Copyright 2001-24 Glenn Luttrell
Close this window to return to previous page

Temple Simon Luttrell

d. Jan 14, 1803 in Paris

son of Simon Luttrell, the first Earl of Carhampton

Member of British Parliament 
Oppositionist to King George III and Lord North's
actions against the British colonists in America

On Sep. 18, 1793 he was captured by the French and paraded in streets as brother-in-law of King of England.  

Henry Lawes Luttrell, second Earl of Carhampton
John Luttrell (afterwards Luttrell-Olmius)
Anne Luttrell, who married the Duke of Cumberland, brother of the King of England, George III
James Luttrell, naval captain and M. P.
Lucy, m. Moriarty

for links to the individuals shown above, go to
The Honorable Temple Luttrell, M. P.

. . .in opposition to King George III and Lord North's actions 
against the English colonists in America. . .

In 1775, the British House of Commons was considering motions to suspend three coercive statutes directed against Boston and Massachusetts Bay.  "On March 30, on its second reading in the House of Commons a debate followed in which Temple Luttrell, a speaker for the opposition, declared:  'To force a tax upon your colonists, unrepresented, and universally dissentient, is acting in no better capacity than that of a banditti of robbers'."
From an unknown book*, chapter titled "Repudiation of Chatham's Plan".  Footnotes reference Journals of the House of Commons, XXXV, 221, 232, 240, 241, 251, 259 and the Parliamentary Register, I, 415-22.
. . .*possibly. . . The British Empire Before the American Revolution: Provincial Characteristics and Sectional ...
 By Lawrence Henry Gipson


From a speech to the Parliament by Temple Luttrell


Mr. Temple Luttrell's motion for an Address to the King, to treat with America,
Tuesday, November 7, 1775

Mr. Temple Luttrell rose and said : Sir, at this time, in. the heat of a most unnatural civil war, I hold it incumbent upon every member of Parliament, inconsiderable as he may be in his private character, not. only to speak out with firmness and decision, but to exert his utmost endeavour to restore peace and commercial prosperity to the mother country and her Colonies. . . .

The subjects of the British empire, in an especial manner, claim liberty and property, according to their ancient laws and customs, not as a charter, gift, or indulgence, but as an inherent right, never to be alienated, and at no time transferred to their Monarch or proxy in Parliament.

I mean, sir, from these examples and arguments, to deduce for an incontrovertible truth, that all the subjects of the British empire have a right to be governed according to the spirit of our ancient Constitution, by which no freeman could be taxed without his consent, either in person or by his substitute. . . .

I now, sir, beg leave to offer to the House the following motion:
"That a Committee be appointed to draw up an Address to his Majesty, humbly requesting that he will authorize the Commissioners nominated to act in America, (for the gracious purposes expressed in his Majesty's speech from the throne,) to receive proposals for reconciliation from any General Convention, Congress, or other collective body, that shall be found most perfectly to convey the sentiments of one or more of the several Continental Colonies, suspending all inquiry into the legal or illegal forms under which such Colony or Colonies may be disposed to treat; as the most effectual means to prevent the effusion of blood, and to reconcile the honour and permanent interest of Great Britain with the requisitions of his Majesty's American subjects."

. . . the motion passed in the negative.


Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England: Petitions, the Crown, and Public Opinion
 By James E. Bradley,M1 

In 1775 most Opposition leaders expressed little hope in the public's resistance to the government.  Since this apparent absence of popular support was self-confessed, it has carried all the more authority.  Lord Rockingham's negative assessment in mid-September is well known:  "In this country", he wrote, "violent measures towards America are fairly adopted and countenanced by a majority of individuals of all ranks, professions or occupations. 

"  Others, however, were less pessimistic.  Temple Luttrell toured England in the summer of 1775, having canvassed "a multitude of persons widely different in station and description," he concluded before the House of Commons in October "that the sense of the mass of the people is in favor of the Americans."  As late as 15 November Lord Camden agreed.  In an attack upon the administration in the House of Lords he declared, "You have not half of the nation on your side, " and he based his view explicitly on the number of conciliatory petitions he had seen.  The claims of Luttrell and Camden, however, were soon forgotten, while that of Rockingham became a stock reference.


from The Eloquence of the British Senate: Being a Selection of the Best Speeches of the Most ...
 By William Hazlitt, Great Britain Parliament,M1 

On Mr. Bullets Motion that 2000 additional Seamen be employed for the year 1775, to enforce the Measures 
of Government in America.  I RISE up under a number of disadvantages, and shall 
scarce be able to express my sentiments without much agitation and embarrassment, a novice as I am at political 
disquisitions, and attempting (from a seat which till this hour I might not call my own) to speak on a 
subject of such high import, in the presence, and possibly against the opinion of the most experienced statesmen 
in any country of the universe. . .

