Lincolnshire

County

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press

Background Information

Estimated number qualified to vote:

over 7,000

Number of voters:

5,391 in 1823

Elections

DateCandidateVotes
16 Mar. 1820HON. CHARLES ANDERSON PELHAM 
 CHARLES CHAPLIN 
6 Dec. 1823SIR WILLIAM AMCOTTS INGILBY, bt. vice Anderson Pelham, called to the Upper House3816
 Sir John Hayford Thorold, bt.1575
19 June 1826CHARLES CHAPLIN 
 SIR WILLIAM AMCOTTS INGILBY, bt. 
9 Aug. 1830CHARLES CHAPLIN 
 SIR WILLIAM AMCOTTS INGILBY, bt. 
9 May 1831SIR WILLIAM AMCOTTS INGILBY, bt. 
 HON. CHARLES ANDERSON WORSLEY PELHAM 

Main Article

Lincolnshire, England’s second largest county, was a premier area of wheat production and also had extensive grazing regions, with long wool a speciality. Only six towns (Boston, Lincoln, Louth, Gainsborough, Spalding and Stamford) had over 5,000 inhabitants and it was dominated by rural proprietors, concentrated in Holland (the south-eastern administrative division) and parts of Lindsey (the northern division). The latter included the large estates of the conservative Whig Anderson Pelhams, Barons Yarborough, who were seated at Brocklesby, nine miles west-north-west of Grimsby, and had occupied one county seat from 1774 to 1802 and again since 1807, when the 1st baron’s son and heir, Charles Anderson Pelham, came in. Kesteven (the south-western division) contained the substantial Belton estate of the Tory 1st Earl Brownlow, lord lieutenant since 1809, whose brother William Brownlow was Member on sufferance from 1816 to 1818.1 At the general election of that year Brownlow had been replaced by the popular Tory squire Charles Chaplin of Blankney, near Sleaford, whose father had sat for the county from 1802 until his death in 1816. He and Anderson Pelham were only returned after a severe contest provoked by Sir Robert Heron* of Stubton, near Grantham, an idiosyncratic independent Whig who relied largely on the support of the ‘very numerous body of small independent freeholders’, although he had the backing of his friend Lord Milton*, son of the Yorkshire Whig grandee the 2nd Earl Fitzwilliam. Anderson Pelham, who bore the brunt of the contest, never forgave Heron for his intervention, which he believed had ‘very much injured the old Whig interest’.2

At the 1820 general election Anderson Pelham, an alarmist over Peterloo, and Chaplin offered again. Heron, who had recently been returned by Fitzwilliam for Peterborough, considered standing but decided against another attempt on the county, dismissing a suggestion that he should campaign to be returned free of expense as a guarantee of ‘failure’. On the hustings Anderson Pelham claimed to have acted with ‘independent ... moderation’, while Chaplin applauded the Six Acts and pledged support for the agricultural interest. Heron’s attack on the Acts was cut short by the sheriff, William Corbett of Elsham, who also vetoed his proposal to adjourn proceedings outdoors, which had been backed by his friend Colonel William Johnson* of Witham, the unsuccessful independent candidate for Boston, and by Charles Allix of Willoughby Hall. Heron and Johnson stalked out of the hall in protest leaving the sitting Members to be returned unopposed.3 They later promoted and held a meeting to take steps to ensure the county’s ‘future independence, on a plan similar to that which has produced such important results in Middlesex and Huntingdonshire’, 13 Oct. 1820.4

