Wood, the heir to Gwernyfed, Littleton and his father’s East India Company shares, was an active Middlesex magistrate and militia commander. A personal friend and future executor of the duke of Clarence, he was also a brother-in-law of Edward Law†, 2nd Baron Ellenborough, Sir Henry Hardinge* and the Liverpool ministry’s foreign secretary Lord Castlereagh*, whose pro-Catholic Toryism he espoused.
Wood was a forthright Member whose conduct was carefully monitored on account of his government connections. He remained a ready defender of the Liverpool ministry and the corn and poor laws in the 1820 Parliament, advocated game law reform, spoke on military and militia matters, and attended closely to local legislation, particularly for roads and tramways, in which he regularly invested. A prominent member of the 1820 and 1821 select committees on turnpikes, he proved to be a busy promoter of bills for Middlesex and South Wales trusts throughout his parliamentary career.
A few modifications may improve it, but we must on no account part with it, and if the Member for Carmarthen [John Frederick Campbell] does not know what is good for the Principality and would for the sake of a party question forget he is a Welshman, the Member for Breconshire does, and will do his best to preserve it ... I think all things considered I had better be without a vote for Carmarthen.
NLW, Maybery mss 6906. Arrangements for Wood to receive his Carmarthen franchise were completed in September 1824 (ibid. 6556).
When Campbell (afterwards 1st earl of Cawdor) sought inquiry with a view to abolition, 1 June 1820, Wood claimed that the Welsh would be ‘much dissatisfied if their judicature was ever altered’, and cited the poor roads and widespread use of the Welsh language as evidence of the Principality’s backwardness and as current obstacles to change. His prediction that the end of the language was nigh and progress thus assured prompted a furious backlash ‘without doors’, while in the House John Hensleigh Allen, Campbell’s Member for Pembroke Boroughs, pointed to Wood’s non-residence and questioned his right to speak as a Welshman. Charles Williams Wynn* informed his wife: ‘Wood is one of the South Wales Members, a very good natured very silly brother in law of ... Castlereagh, who resides but little in Wales but has a great love for speechifying’.
As regular member of select committees on issues affecting the poor, Wood condemned the labourers’ wages bill as a ‘restrictive’ measure, 23 June 1820. Fraternising with the South Wales industrialists, he warned the ironmaster Samuel Homfray†, a kinsman by marriage of the Morgans and his putative opponent in Breconshire in 1806, that the Grand Junction Canal Company wanted to incorporate a clause authorizing high tolls on iron in the 1820 Western Union Canal bill, and he entertained Lewis Weston Dillwyn† of Penlle’rgaer in the Commons, when legislation against smoke and noxious emissions was broached, 6 July 1820.
Wood divided with government on distress and taxation, 11, 21 Feb., including against abolition of one of the joint-postmasterships, 13 Mar. 1822.
As his brother-in-law the 3rd marquess of Londonderry had predicted, Wood decided against jeopardizing Tom’s Horse Guards career by voting for the amendment to the address, condemning the peacetime appointment of Canning’s ally Beresford as lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 Feb. 1823.
In view of constituency opposition to funding alterations required under the 1823 Consolidated Gaol Act, Wood called on Beaufort on his way to the Brecon October assizes, and in December took advice from colleagues on the Middlesex bench.
He confirmed his preference for qualification by ‘a mixed calculation of property and rating’ when a new settlement bill was proposed, 22 Mar. 1825. Breconshire and Glamorganshire entrusted their petitions for the free movement of fish to him for presentation, as a member of the 1824 and 1825 select committees, 29 Mar. He divided for the Irish unlawful societies bill, 25 Feb., but refrained from voting on Catholic relief in deference to his constituents, and presented a hostile petition from the hundred of Brennig, 18 Apr. 1825. Opposing corn law revision, 28 Apr., he asserted that its detractors confused the achievements of the 1815 Act with those of the 1822 agriculture committee, and that the ‘fraudulent practice of returning fictitious averages ought not to be laid upon the present system’. He objected to a fixed duty on principle, preferring a 70s. or 65s. pivot price and a 17s. tariff. He used similar protectionist arguments against admitting Canadian grains, 2 May 1825. He travelled to Brecon for the assizes when a dissolution was anticipated in September and stayed on to steward the October race meeting.
