Available from Cambridge University Press
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Estimated number qualified to vote:
at least 59, falling to 49 in 18311
Number of voters:
59 in 1820
42,054 (1821); 46,282 (1831)2
|9 Mar. 1820||JOHN CARTER||53|
|Sir George Cockburn||22|
|9 June 1826||JOHN CARTER|
|FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING|
|2 Aug. 1830||JOHN (BONHAM) CARTER|
|FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING|
|29 Nov. 1830||BARING re-elected after appointment to office|
|29 Apr. 1831||JOHN (BONHAM) CARTER|
|FRANCIS THORNHILL BARING|
Portsmouth was styled the ‘key of England’ in a contemporary gazetteer, while Henry Alford, the future dean of Canterbury, referred to the port in 1829 as ‘the rendezvous of British naval preparation and strength’. He added:
The country about ... is not pretty, there are no cliffs on the seashore, but the beach goes up quite in a flat; the three towns, Portsmouth, Portsea, and Southsea, are all situated on the island of Portsea, the water at high tide surrounds them all. Portsmouth and Portsea are strongly fortified with very broad turf walls, on which sentinels are always stationed. It seems very odd to be shut round with walls and gates, and makes me fancy myself in some old Grecian town.3
The boundary of the borough, which had been ‘closely and accurately defined’ by statute in 1787, contained the parish of Portsmouth and the urbanized section of the neighbouring parish of Portsea known as the Liberty. By 1831 the population of the latter exceeded that of Portsmouth by almost five to one.4 Portsea was lit by gas in 1821 and according to the boundary commissioners, writing ten years later, was ‘frequented as a bathing place’.5 The borough as a whole depended chiefly on the ‘great naval establishments’ for its prosperity, which had diminished since the end of the French war, ‘though compared with periods of peace, it cannot be represented as on the decline’.6 There were great expectations of the canal link to London opened in 1823, but it proved to be an economic disaster.7
In spite of the pervasive naval presence, the dominant political influence since the late eighteenth century had been that of the oligarchy of Dissenting Whig tradesmen who controlled the corporation, led by the Carter family, the owners of brewing and distilling enterprises in the town. By their indifference to government favour they had become, in the words of an ally, ‘the founders of that independence which has rendered the borough of Portsmouth conspicuous in the annals of representation’. At their head in 1820 was John Carter, Member since 1816, and the de facto patron.8 The charter provided for 13 self-selecting aldermen (exclusive of the mayor, who acted as returning officer), although the number was usually fewer. Appointments to this body, noted the corporations commissioners, had
for a long series of years ... been exercised with the undisguised purpose of confining the whole municipal and political power to a particular party, and almost to a particular family ... That no instances can be traced of municipal corruption seems attributable, not to any correcting principle in the system, but merely to the absence of evil intentions in those who have accidentally been placed at it head.9
Of the nine surviving aldermen in 1835, five were close relatives of Carter; the most prominent was Arthur Atherley*.10 The creation of freemen was in the gift of this body, who took care ‘that there should not be too numerous a body even of the predominant party’, though there was no limit by statute. Francis Thornhill Baring, who was first returned in 1826, later recalled that there was a closed electorate of between 50 to 60, of whom ‘five-sixths were liberals’.11 Whigs were consistently returned from 1784 to 1818, and again after 1820, making Portsmouth, according to Oldfield, unique among boroughs of its type.12 A curious statement in the 1831 mayoral return notes that the number of voters (49) was ‘exclusive of others, who from various causes are not at present entitled to vote’.13 This may have been no more than a tacit admission of the injustice of the restricted franchise, as by this time it had been positively established that there was no residency requirement.14
The grip of the Carter family had been temporarily broken at the 1818 general election, when the admiralty, assisted by an apostate body of aldermen led by Carter’s maternal uncle, the Rev. George Cuthbert, rector of Shaw-cum-Donnington, Berkshire, forced the concession of one seat. The sitting Member, Admiral John Markham of Ades, Sussex had balked at a contest, allowing an uncontested return for Carter and Admiral Sir George Cockburn, a ministerialist recently appointed to the admiralty board.15 Writing to his wife, 14 June 1818, Carter complained of the tactics of his opponents, citing the promise of a naval appointment to a member of the Atherley family, though he also admitted that a widespread feeling existed among the inhabitants