There was widespread popular celebration of the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline in November 1820 and Yarborough, who had voted against the measure in the Lords, was fêted at Brigg on his way to Brocklesby. The inhabitants of Spalding addressed the queen and the journeymen tradesmen petitioned the Commons in her support, as did the inhabitants of Holbeach. In early 1821 the grand jury of Kirton quarter sessions resolved to address the king in condemnation of the excesses of a ‘licentious press’.5 Anderson Pelham presented petitions from agriculturists of Kirton for relief from distress, 19 Mar. 1821, and the inhabitants of Gainsborough petitioned both Houses for mitigation of the penal code in 1821 and 1822.6 There was renewed local petitioning for relief from agricultural distress in February 1822.7 At a ‘thinly attended’ county meeting on this subject, 29 Mar., Heron and Allix, taking the lead, called for enhanced protection and substantial economies. Anderson Pelham and Chaplin were criticized, the former for his inactivity in the House, the latter for supporting the Liverpool ministry; both professed support for the abolition of useless pensions and places. Johnson, now Member for Boston, and Russell Collett advocated parliamentary reform as the only effective solution. Anderson Pelham presented the petition, 29 Apr.8 The reformers mustered the freeholders to petition, 19 Apr., when there was a reasonable attendance, though Heron noted that ‘we should have been called a mere rabble had not Chaplin and his friends, amongst whom were squires and clergy, rather unwisely attended’. Anderson Pelham said that he would support ‘temperate reform’ and subsequently did so in the House, but Chaplin would have nothing to do with it. After the meeting Sir Edward Bromhead of Thurlby Hall, high steward of Lincoln, lodged a protest complaining that most of those present lived in Lincoln, a county corporate, where the high sheriff had no jurisdiction.9 In December 1822 Heron and Johnson, pointing to the example set in Yorkshire, convened a reform meeting at the Reindeer in Lincoln for 2 Jan. 1823. Anderson Pelham discountenanced it and the attendance was meagre, but Heron suggested the formation of a small steering committee and called for a good turnout at the county reform meeting now fixed for 26 Mar.10 At this the veteran reformer Major John Cartwright, a former resident of the county, who had failed to reach agreement with Heron by letter, proposed a radical alternative petition, which was seconded, to Heron’s ‘mortification’, by Johnson, Cartwright’s host. Anderson Pelham supported Heron’s petition and Chaplin reiterated his hostility to reform. The original petition was overwhelmingly carried and was presented by Anderson Pelham, 22 Apr.11 The tradesmen of Gainsborough and Louth petitioned the Lords for repeal of the Insolvent Debtors Act, 13 Feb., 4 Mar. 1823.12