. . . But, sir, it has been earnestly recommended to me, as well by the electors of the borough of which I have the honour to be a ^ representative, as by several other persons of respectable consideration, that I will exert the utmost of my humble endeavours and faculties, towards the establishing of peace, and conciliating the affections of the American colonies with their parent-state of Great Britain, and to promote the joint happiness of both divisions of this mighty empire, on the firm basis of equality and mutual good offices : and I should hold it an unpardonable omission of duty were I to remain now silent, especially as I was precluded, by the dependence before parliament of a controverted return, from declaring my disposition towards the oppressed colonists, at the opening of the present sessions. . . .

 . . .I urge, that to compel the Americans by a military force to acknowledge the paramount 
and unbounded authority of parliament in the taxation of their property, property created by their intellects 
and industry, is neither just, politic, nor practicable ; a measure totally repugnant to the liberal notions 
of rectitude which have ever characterized the happy natives of England, and irreconcileable with the spirit 
of those very rules and institutes by which the three estates of this realm hold existence.


The Honorable Temple Luttrell on other issues. . .

Temple Luttrell on the government misapplying appropriated funds

from George the Third and Charles Fox: The Concluding Part of The American Revolution
 By Sir George Otto Trevelyan,M1 

On the thirteenth of February 1778, in a debate on the Naval Estimates, Mr. Temple Luttrell, a private member of industry and capacity, laid stress upon the enormous sums which had been granted for constructing vessels that never were constructed, and for refitting vessels that were never refitted. He instanced the case of four ships of the line, for the repair of which, in the course of the last four years, Parliament had voted close upon a hundred and 
twenty thousand pounds; an amount of money which, according to his calculations, would have more than 
sufficed to build them anew from the keel upwards. They should, (he said,) have been ready for sea long 
before the difficulty with France had reached an acute stage; whereas they were still lying, untouched and in
a rotten condition, in the inmost recesses of Portsmouth harbour. Lord Mulgrave, who answered on behalf of 
the Government, was driven to admit that not one single shilling had been laid out on the repair of those four 
vessels, because the money had been applied to other naval objects. 



Some gentlemen may, indeed, object to the slave trade as inhuman and impious; let us consider that
if our colonies are to be maintained and cultivated, which can only be done by African Negroes, it is
surely better to supply ourselves with those labourers in British bottoms (ships), than purchase them through the
medium of French, Dutch or Danish factors.
--Temple Luttrell, 
speech in House of Commons [23 May 1777]
in M.J. Cohan and John Major {eds.} 
_History in Quotations_ [2004] p. 396 


Re:  Temple Luttrell - Reformer

from John Wilkes: A Friend to Liberty  By Peter David Garner Thomas,M1   pp 181-182

. . .John Wilkes seconded a motion by "maverick opposition MP Temple Luttrell on 30 April 1777 for the official admission of strangers to the House, on the ground that the people had the right to know what their delegates were saying on their behalf.  For strangers, even reporters, were still admitted only on sufferance, liable to eviction at the whim of a single MP.  Wilkes warmly endorsed Luttrell's argument, declaring that the voters were the very erectors of their authority.  Lord North opposed the motion. . . .  It was defeated. . . . "


The Honorable Temple Luttrell - who apparently had an aversion to paying taxes

Luttrell's Tower  Eaglehurst, Southamption, Hampshire 

This exceptionally fine Georgian folly, possibly the only surviving work of Thomas Sandby, first Professor of Architecture at the Royal Academy, stands on the Solent looking towards Cowes. It was built for Temple Luttrell, a member of Parliament (but reputedly a smuggler) and there is still a 'smugglers tunnel' that runs from the property to the beach.

Guglielmo Marconi, the inventor whose work made the development of radio possible, took up residence here just over 100 years ago. 

Click on the links below to see photographs of Luttrell's Tower