John Freeman-Mitford, 1st Earl of Redesdale

John Thomas Freeman-Mitford, 1st Earl of Redesdale, 2nd Baron Redesdale (1805 - 2 May 1886) was a Protestant controversialist, and member of the House of Lords.

He was born in Dublin on 9 September 1805, the son of John Freeman-Mitford, 1st Baron Redesdale. He was educated at Eton and New College, Oxford (BA 1825, MA 1828, DCL 1853).

On the death of his father in 1830, he succeeded as second baron, but took little part in the debates of the House of Lords until 1837, when he began to interest himself in the wording and detail of parliamentary bills.

Wellington recommended him to study the private business of the house, so as to qualify himself for the chairmanship of committees, and on the resignation of the Earl of Shaftesbury, 4 February 1851, Redesdale was unanimously chosen his successor, with the approval of Lansdowne, Stanley, and Wellington. This appointment he held with general credit until his death, and though assiduous in presiding when bills were in committee, made his power chiefly felt over private bill legislation.

His shrewdness and independence of judgment enabled him to detect the artifices of attorneys and agents, while his dictatorial manner was proverbial. Though he regarded all things, great and small, with a genuine conservatism, yet he never allowed his peculiar views to warp his decisions. Redesdale was especially severe on the drafting of railway bills, and in 1867 threatened to hale a contractor named France to the bar of the house for expressions reflecting on him as chairman. The correspondence showed that he was acting under a misapprehension. Nevertheless, his firm and honest management increased the authority of the House of Lords in connection with private business.

Redesdale was also a frequent speaker on general topics, e.g. the Reform Bill of 1867, when he opposed Earl Grey's amendment for the disfranchisement of certain boroughs, on the ground that the matter was beyond the proper jurisdiction of the peers, and that it was a mistake to make the franchise a party question. On the Alabama Claims, he maintained in 1872 that the United States had no claims to compensation because the Southerners had reentered the Union at the close of the war.

...
Wikipedia