When Anderson Pelham succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Yarborough in late September 1823 Heron immediately declared, although he was in no position to sustain a contest. Sir William Amcotts Ingilby of Kettlethorpe (which had come to him through his mother), Member for East Retford in the 1807 Parliament and still, as a Yorkshire landowner, little known in Lincolnshire, was confident that ‘with the Yarborough interest I should beat him out and out’, as he told his ‘mentor’ Daniel Sykes, Member for Hull. Yet he had a scruple about going against the wishes of Fitzwilliam, who had sponsored his own admission to Brooks’s in 1815.13 Yarborough, to whom Amcotts Ingilby indicated his willingness to step aside for any other preferred candidate except Heron, wanted Gilbert John Heathcote, Member for Boston and son of Sir Gilbert Heathcote* of Normanton, Rutland, a former Member for Lincolnshire, to stand, but Gilbert could not readily obtain his father’s blessing and so declined. Yarborough, determined ‘never’ to endorse Heron, gave Amcotts Ingilby his interest and began to recruit support for him. At this Heron withdrew, complaining publicly that he had ‘been refused the important support of some of whom I thought I had a right to claim it’ and that he had unfairly excited ‘the jealousy of a portion of the Whigs of this county’. Amcotts Ingilby started ‘on the broad basis of real independence’ as the enemy of ‘unnecessary’ public expenditure. Milton agreed to put the ‘trifling’ Fitzwilliam interest at his disposal, but chided Yarborough for spurning Heron. Yarborough defended himself, stressing Heron’s unpopularity and arguing that it had been essential to act quickly in order to keep out a second Tory.14 It was later alleged by a woman not privy to the truth that Yarborough had reneged on an undertaking that Sir Robert Sheffield of Normanby Park, Scunthorpe, was to have his backing and had taken up Amcotts Ingilby as a man who ‘could easily be turned out’ when his elder son Charles came of age in April 1830.15 Heron seemed to have acquiesced in Amcotts Ingilby’s candidature, but he ‘afterwards took offence at something’ and in mid-October pressed Heathcote junior to start, asserting that Amcotts Ingilby was regarded everywhere ‘with contempt’ and that, as he had refused ‘all avowal of principles’, his Whig credentials were in doubt.16 Heathcote would not stir but Johnson, abetted by the reformer Samuel Wells of Huntingdon, made it known that he would nominate Sir John Thorold of Syston Park to promote the cause of electoral independence, even though Thorold had declined to stand for health and other reasons. As Thorold had already publicly declared his support for Amcotts Ingilby he was not a happy choice, but his supposed disavowal of Johnson’s proceedings to a deputation from Amcotts Ingilby’s committee was subsequently denied by the independents, who persevered. Yarborough wondered how Thorold could have ‘lent himself to a party’ of such ‘very low persons’ and thought that if he had offered straightforwardly after Heron’s withdrawal he would have ‘come in with all the ease possible’.17 At the nomination, 25 Nov. 1823, Johnson, proposing Thorold, whose public line, which some cynics thought disingenuous, was that he would take his seat if returned by the efforts of the independent freeholders, denounced Amcotts Ingilby as a Brocklesby nominee ‘under the colours of the Tory faction in Yorkshire’. The embittered Heron vigorously advocated support for Thorold to thwart Amcotts Ingilby, ‘this Yorkshire baronet’ and ‘amphibious politician’, and to teach Yarborough a lesson. Thorold did not appear on the hustings until the seventh day of polling, when he arrived to vote for Amcotts Ingilby in fulfilment of his pledge and insisted that his nomination had been ‘entirely against’ his wishes, though he would have served if returned. There was no danger of that, for he was by then over 2,000 behind Amcotts Ingilby in a poll of almost 5,000. The affair ended on the tenth day, with Amcotts Ingilby an easy winner, but reportedly £15,000 the poorer.18 Heron reflected that while

it was impossible to succeed without a candidate or money, yet we polled above fifteen hundred votes; and such was the disinclination of the county to choose the stranger, that, with a profuse expenditure, a host of lawyers, and the great body of the clergy, a less number of freeholders was polled in ten days than had voted in three at the contest of 1818.

The Whig leader Lord Grey was puzzled by the ‘strange jumble of parties and interests in Lincolnshire’, while Lord Althorp* very reluctantly voted for Amcotts Ingilby, feeling bound by his earlier promise to Yarborough.19 From one angle the election, which owed much to local feeling, represented a struggle between Lindsey and Holland, on the one hand, and Kesteven, on the other. In the first two, where he received 90 and 75 per cent support respectively, Amcotts Ingilby virtually extinguished the independent vote, but in Kesteven Thorold, who got 82 per cent support, was backed not only by the yeomen but by some of the Tory gentry of the Grantham area. Amcotts Ingilby, who proved in the House to be a steady Whig reformer and friend of agriculture, set about consolidating his position.20

There was widespread petitioning of both Houses for extinction of the slave trade and inquiry into the prosecution of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara in 1824, and for the abolition of slavery in 1825.21 On 3 Mar. 1825 the inhabitants of Holbeach, a centre of radical Dissent, petitioned the Commons for repeal of the assessed taxes; and there was petitioning that session against Catholic relief, which Chaplin opposed and Amcotts Ingilby supported.22 The dominant issue of 1825-6 was agricultural protection. Lincolnshire agriculturists petitioned intensively against interference with the corn laws, and both Members spoke and voted accordingly. A ‘miserably attended’ county meeting, 23 Dec. 1825, addressed moderately by Amcotts Ingilby, Chaplin and Heron, and heatedly by Johnson, who blamed the resumption of cash payments for distress, resolved to petition against relaxation of the corn laws and to set up local associations to defend the agricultural interest. Heron stayed aloof from the Kesteven Agricultural Association which was formed soon afterwards at Sleaford by Johnson, Sir John Trollope† of Casewick, Sir William Welby of Denton and John Lucas Calcraft of Ancaster.23