about the injury which the opposition politics of the corporation have done to the town. No one that I have heard accuses us of base or interested motives; but still think of us as wrong and not acting for the true interest of the town.16
In a bid to reassert his control, 16 burgesses were created prior to the 1820 general election, as compared with 12 for the remainder of this period. Among them were Markham and William Chamberlayne, Whig Member for Southampton, though not all can be so readily identified as sympathetic. Sir Charles Mill of Camois Park, Sussex, and Thomas Sewell, a prominent solicitor of Newport, Isle of Wight, were, to judge from their activities elsewhere, strong ministerialists.17 Meanwhile Cockburn sought to curry local favour by trying to secure a piece of ordnance land in the town for an unspecified ‘useful public purpose’. Informing the duke of Wellington of his intentions, 28 Aug. 1819, Robert Ward*, clerk of the ordnance, reported that ‘in a word, he begged me to say the ... refusal of the thing might much affect his election at Portsmouth’.18 Nothing more has been discovered about this business.
Shortly before the 1820 general election Markham, who had been expected to try to regain his seat, wrote to Carter to decline coming forward on account of ill health, 3 Feb. As possible alternatives, Carter named Sir Thomas Baring of Stratton Park, Hampshire, who seemed unlikely to abandon his berth at Chipping Wycombe, and his brother Henry Baring* of Somerley, Hampshire, of whom he knew little, ‘though of course he is right in politics’. He also considered Lord John Russell* and William Waldegrave, former Member for Bedford, who had the advantage of a naval background, ‘but I don’t think he is quite the man to carry off a contest with Cockburn well’.19 Markham, whose rank and connections in the service rivalled Cockburn’s, was eventually persuaded to reconsider, and commenced a canvass, 19 Feb.20 The admiralty responded with a requisition (signed by 1,400 or 2,300 inhabitants, according to source) commending Cockburn’s parliamentary conduct. This provoked a complaint of intimidation to the mayor from Markham’s supporters, who called for the return of a Member committed to economy, parliamentary reform and the ‘preservation of liberties’. The prospect of a contest, the first since 1774, ‘excited a considerable sensation in the town’ and ‘the sessions room, on the day of the election, was crowded to excess’, so that ‘several persons sustained very serious injury’. The return of Carter, who on the hustings disavowed any factious opposition to ministers, was never in doubt. Cockburn, who had received an enthusiastic reception on his arrival, was unabashed in his support for the Six Acts and expressed his wish to remain ‘the chosen representative of the first port in the kingdom, indeed the world’. Markham virtually confessed to having been dragged out of retirement, but produced an aggressive denunciation of ministers for reducing naval capacity in their preference for an oversized army. He dismissed the notion that a Member should seek government favour for his constituency as a ‘monstrous selfish doctrine’, insisting that his duty was to ensure ‘that the community were rightfully and properly legislated for, that their rights and interests were preserved and maintained, and that the burden of taxation ... may be lightened by every practical means’. John Coxe Hippisley, a renegade freeman and former Whig Member for Sudbury, accused the corporation of manipulating local opinion by the dissemination of ‘certain newspapers’ and made an apparent reference to corruption in the licensing of alehouses, which stung Carter into an angry reply.21