He approved the ministry’s decision to implement the Corn Importation Acts by order in council and urged the House to put an end to ‘the aggravating attempts of the press to dissever the manufacturing and agricultural interests’, 24 Nov. 1826. Saddened and angered by Whig-led opposition to Clarence’s grant, Wood spoke, 16 Feb., and voted in favour of the award, 14 Mar. 1827. He reiterated his protectionist principles in the corn debates that month, following Lord Liverpool’s stroke. He said that he was inclined to support the import scale proposed in the government’s corn bill although he considered the prices too low, 1 Mar., objected to the use of the Winchester bushel for taking averages, 8 Mar., spoke out against taking the price of peas, beans, and rye into account, 19 Mar., and called for averages to be taken over six weeks not one, 26 Mar. He divided for the bill, 2 Apr., hoping to amend it in committee, but had to withdraw his amendment extending the prohibition on imports, 6 Apr. He had earlier been denied a hearing amid the clamour that greeted reports of Canning’s likely succession as premier. He called for protection by ‘prohibitions rather than regulation’ when the Canning ministry’s warehoused corn bill was committed, 21 June, and approved their resolution for a 70s. corn pivot price, 18 June.
During the first supply debate of the duke of Wellington’s ministry, in which Hardinge was clerk of the ordnance, 18 Feb. 1828, Wood refuted Lord Normanby’s claim that Canning had openly attributed his South American policy to Castlereagh and expressed confidence in the government. He called for an end to
all such contrasts and such expressions as ‘that Mr. Canning’s party is scattered to the winds’ ... The grave should be a protection against such expressions ... I will only add, that, after hearing all I have heard about the blowing up, as it has been termed, of the late administration, I think the House had better cease to look backward and turn their eyes toward the present administration.
He condemned the practice of supplementing wages from the poor rates and sought a wider brief for the select committee on parochial settlement he was appointed to, 21 Feb., adding that if no one ‘better qualified ... could be found’, he would move to have the ‘question of the poor laws generally’ referred to it. He agreed with Burdett that assisting the emigration of the Irish poor was as important an Anglo-Irish issue as the Catholic question or free trade and cited the Harrow labour auction as proof of the degradation the poor laws created, 4 Mar. He had little to say on Macqueen’s abortive bill to end settlement by hiring, 29 Apr., but he ordered returns of removal orders and of quarter session appeals, and was added to the select committee on the poor laws, 3 June. Wood presented his constituents’ petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 25 Feb., and published denials after being listed in the government minority against it, 26 Feb. 1828.
Wood sent Wellington a draft oath designed to protect ‘the Protestant church establishment’, and the patronage secretary Planta predicted in February 1829 that he would divide ‘with government’ for Catholic emancipation.
some ... may consider it unconstitutional and wrong on my part to have given such a pledge, but, having had the benefit of it for some years, I cannot do otherwise now than fulfil what I consider to be an honourable engagement with my constituents.
He divided against the bill, 18 Mar., but reminded the Ultra Sir Edward Knatchbull that he did so ‘reluctantly in obedience to his constituents’. He delayed presenting the Breconshire petition until 26 Mar., when it could be received with the county’s pro-emancipation petition entrusted to the Whig Edward Smith Stanley, who, as Wood had been forewarned, questioned the provenance of the anti-Catholic petition.
Wood called for game sales to be made legal and an end to differential treatment of the rich and poor under the game laws, 6 Apr., and defended spending on the militia, 4 May. He pressed for the recommittal of the labourers’ wages bill, 15 May, commended it as the work of the 1828 committee and argued that by attempting to end magistrates’ wage scales and payments from poor rates, it separated the poor laws, of which he approved, from ‘the evils ... grafted on them’. He suggested raising the proposed householder rating threshold from £6 to £10, helped to secure the withdrawal of a clause permitting parish overseers to contract for the employment of the poor, and carried an amendment making owners (not occupiers) of tenements rated at £10-£12 liable for rate payments. His objections to proceeding with the anatomy regulation bill that day were ignored. He attended the Pitt dinner as Lord Mansfield’s guest, 28 May.