In the autumn of 1825, when a dissolution was expected, what Heron called the ‘self-appointed’ independence of election committee, which had met occasionally at Sleaford since the 1823 by-election, resolved to start Johnson, having been rebuffed by Lord Hervey*, the son of the 2nd marquess of Bristol, who owned a sizeable Lincolnshire estate. Heron attributed the choice of Johnson, which he refused to endorse, to the machinations of ‘a few obscure individuals’:

He has most unfortunately accepted ... on grounds wholly radical; and the contemptible cry of aristocratical combination thus dividing and ruining the party ... put[s] an end, for many years to come, to all hope of ‘the independence of the county’, for the promotion of which, the committee was first professed to be formed.24

When the committee reconvened on 28 Mar. 1826 Heron, Thorold and a few others proposed to rescind the resolution to back the increasingly extremist Johnson. Defeated, they withdrew from the committee, which according to Heron ‘met only once more, and then gave up their unavailing opposition, unsupported as it was by the people, or by any party in the county, excepting those calling themselves radicals, who are, probably, fewer in this than in any other part of England’.25 At the 1826 general election Chaplin and Amcotts Ingilby sought re-election. Johnson, publicly admitting the division among the independents, offered himself as an alternative, but soon afterwards his friends decided not to persevere. The sitting Members were returned unopposed. At the declaration Chaplin emphasized his hostility to Catholic claims and Amcotts Ingilby his support for them, aversion to ‘useless places’ and belief in moderate reform and the cautious abolition of slavery. Badgered by Johnson, who denounced them both, Chaplin refused to promise to support repeal of the malt tax or anything other than piecemeal reform, while Amcotts Ingilby was more obliging.26

There was mass petitioning against ministerial revisions of the corn laws in 1827 and 1828, and Lincolnshire wool producers campaigned vigorously for better protection against foreign imports, on which both Members continued to take the desired protectionist line.27 Local maltsters petitioned the Lords, 21 Feb., and the Commons, 26 Feb. 1828, for repeal of the Malt Act.28 Protestant Dissenters petitioned for repeal of the Test Acts, which Chaplin opposed and on which Amcotts Ingilby abstained.29 The inhabitants of Horncastle petitioned the Lords, 24 Apr., and the Commons, 25 Apr., against Catholic claims, but Lincolnshire Catholics petitioned the Commons for relief, 29 Apr. 1828.30 Brownlow was reported in December 1828 to have been keen to promote the formation of a Brunswick Club, but to have been deterred by ‘fear of opposition and by the dislike of exposing his powers of speech to the collisions of a popular assembly’. County opinion, to judge from the weight of petitioning, was overwhelmingly hostile to the Wellington ministry’s concession in 1829 of Catholic emancipation, which Chaplin opposed and Amcotts Ingilby supported.31 Renewed agricultural distress produced a requisition, got up by Johnson, for a county meeting to petition for repeal of the beer and malt taxes in late December 1829. The sheriff, Richard Thorold of Welsby, refused it, but Heron and three other magistrates convened one for 8 Jan. 1830, when there was a good turnout, despite the terrible cold. With Henry Handley* of Culverthorp, former Member for Heytesbury, in the chair, Heron carried a resolution censuring Thorold. Johnson and Handley’s cousin Benjamin Handley† moved the petition, which was easily carried against Bromhead’s amendment deprecating interference with public credit. Chaplin largely concurred in it, though he laid more stress on increased protection, while Amcotts Ingilby called for a general reduction of taxes on essentials.32 Petitions reached the Lords for protection against foreign wool imports, 22 Feb., 4, 18 Mar., 7 June 1830.33 Sleaford petitioned them against the sale of beer bill, 21 May, and Gainsborough and Spalding did so for reform of the penal code, 14, 18 June.34 Horncastle, Spalding and Spilsby petitioned the Commons for mitigation of the punishment for forgery offences, 24 May 1830.35

