Dowdeswell, a lawyer whose family had been politically connected with Tewkesbury since the seventeenth century, was returned unopposed for the third time in 1820 with the advanced Whig, John Martin, after pledging his utmost exertions to ‘preserve the blessings of our constitution to ... posterity’.
He divided against Catholic claims, 6 Mar. 1827, 12 May 1828. He voted for repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb., and presented two favourable Tewkesbury petitions, 28 Feb. He produced one from the corporation against the alehouses licensing bill, 9 June 1828. In February 1829 Planta, the Wellington ministry’s patronage secretary, predicted that Dowdeswell would side ‘with government’ for Catholic emancipation, but while he voted to consider the matter, 6 Mar., he divided against the relief bill, 18, 30 Mar. 1829. He voted against the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb., and Jewish emancipation, 17 May 1830. He divided in the minority to prohibit sales for on-consumption in beer houses, 21 June. He spoke in the debate on the court of chancery, 24 June 1830, defending his fellow masters from the ‘unjust aspersions ... cast upon their character’ and rejecting complaints about excessive fees and insufficient hours of attendance. At the general election that summer he responded to an application from a group of Tewkesbury electors by affirming his anxiety to ‘witness the extinction of slavery with as little delay as possible’; he was again returned unopposed.
The ministry regarded Dowdeswell as one of their ‘friends’, and he duly voted with them in the crucial civil list division, 15 Nov. 1830. He divided against the second reading of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, 22 Mar., and for Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831. At the ensuing general election he faced a challenge at Tewkesbury from a second reform candidate, Charles Hanbury Tracy*. Dowdeswell denied that he was an anti-reformer, declaring that ‘those boroughs where there is ... no constituency should be disfranchised ... those boroughs denominated close boroughs should be thrown open and ... the larger towns, whose commercial power and wealth give them an importance in our nation, should be admitted to a participation in the elective franchise’. He explained that he had opposed the ministerial bill because of the ‘unjust’ way in which it deprived many voters and ‘considerable ... boroughs’ of their privileges. He was returned in second place behind Martin, after a severe contest.