Fifty-nine voters participated in the one-day poll, during which objections were lodged by Cockburn’s agents to the votes of four aldermen and all the burgesses. This formed the basis of a petition against the return of Markham, which reached the Commons, 28 Apr. 1820. A committee was appointed, 25 May, and Cockburn’s counsel contended that the right of voting was contingent upon residence, but ‘most expressly renounced’ any notion that the franchise lay in the inhabitants-at-large. The defence failed to prevent a scrutiny, but produced compelling evidence that non-resident burgesses had voted both before and after the previous judgment on the right of election in 1695. Sensing defeat, Cockburn’s counsel confined his attention to the four aldermanic votes, but the acceptance of the first to be considered effectively destroyed any hope of a successful challenge and Markham was declared duly elected, 5 June.22 The matter did not rest there, however, as Cuthbert and four Portsmouth residents (including a burgess) petitioned against the determination, 26 Jan. 1821, prompting a counter-petition in its defence, signed by the aldermen George Atherley of Southampton and Joseph Smith of Purbrook and four burgesses, which was presented, 13 Apr.23 A second committee, which was appointed, 10 May, established that the previous acceptance of non-residents’ votes had been satisfactorily proved and having denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to make further unspecified submissions, upheld the existing judgment, 16 May.24 Congratulating Carter’s solicitor on ‘the defeat of the miscreants at Portsmouth’ two days later, a correspondent identified the ringleader as John Croker*, the admiralty secretary and an unsuccessful candidate for the borough in 1816, who had sat on the committee and ‘ought to blush at being the single negative in the decision, which must, I think put a final end to the question’.25 In August 1823, however, legal notices were served on the aldermen living in the town to enforce residence on their colleagues, citing a 1777 judgment (King v. Monday).26 The campaign was taken up by the ministerialist Southampton Herald, which complained of ‘an influx of strangers’ to the corporation and of the outgoing mayor’s privilege of nominating a ‘peremptory burgess’.27 This presaged an unsuccessful attempt in February 1824 to secure a mandamus in king’s bench, which would have made residence a condition of aldermanic office.28 Although there was continued criticism in the local press this issue was not formally raised again until after 1832.29
On the king’s visit to Portsmouth in September 1820 an address of welcome from the inhabitants was read by Sir George Garrett, a local brewer and signatory of the anti-corporation petition of 1821. A similar address followed from Portsea.30 Yet after the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline, ‘bells were rung, flags hoisted, white favours worn, and other signal marks of joy were displayed’.31 When an illumination took place, 13 Nov., a number of leading inhabitants and government connections declined to participate, and the special constables sworn in for the occasion were unable to prevent windows from being smashed.32 Despite the opposition of the dockyard commissioner Sir George Grey, a motion demanding the dismissal of ministers was carried by a majority of two to one at a corporation meeting, 3 Jan., and the resulting petition was presented to the Commons by Carter, 26 Jan. 1821.33 A Portsea Dissenting congregation petitioned the Lords in support of the queen, 5 Feb. 1821, and against Catholic relief, 6 June 1822.34 Ten special constables were sworn in to keep the peace on Sunday evenings in October 1821 and the orderly state of the town was commended at the corporation’s annual meeting in September 1822.35 A relief fund for the Irish poor was established at an inhabitants’ meeting, 30 May.36 Another, held on 4 Sept. 1822, produced a memorial to Peel, the home secretary, complaining of dockyard redundancies and the nuisance caused by the nearby mooring of prison ships.37 The Portsmouth (or Langstone) harbour bill, also known as the Portsea fisheries bill, sparked another protest meeting, 18 Apr. 1823. The resulting petition alleging an invasion of common fishing rights was presented to the Commons six days later by Carter, who was commended by the local press for his successful opposition to the scheme.38 He presented petitions from Portsmouth victuallers against increased licensing costs, 18 Feb., from Portsea inhabitants against the beer duties, 11 May, and from Portsmouth against the treatment of John Smith, the Methodist missionary accused of inciting slave riots in Demerara, 1 June 1824.39 Purefoy Jervoise, the county Member, presented a petition for the insertion of an indemnity clause in the Portsmouth canal bill, following complaints that the existing workings had polluted water supplies and damaged property, 18 Mar. 1825.40 An inhabitants’ meeting on Catholic relief, 13 Apr. 1825, was not attended by the opponents of the measure who had requisitioned it, reportedly because of their reluctance to engage in debate, and it was resolved to leave the matter to ‘the wisdom of the legislature’.41 A petition against Catholic claims nevertheless reached the Commons, 19 Apr., when Carter denied that it reflected the majority view of his constituents.42 Petitions against alteration of the corn laws were presented to the Commons, 28 Apr. 1825, 18 Apr. 1826.43 A ‘strong feeling of abhorrence’ towards slavery was manifested at a ‘numerously and respectably’ attended meeting, 24 Jan., and a petition in similar terms signed by more than 1,000 reached the Lords, 6 Feb., and the Commons, 1 Mar. 1826.44 A petition was presented there from several inhabitants against the Portsea lighting and watching bill, 5 Mar., but with the apparent co-operation of the Members it passed the Commons, 20 Mar., and received royal assent, 5 May 1826.45
