in the Indian army and his commitment to Suffolk’s rural interest. Explaining that he was ‘well acquainted with the feelings of the people of India’, he questioned the wisdom of the Liberal government’s European forces (India) bill, which proposed sending a greater number of British troops to the region, and asserted that the capability of the native Indian army had been underestimated. Hansard, 2 July 1860, vol. 159, cc. 1297-8; 30 July 1860, vol. 160, cc. 396-8. He made further short but knowledgeable interventions in debates concerning the East India (civil service) bill, 27 June 1861, and British forces in India, 27 June 1862. He meanwhile doggedly pressed the government to repeal the malt duty and mocked those who instead supported a reduction in the tea duty, declaring that ‘tea, after all, is but a poor nervous substitute for that strengthening old English drink – good home-brewed beer’, 25 Apr. 1861.Ibid.,7 Aug. 1860, vol. 160, cc. 891-2; 19 Feb 1863, vol. 169, c. 544. He was also a critic of Sudbury’s continuing disenfranchisement, 10 June 1861, and argued that Suffolk required two more Members, 25 Feb. 1861.

Having presented 44 petitions from Suffolk against the malt tax on one day in April 1864, Parker focused mainly on its abolition at the 1865 general election, asserting that it was hypocritical of a free-trade supporting Liberal government to rule it out.Essex Standard, 8 Apr. 1864. He was re-elected without opposition. Bury and Norwich Post, 4, 18 July 1865. He voted against the Russell ministry’s reform bill, 27 Apr. 1866, and backed the Adullamite amendment in favour of a rating clause, 18 June 1866. He voted with Disraeli on all the major clauses of the Derby ministry’s representation of the people bill and opposed the enfranchisement of women, 20 May 1867. He divided against Gladstone’s resolutions on the Irish church, 3 Apr. 1868. A less frequent contributor to debate in his second Parliament, he warned against ‘native’ troops who had shown ‘mutinous disposition’ in India being employed in other parts of the world, 26 Feb. 1867, a comment that reflected a subtle shift in his hitherto unflinching defence of the Indian army. He gave cautious backing to the Derby ministry’s county financial boards bill, but stated his opposition to any attempt to interfere with the duties of county magistrates, 29 Apr. 1868. He sat on two select committees on the malt tax, when he was an assiduous questioner of witnesses.PP 1867 (470), xi. 2; PP 1867-68 (420), ix. 240.

Parker comfortably topped the poll at the 1868 general election and was returned unopposed six years later. He retired at the 1880 dissolution. He died ‘full of years and full of honours’ at Clopton Hall in January 1892, having been seriously ill since September. He was buried at Rattlesden church, Suffolk. Ipswich Journal, 6 Feb. 1892. He was the third to last surviving member of the siege and capture of Bhurtpore. Bury and Norwich Post, 2 Feb. 1892. He left effects valued at £64,852 1s. 3d.England and Wales, National Probate Calendar, 7 Mar. 1892. He was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Duncan (1839-1913), a medical doctor.W.A. Copinger, The manors of Suffolk (1910), 320. Parker’s correspondence with his family while serving in India is held by the British Library, London.BL MssEur F568/12.