‘Ben’ Stanley was how this Member was familiarly known, after his Oxford nickname ‘Sir Benjamin Backbite’, a character in Sheridan’s School for Scandal, which he earned for his cutting satirical powers.
Stanley’s tutor, the Rev. Charles Girdlestone, described him as ‘giddy’ on his first introduction to university life, and as not overly attentive to his studies. His coming of age was celebrated on his father’s Anglesey estate in 1823, and the following year he may have spoken at a dinner on the construction of the Menai Straits Bridge and served on the Anglesey grand jury.
Stanley voted for the second reading of the Grey ministry’s reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, at least once against adjourning proceedings on it, 12 July 1831, and thereafter with great regularity for its details. He made his maiden speech (as ‘Mr. John Stanley’), 28 July, when, supporting the partial disfranchisement of Dorchester, he pointed out that the schedule B boroughs had been so chosen because they were too small to deserve two seats and that ‘if I were of opinion that they were all mere nomination boroughs, I should come forward at once and move that they be transferred to schedule A’. He spoke against enfranchising Stoke, 4 Aug., arguing that, compared to a more populous county like Lancashire, Staffordshire was already sufficiently represented. He moved an amendment to, and made a suggestion on, the game bill, 8 Aug., and intervened in defence of Thomas Duncombe, 9 Aug. He opposed the idea of giving Merthyr Tydfil a separate seat, since Glamorgan was proportionately well represented, 10 Aug., and that day he defended ministers’ treatment of Wales in the reform bill. He may have voted for, or abstained on, Lord Chandos’s amendment, 18 Aug., because, as he later told the Cheshire electors:
When the clause was introduced into the reform bill which gave the right of voting to £50 tenants-at-will, he felt upon principle that he could not oppose this extension of the franchise to a class he thought entitled to a voice in the choice of representative: but he had great fears of the result, in consequence of their necessary dependence; and he was sorry to say that his fears had been justified.
Ibid. 1 Jan. 1833.
He sided with ministers on the Dublin election controversy, 23 Aug. He voted for the third reading of the reform bill, 19 Sept., its passage, 21 Sept., the second reading of the Scottish bill, 23 Sept., and Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. At the Cheshire county meeting, 25 Oct. 1831, he moved the address to the king, and, in a long reform speech, he opposed the tactic of withholding supplies, but insisted that there was no popular reaction against the bill and that delaying concessions to public opinion would be dangerous.
He voted for the second reading of the revised bill, 17 Dec. 1831, the disfranchisement clauses, 20, 23 Jan. 1832, and again for its details. He praised the division of counties as a means of reducing costs, 27 Jan., on the grounds that ‘the expenses of elections ... deters many independent men of moderate fortunes from engaging in a contest’, and, making specific reference to Cheshire, that ‘the arrangement will tend to increase the influence of the landed [over the manufacturing] interest’. He was added to the select committee on the East India Company’s affairs, 1 Feb. He voted with government against the production of information on Portugal, 9 Feb. He moved for accounts of the silk trade, 16 Feb., and on 1 Mar. he pointed out that distress in this industry extended beyond Manchester to Congleton and Macclesfield. He opposed uniting Gateshead with Durham and transferring its intended seat to Merthyr, 5 Mar. He told the House that the two principal arguments against reform, its inexpediency and unpopularity, had been overturned, 22 Mar., when he gave a lengthy recital of the Whig arguments in favour of restoring the constitution to its original purity. He ridiculed opposition for its pettiness in pointing out minor inconsistencies and declared that the solution to the prevailing evils was ‘to destroy irresponsible power, which is tyranny, and to make it responsible, which is good government’, and ‘to restore sympathy between the governors and the governed’. He also denied the allegation of the Cheshire anti-reform petition that public opinion had turned against the bill, and of course divided with ministers in favour of the third reading that day. He voted against the recommittal of the Irish registry of deeds bill, 9 Apr. He voted in favour of Ebrington’s motion for an address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry the reform bill unimpaired, 10 May, and the third reading of the Irish bill, 25 May. He paired against increasing the county representation of Scotland, 1 June. His only other known votes in this Parliament were with ministers for the Russian-Dutch loan, 26 Jan., 12 and (pairing) 16 July 1832.
His seat at Hindon was abolished by the Reform Act, but having spoken in praise of reform, against pledges and reluctantly in favour of the ballot, he was elected as a Liberal for Cheshire North at the general election in December 1832.