On 22 Apr. 1826 Markham announced that he would retire at the impending dissolution, following which a canvass was made by Francis Thornhill Baring, whom Carter had encountered as a fellow barrister on the western circuit. Baring later surmised that his chief recommendation had been the ‘principles and character’ of his father, Sir Thomas Baring, who assured Carter that ‘you have not conferred the favour upon persons insensible of the value and importance of it, or who lightly appreciate the peculiarly handsome manner in which it was first communicated’, 15 June.46 Francis Baring recalled being quizzed by Carter on his attitude to parliamentary reform:
I remember my answer, that I should not be satisfied with any measure that left Portsmouth a close borough. He gave a ready assent. I need hardly say that no payment of any kind was made by me or any other person, directly or indirectly for the seat. The cost of my first election amounted to £15, and it never exceeded £25 before the reform bill.47
On the hustings Baring gave vague pledges in favour of Catholic relief, reduction of the duty on corn and parliamentary reform. Carter, who addressed himself to the inhabitants, declared himself to be ‘no friend to the system by which he was elected’ and offered definite commitments to triennial parliaments, which would permit ‘closer contact with the people’, and Catholic emancipation. They were returned unopposed.48
In July 1827 the corporation entertained the duke of Clarence, the lord high admiral, on his visit to the port.49 Petitions from Dissenting congregations for repeal of the Test Acts reached the Commons, 13 June 1827, 20, 26 Feb. 1828, and the Lords, 21, 22, 25 Feb., 20 Mar. 1828.50 Bonham Carter, as he now was, presented a petition from Portsea Catholics for relief, 24 Apr. 1828.51 On 22 Feb. an ‘orderly’ meeting of 1,200 inhabitants voted to condemn the Wellington ministry’s concession of Catholic emancipation by a five to three margin. Their resulting petition reached the Commons, 4 Mar. 1829. At its meeting on 26 Feb. the corporation agreed to a favourable petition, which was presented by Bonham Carter, 4 Mar., and to the Lords next day. Carter presented pro-Catholic petitions from the Unitarians, 25 Mar., and the inhabitants, 27 Mar., though the latter was reported to have less than a tenth of the signatures of its hostile counterpart. Similar petitions were received by the Lords, 6, 25 Mar. Another pro-Catholic petition from a Baptist congregation was laid before the Commons by Lord John Russell, 13 Mar., and reached the Lords, 27 Mar. 1829.52 The removal of the victualling department from Portsmouth had been condemned by The Times as ‘a rash and ill advised measure’, 19 Sept. 1826, and was criticized in the House by Carter, 26 Mar. 1830, but appears not to have provoked any protest locally. The substantial local Jewish population petitioned both Houses for emancipation, 2 Apr., and Bonham Carter, who presented the Commons petition, brought up another in similar terms from the corporation and inhabitants with over 1,000 signatures, 17 May.53 Baring presented a petition for mitigation of the punishment for forgery from ‘magistrates, clergy, bankers and other inhabitants’, 8 Apr. A Lords equivalent was presented by Lord Lansdowne, 4 May, and another, from bankers alone, reached the Commons, 24 May 1830.54