It was reported in early July 1830 that rumours of a serious challenge to the sitting Members at the approaching general election were ‘a mere bagatelle’, and so it proved, though Amcotts Ingilby, who confirmed his view that significant reform and substantial tax cuts were needed, remained apprehensive of a ‘vexatious opposition against Chaplin’. An invitation by a number of freeholders meeting at Lincoln assizes failed to tempt Christopher Turner† of Stoke Rochford, and Henry Handley scotched a proposal to nominate and return him free and unpledged, turning down a requisition signed by over 1,000 freeholders. At the nomination, 9 Aug., when proceedings were disrupted by a sudden deluge, Chaplin defended himself against criticism of his indifference to distress. B.H. Thorold and Richard Healy of Laughton nominated Colonel Charles Waldo Sibthorp, the rabidly anti-Catholic Ultra Member for Lincoln. Although he declined to stand, a poll was demanded on his behalf, but he put a stop to the preparations later in the day, leaving the sitting Members to be returned unopposed. There was very serious rioting after their chairing, 11 Aug. 1830.36

Calcraft, Heron, Henry Handley and Thorold promoted a county meeting to petition for a reduction of taxation, 8 Oct. 1830, when Johnson took the chair, Amcotts Ingilby pleaded a domestic problem for his absence, Chaplin said that repeal of the malt tax would do no good and Waldo Sibthorp ranted against the Wellington ministry.37 There was agitation at Gainsborough, Horncastle and Louth for a repeal of assessed taxes, and at Alford, Gainsborough, Spalding and Spilsby for repeal of the coastal coal duties.38 There was heavy countywide petitioning of both Houses for the abolition of slavery during the 1830 Parliament.39 Chaplin was absent from the division on the civil list which brought down the ministry, 15 Nov. 1830, when Amcotts Ingilby was in the opposition majority. Reform agitation in the parliamentary boroughs spread to the market towns, though its intensity varied from area to area. Support for the ballot was widespread.40 This formed part of the agenda at a county meeting, 28 Jan. 1831, when Amcotts Ingilby signified his conversion to the idea, but Chaplin stayed away.41 The Grey ministry’s reform bill, which Amcotts Ingilby supported and Chaplin opposed, was widely and enthusiastically welcomed.42 From the beginning of April Heron and Gilbert John Heathcote corresponded on how to get rid of Chaplin in the event of a sudden dissolution. Heron pressed Heathcote to declare, assuring him of certain success, but Heathcote would not commit himself.43 Johnson saw his opportunity and secured support from the organized reformers of Bourne and Holbeach, but Heron, while conceding that he had ‘behaved exceedingly well’, warned him that ‘his coming without the support of the great interests and with only the radicals who can make a noise and do no more without money might secure Chaplin’s re-election’. Johnson nevertheless declared his intention of standing when the bill was passed, 14 Apr. 1831. Meanwhile the Whig Charles Tennyson of Bayons Manor, Member for Bletchingley, who was also interested, tried to undermine Johnson, but he was handicapped by being committed to fight the reform cause at Stamford.44

At the 1831 general election Chaplin retired. Amcotts Ingilby stood as a reformer and so did Johnson, only to step aside almost immediately for Yarborough’s son Anderson Pelham, whose candidature had been suggested by Heron, among others. Heron, pleased to see Johnson thwarted, indeed nominated Anderson Pelham, and took pains to deny that he was the Brocklesby nominee. Tennyson and Henry Handley did the honours for Amcotts Ingilby and the Members were returned unopposed. It was reckoned that Yarborough’s support for the bill had facilitated an unlikely alliance with ‘the powerful body of independent freeholders of the market towns ... especially of the marshes round Boston [and] Spalding’. Apparently the Members jointly distributed 1,200 5s. refreshment ticket to be used at various inns.45 Over a dozen Lincolnshire petitions reached the Lords urging them to pass the reform bill in early October 1831.46 At a county meeting to address the king in support of the ministry, 18 Nov. 1831, when both Members spoke, Johnson, after unsuccessfully opposing a vote of confidence in ministers, had a string of resolutions calling for the dismissal of anti-reform officials and attacking the bishops carried in addition to the original proposal, but Heron, who reckoned that ‘half the gentry of the county’ were present, considered the exercise to have been a ‘complete success’.47