Wood acknowledged that suffering was rife, but suggested that the time of the House would be better spent seeking remedies for distress than discussing an amendment protesting at its omission from the address, which served only to highlight party differences, 4 Feb. 1830. To cries of ‘Where?’, he claimed that distress was already on the wane, when the revived Whig opposition cited it as a reason for abolishing the office of lieutenant-general of the ordnance, which he voted to retain, 29 Mar. He divided against Lord Blandford’s reform scheme, 18 Feb., and the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb. He presented private petitions against the Brechfa road and Swansea gas bills, 17, 18 Mar., and another on the 23rd for extending the provisions of the Breconshire roads bill.
The Wellington ministry naturally listed Wood among their ‘friends’ and he divided with them on the civil list when they were brought down, 15 Nov. 1830. He blamed Parliament for permitting the 1830 game bill to lapse and remained as anxious as ever to see legislation enacted that permitted game sales, applied to all classes, and enabled property owners to permit whomever they pleased to sport on their land. He accordingly welcomed Lord Chandos’s game bill, although he conceded that it was hopelessly encumbered with detail, 7 Dec. He presented several Breconshire anti-slavery petitions the same day. Commenting on the budget, 11 Feb. 1831, he said he had to agree with the radical Henry Hunt that a reduction in malt duty would be of greater benefit to the poor than cuts in the tobacco tax, adding that it would also serve as a deterrent to illicit brewing and distilling mixtures of barley and malt. Following the introduction of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, which he did not expect to pass ‘in its present form’, Wood corresponded regularly at length with his Breconshire agent John Jones of Glan Honddu, in order to ascertain his constituents’ views and to ensure that his own were not misrepresented. He was granted five days’ leave on account of ill health (an attack of gout), 16 Mar.
You may make them quite easy on the state of their own borough [Brecon], for the opening of which, and all other boroughs, I shall most decidedly give my vote. But I am quite sure they are not aware of the details of the proposed bill, and I believe there is scarce a man all round this part of the country that is not of opinion that the bill must be materially amended. The bill as at present drawn ... extinguishes 70 English representatives and adds to the number of Irish Members. This I never will vote for. Ireland and its present Members with Mr. O’Connell at their head gives us trouble sufficient already. This is a mill stone round our necks and keeps us in an eternal state of expense and anxiety and pays almost nothing to the taxes. Last year, when the chancellor of the exchequer of the day [Goulburn] tried to make a more equitable arrangement, the whole 100 Irish Members united to resist them, and they would unite again at this moment if a modified property tax was proposed ... [and] make England pay the whole of that burden. As long as this is the feeling of Irishmen I am quite sure we ought not to add to their power in the ... Commons by reducing the number of English representatives. I will vote for a full, fair and efficient measure of reform. Every borough that shall continue to send Members to Parliament after the passing of the bill shall no longer be closed as it is at present ... I will not consent to rob freemen of their birthrights ... All that part of the bill which goes to the register of votes and the annual circuits of our assessors would be useless and would inflict on all counties very heavy annual expense ... When the bill gets into committee I will do my best to render it an efficient measure and to divest it of its several inconsistencies. I will also, previous to its being committed, state fully in the House my view of the whole of the arrangement, but I must say if every word I am reported to have said is to be productive of a county meeting it is not much encouragement to say anything, or much incitement to the active performance of one’s public duties ... None of the papers that I have seen ... accurately reported what I did say on the Cambridge petition ... What I did say was certainly cheered by both sides of the House, giving as I thought general satisfaction. Thus, if I cannot open my mouth without sending a written report of my speech to the papers I will cease to speak at all, for I cannot believe that is a very creditable way of making my opinions known to the public ... The constant study of my life has been to do my duty by those who have done me the honour for so many years to send me to Parliament, and my sole object and wish is to be considered by them a faithful, honest and independent representative.