At the 1830 general election the sitting Members were returned unopposed. On the hustings, Bonham Carter welcomed the repeal of the Test Acts and Catholic emancipation, before declaring parliamentary reform to be both necessary and inevitable. He praised the ‘diligence and attention’ of Baring, who cited his own consistent support for economy and retrenchment. Both applauded the recent deposition of the French king and Baring proposed a toast to constitutional freedom in France at the subsequent dinner, at which a Frenchman returned thanks in his native tongue.55 On taking office under the Grey ministry in November 1830, Baring canvassed his ‘old friends’ and found them ‘cordial’. He was re-elected without trouble, 29 Nov., and departed the same evening.56 Portsmouth was scarcely affected by the ‘Swing’ disturbances that swept the surrounding district late in 1830, though a signed memorial urging clemency for those sentenced to death for their part in the riots was subsequently sent to the home office.57 Petitions for the abolition of slavery reached the Lords, 8, 9, 16 Nov. 1830, 18 Apr. 1831, and the Commons, 12 Nov., 16, 23 Dec. 1830. One from women of the town was presented to the Commons, 28 Mar., and the Lords, 18 Apr. 1831.58 A petition against the duty on seaborne coals was circulated during December 1830 and laid before the Commons, 11 Feb. 1831.59 At a reform meeting in neighbouring Gosport, 9 Dec. 1830, the corporation was urged to set an example by admitting only resident burgesses in future.60 Yet at a similar meeting in Portsmouth, 17 Dec., an amendment deploring the state of the representation was heavily defeated, after Bonham Carter had protested at the assertion that Members were invariably returned ‘against the feelings and wishes of the inhabitants’. He also managed to deflect a demand for vote by ballot and to prevent a discussion of grievances against the established church, though this was ‘very palatable to the majority of the meeting’. The resolutions adopted called for shorter parliaments, a ratepayer franchise, the abolition of decayed boroughs and the enfranchisement of populous places. Bonham Carter presented the resulting petition, 23 Feb., its counterpart having reached the Lords, 18 Feb. 1831.61 A corporation address in favour of the ministerial reform proposals was laid before the king, 9 Mar., and a Commons petition in the same terms was presented by Carter, 15 Mar.62 Newspaper speculation that Baring would follow his uncle Alexander Baring in opposing the reform bill was quashed by him at a meeting in its support, 16 Mar. Bonham Carter, who had been absent from the meeting, presented the ensuing petition, 19 Mar. 1831.63
The 1831 general election, as the Tory Portsmouth Herald sarcastically noted, was ‘warmly contested as usual’. At the unopposed return Bonham Carter delighted in the irony that the close electorate would have rejected him had he opposed reform and, to laughter, Baring promised ‘to do all in his power to deprive them of their exclusive privileges by which he had just been returned’. The mood of self-congratulation continued at the post-election dinner, where one reformer likened the willing sacrifice of corporate privilege to the suicide of Cato, ‘who preferred death to a dishonourable existence’.64 The boundary commissioners recommended the inclusion in the new borough of Portsea Guildable, which lay outside the existing limits. The proposed constituency contained a population of 50,389 and more than 3,000 houses rated at over £10, paying assessed taxes of £10,453. The commissioners toyed with the idea of incorporating Gosport, which lay on the opposite shore of the harbour, but concluded that local feeling was against it.65 On 9 Aug., however, the idea was resuscitated in the House by Croker, who used the precedent of the Plymouth suburbs of Devonport and Stonehouse to suggest that Portsea and Gosport should together return two additional Members, separately from Portsmouth.66 Russell replied that they were divided by both interest and a stretch of water and the official recommendations passed without a division. Petitions for the bill reached the Lords from the inhabitants, 30 Sept., and the corporation, 3 Oct. 1831.67 The resignation of ministers in May 1832 ‘produced the greatest excitement and consternation ... among all classes’ and an address to the king in their support was agreed at a meeting, 11 May.68 The passage of reform was marked by a procession and a number of public dinners, 8 Aug. 1832.69
The sitting Members defeated a radical challenger at that year’s general election, when 983 polled out of a total registered electorate of 1,295, which included only 15 who were qualified as ancient right voters.70 In a belated attempt to improve their local accountability, the corporation created 50 resident burgesses in 1834, but this cut little ice with the municipal corporations commissioners, who in their report of the following year pointed out that ‘the offer was not made until the Reform Act had deprived the office of one of its highest privileges’.71 Baring assumed the local leadership after the death of Bonham Carter in 1838 and for the next quarter of a century Portsmouth returned two Liberals.72
Authors: Howard Spencer / Philip Salmon
- 1. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 569.