Predictions that the division of Lincolnshire would put the Lindsey (Northern) district in Yarborough’s pocket were partially fulfilled, for at the 1832 general election Anderson Pelham, who sat until he succeeded to the peerage in 1846, was returned comfortably at the head of the poll, with Amcotts Ingilby narrowly ahead of Sheffield. His seat fell to the Conservatives in 1835. The Liberals Henry Handley and Gilbert John Heathcote sat unopposed for Kesteven and Holland from 1832 to 1841, when the Conservatives Trollope and Turner were successful.48

Author: David R. Fisher

Notes

  • 1. R.J. Olney, Lincs. Politics, 1832-1885, pp. 2, 12-22, 53-54.
  • 2. Add. 38458, f. 216; Fitzwilliam mss 114/5; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 244-5; Olney, Lincs. Politics, 92 and Rural Society and Co. Government in 19th Cent. Lincs. 146; Sir J. Hill, Georgian Lincoln, 226-7.
  • 3. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 18, 25 Feb., 17, 24 Mar.; Drakard’s Stamford News, 24 Mar. 1820; Heron, Notes, 112-14.
  • 4. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 1 Sept., 20 Oct. 1820.
  • 5. Ibid. 17, 24 Nov., 1 Dec. 1820, 2 Feb. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 15, 67.
  • 6. CJ, lxxvi. 179; lxxvii. 316; LJ, lv. 221.
  • 7. CJ, lxxvii. 16, 69; LJ, lv. 38.
  • 8. Heron, 134; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 5 Apr.; The Times, 6 Apr.; Boston Gazette, 2 Apr. 1822; CJ, lxxvii. 213.
  • 9. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 26 Apr.; Heron, 134; CJ, lxxvii. 205.
  • 10. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 13 Dec. 1822; The Times, 9 Jan. 1823; Heron, 147.
  • 11. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 21 Mar., 2 Apr.; The Times, 26 Mar.; Boston Gazette, 1 Apr. 1823; Heron, 148; F. Cartwright, Cartwright Life and Corresp. ii. 234-8, 395-401; CJ, lxxviii. 236.
  • 12. LJ, lv. 516, 551.
  • 13. Heron, 148; Lincs. Election Procs. and Pollbook (1824), 6; Fitzwilliam mss 113/1.
  • 14. Lincs. AO, Ancaster mss 3Anc 9/10/2, 4; XIII/B/4a-c; Fitzwilliam mss 114/3-5; vol. 731, pp. 56-58; Lincs. Election Procs. 6-7.
  • 15. Suff. RO (Ipswich), Barne mss HA53/359/88, Emilia Boucherett to Mary Barne, 24 Dec. 1823.
  • 16. Ancaster mss XIII/B/4d, e; Fitzwilliam mss 114/2.
  • 17. Heron, 149-50; Lincs. Election Procs. 7-17; Fitzwilliam mss 114/1.
  • 18. The Times, 27 Nov., 1, 4 Dec. 1823; Barne mss 359/88; Lincs. Election Procs. 27-64; Add. 35691, f. 147.
  • 19. Heron, 150; Bessborough mss, Grey to Duncannon, 8 Dec. 1823; Althorp Letters, 123.
  • 20. Olney, Rural Society, 148 and Lincs. Politics, 92-93.
  • 21. CJ, lxxix. 102, 148, 173, 222, 324, 422; lxxxi. 106, 115, 134; LJ, lvi. 61, 62; lviii. 50, 239.
  • 22. CJ, lxxx. 157, 321; LJ, lvii. 625, 741, 811.