Ibid.
He received the Breconshire petition, 18 Apr., but failed to secure an opportunity to present it.
Wood declined a household appointment in order to sit unfettered, though he took a militia post and Lady Caroline became a lady-in-waiting to the queen. As the king expected, he voted for the reintroduced reform bill at its second reading, 6 July.
I shall vote for the transfer of all the weak and decayed boroughs to populous places, but we must ascertain that they are so. Appleby, about which we debated last night, has in the returns not only one of its townships omitted, but it is a burgage tenure borough and the court house and several of the burgage houses are situated in the parish that is thus omitted and the population of 1821 not 1831 amounted to 2,650 ... The taking away one seat from a class of boroughs and giving one seat to a class of towns, I decidedly oppose. Lord Milton has given notice of a motion for each place having two Members and so it ought; if it is otherwise instead of one boon to a place we should plant in every town a bone of election contention that would prove the greatest curse that could be inflicted on them. The right of voting in towns I think had better be for long lease £10 owners and £20 occupiers in England and £8 owners and £12 occupiers in Wales. Col. Davies has also given notice of a motion that all the freeholders of the towns should vote for the boroughs, which I think is desirable. I shall certainly propose that long holders should be enfranchised down to 40s. This is my idea of reform and this I firmly believe will be satisfactory to the country. I am sure it ought to be so. We had last night a second vote of time on the question of adjournment. From two until seven this morn the contest went on. I did all I could to bring them to terms without success. I voted with the ministers against the adjournments. If I could have got an opportunity I was anxious to have stated my opinion on the bill but there are so many speakers I did not succeed and now I shall not do so until we get into committee.
Ibid. 6584.
He made several of these points in his speech that day against starting with the disfranchisement clause, ‘one of the most objectionable in the whole bill, which, by ending the freeman, scot and lot and householder vote, left the lower orders without any means of enfranchisement’, drawing ‘a broad line through society which did not exist before’, and explained that he disagreed ‘on principle’ with the creation of one and three Member constituencies. He voted to make the 1831 census the determinant of English borough disfranchisements, 19 July, against including Downton, 21 July, and St. Germans, 26 July in schedule A, and consistently against the schedule B disfranchisements. When these had been carried, he suggested using ‘those 112 seats at our disposal’ to give two Members to towns with populations above 12,000 and to ‘increase the representation of populous counties’, 2 Aug. He expressed concern that day at the way government was forcing though ‘the whole bill’, and his formal protest that the creation of metropolitan boroughs violated the principle of the bill paved the way for the anti-reformers’ trial of strength on the enfranchisement of Greenwich, 3 Aug., which ministers carried by 295-188. He had proposed making Middlesex a six Member county with a 40s. copyhold and freehold franchise, three divisions and Tower Hamlets, Brentford and Hackney as polling towns, and suggested similar arrangements for Kent and Surrey to avoid enfranchising Greenwich, Deptford and Lambeth. He had decided by 8 July to curry local support by campaigning for the separate enfranchisement of Merthyr Tydfil, a contributory designate of Cardiff, which extended into Breconshire at Cefn-Coed-y-Cymer.
Wood had ‘no problem voting for the second reading’ of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, though he still found it ‘clogged with complicated details that will, I fear, very much impede its passage into law’. He restated his objections to altering the quotas of English, Irish and Scottish Members, settling disfranchisement before enfranchisement, metropolitan districts, single Members English boroughs and ‘lump sum votes on each Schedule’. As amendments, he suggested a separate registration bill, using Lieutenant Drummond’s disfranchisement scale, confining the urban franchise to residents while preserving the rights of freeman, scot and lot, and householder voters, and replacing the £10 land tax with the £10 poor rate qualification.
Standing as a Conservative and assisted by his sons, Wood pledged support for the established church and Sabbatarianism, advocated the abolition of slavery, factory regulation and an equitable composition of tithes and came in for Breconshire unopposed in December 1832.