Smith was a partner in the family’s Nottingham bank and in its offshoots in London, Hull and Lincoln, but the parent bank was his chief responsibility. Having come into Parliament in succession to his father and supported Pitt, he was returned on the corporation interest at Leicester in 1790. He retained this troublesome seat for 28 years, though for security he was also returned at Malmesbury in 1796 and for Midhurst in 1802 and 1807. In 1801 he purchased Woodhall, the palatial residence of the bankrupt Paul Benfield.
Smith gave an unobtrusive support to administration. He had turned against dissenting pressure for the repeal of the Test Act by 1791. On 26 Nov. 1795 he presented his constituents’ petition in favour of legislation against sedition. A week later, like his brothers George and John, he signed the London declaration of support for Pitt. His only known minority votes in that Parliament were for Foster Barham’s motion, 2 June 1795, and for his cousin Wilberforce’s bid to abolish the slave trade, 15 Mar. 1796. He was government teller on the Bank question, 3 Apr. 1797, voted for Pitt’s triple tax assessment, 4 Jan. 1798, and was in the chair on the Election Treating Law amendment bill in February. He supported Addington, but as a Pittite: he may have voted with Pitt for the orders of the day, 3 June 1803, and he certainly did so on his naval motion, 15 Mar. 1804, and on the defence questions of 23 and 25 Apr. which brought Addington down. He was listed a supporter of Pitt’s second ministry and in 1805 applied to him to make his brother-in-law a remembrancer in the Exchequer court: ‘not having been in the habit of soliciting places for my connections’, he explained, 23 June, ‘I flatter myself that this application will be received with favourable attention’. He was indignant when the place was awarded to Snowdon Barne and remonstrated with Pitt, 10 Dec.:
I have had the honour to vote with you ever since I have been in Parliament, now above 17 years and I am not aware that I have ever asked from you during that period any personal favour to myself ... it would be strange indeed if I did not feel some mortification in being refused a small annual place of £150 or £200 when in addition to the obligation conferred on me, it would have attached decidedly to your interest Mr Edmund Turnor who at present sits for Midhurst ... I hope neither myself nor those friends whom I can influence will materially deviate from the line they have hitherto pursued, though if I do not feel the same zeal in your support, I trust you will ascribe it to the slight I have received in this occasion.
PRO 30/8/179, ff. 122, 124.
Except on the American intercourse bill, 17 June 1806 (which his brothers in the House also opposed), Smith followed his brother Lord Carrington’s line in adhering to Lord Grenville in and out of office. He was among the ‘staunch friends’ of the abolition of the slave trade and voted for Brand’s motion after the ministry’s dismissal. This made him unpopular at Leicester and he felt obliged to say that he had voted against Catholic relief, presumably in 1805, and to deny any commitment to it; also to assist the corporation in the creation of a block of new freemen to secure re-election.
Despite Whig fears that he might lose Leicester because he was ‘timid and penurious’, Smith held his seat in 1812.
Smith was jettisoned at Leicester in 1818 when the corporation were unable to field more than one candidate. Lord Carrington had anticipated this and returned him for his borough of Midhurst.