  • 23. CJ, lxxx. 343, 350; lxxxi. 254, 358; LJ, lvii. 646; lviii. 111, 347; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 9, 30 Dec. 1825, 6 Jan., 17 Feb., 19 May 1826; Heron, 156-7.
  • 24. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 16 Sept., 7 Oct.; The Times, 10, 20 Oct. 1825; Heron, 155-6.
  • 25. Heron, 158-9.
  • 26. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 26 May, 9, 16, 23 June; The Times, 27 May, 22 June 1826; Fitzwilliam mss 123/9; Lincs. AO, Tennyson D’Eyncourt mss 2TdE H14/18; H98/32; Olney, Lincs. Politics, 93.
  • 27. CJ, lxxxii. 245, 375, 388; lxxxiii. 130, 177, 259, 277, 327, 394, 490, 525; LJ, lix. 79, 97, 118, 122, 273, 290, 301-2, 313, 347, 390; lv. 89, 111, 209, 324, 455, 541-2, 551-2, 666.
  • 28. LJ, lx. 58; CJ, lxxxiii. 106.
  • 29. CJ, lxxxii. 505, 527; lxxxiii. 90, 95, 96, 105, 189; LJ, lx. 52, 56, 125.
  • 30. LJ, lx. 238; CJ, lxxxiii. 268, 282.
  • 31. Heron, 174-5; Lansdowne mss, Empson to Lansdowne, 8 Jan.; CJ, lxxxiv. 24, 109, 115, 121, 132, 141, 154, 170, 182; LJ, lxi. 15, 18, 118, 144, 185, 280, 313, 336, 339; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 27 Feb., 6 Mar. 1829.
  • 32. Heron, 182; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 1, 8, 15 Jan.; Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lowther, 9 Apr. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 103.
  • 33. LJ, lxii. 33, 54, 131, 628.
  • 34. Ibid. 479, 713, 740.
  • 35. CJ, lxxxv. 463.
  • 36. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 9, 30 July, 6, 13 Aug.; Fitzwilliam mss, Amcotts Ingilby to Milton, 2 Aug. 1830.
  • 37. Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 24 Sept., 15 Oct. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 222.
  • 38. CJ, lxxxvi. 127, 164, 177, 254; LJ, lxiii. 188, 209, 225; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 5 Nov. 1830.
  • 39. CJ, lxxxvi. 47, 52, 55, 56, 105, 132, 163, 408, 444, 454, 483; LJ, lxiii. 30, 56, 58, 59, 71, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 93, 94, 100, 115, 137, 140, 151, 169, 224, 225, 414, 415, 421, 432, 451, 452, 491; Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury, 22 Oct., 12 Nov. 1830.
  • 40. CJ, lxxxvi. 164, 310, 324; LJ, lxiii. 248; Drakard’s Stamford News, 4 Mar. 1831; Olney, Lincs. Politics, 93-94.
  • 41. The Times, 3 Feb.; Drakard’s Stamford News, 4 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 310.
  • 42. Drakard’s Stamford News, 18, 25 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 406-7; LJ, lxii. 439, 493, 498.
  • 43. Ancaster mss XIII/B/6j, 6l-n, 6p, 6r.
  • 44. Drakard’s Stamford News, 8, 15 Apr. 1831; Ancaster mss XIII/B/6g-i; Tennyson D’Eyncourt mss H27/11, 13, 15, 16; H36/6, 13, 14, 17.
  • 45. Drakard’s Stamford News, 22, 29 Apr., 6, 13, 20 May; The Times, 11 May 1831; Ancaster mss XIII/B/6n, 6q; 3ANC 9/14/273.
  • 46. LJ, lxiii. 1034-5, 1044, 1046, 1062.
  • 47. Drakard’s