- 2. Ibid. (1822), xv. 301; (1831), xvi. 318. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 187 gives the population (7,839) of Portsmouth town only in 1801, when the figure for the borough was 32,166 (PP (1835), xxiv. 158).
- 3. Life, Jnls. and Letters of Henry Alford, 45-46.
- 4. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 227-8; (1835), xxiv. 158.
- 5. T.W. Wilks, Hist. Hants, iii. 347; Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1823-4), 323; PP (1831-2), xxxvii. 227-8.
- 6. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 227-8.
- 7. The Times, 23 Sept. 1823; P. Vine, London’s Lost Route to the Sea, 78-97.
- 8. V. Bonham Carter, In a Liberal Tradition, 13-22, 31; Hants RO, Bonham Carter mss 94M72 F32, Daniel Howard, ‘State of Politics in Portsmouth’ .
- 9. PP (1835), xxiv. 146-7.
- 10. Ibid. 142-4; Extracts from Portsmouth Recs. ed. R. East (1891), 264-5.
- 11. Baring Jnls. i. 45.
- 12. Oldfield, Key (1820), 164-6.
- 13. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 569.
- 14. Ibid. (1835), xxiv. 146.
- 15. Hants Telegraph, 1, 15 June 1818.
- 16. Bonham Carter mss F10, Carter to wife, 14 June 1818.
- 17. Extracts from Portsmouth Recs. 389-90. See SOUTHAMPTON and NEWPORT I.o.W.
- 18. Wellington mss WP1/630/12.
- 19. Bonham Carter mss F33, Markham to Carter, Carter to Bonham [3 Feb. 1820].
- 20. Ibid. Markham to Carter, 4 Mar.; Hants Telegraph, 21 Feb. 1820.
- 21. Hants Telegraph, 6, 13 Mar.; The Times, 16 Mar. 1820.
- 22. CJ, lxxv. 118, 232-3, 235, 275. Hants Telegraph, 29 May, 5, 12 June 1820.
- 23. CJ, lxxvi. 11, 66, 261-2.
- 24. Ibid. 326, 328, 346-7; The Times, 11 May; Hants Telegraph, 21 May 1821.
- 25. Bonham Carter mss F18, St. Vincent to Goodenough, 18 May 1821.
- 26. Hants Telegraph, 4 Aug. 1823.
- 27. Southampton Herald, 27 Sept., 6, 13, 27 Oct. 1823.
- 28. The Times, 13 Feb. 1824.
- 29. Southampton Herald, 16 Feb., 15 Mar. 1824; CJ, lxxviii. 163.
- 30. The Times, 29, 30 Sept. 1820; Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1823-4), 333.
- 31. The Times, 14 Nov. 1820.
- 32. Hants Telegraph, 20 Nov. 1820.
- 33. The Times 8, 27 Jan. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 13.
- 34. LJ, liv. 29; lv. 222.
- 35. Hants Telegraph, 11 Oct. 1821, 23 Sept. 1822.
- 36. Ibid. 30 May 1822.
- 37. The Times, 9, 16 Sept. 1822.
- 38. Hants Telegraph, 21 Apr., 5, 12 May 1823; CJ, lxxviii. 244.
- 39. CJ, lxxix. 84, 346, 446.
- 40. Ibid. lxxx. 222; Hants RO, Jervoise mss 44M69 G2/462/1; 465; 467/1-3.
- 41. Hants Telegraph, 11, 18 Apr.; The Times, 16 Apr. 1825.
- 42. CJ, lxxx. 320.
- 43. Ibid. lxxx. 351; lxxxi. 254.
- 44. Hants Telegraph, 23, 30 Jan. 1826; LJ, lviii. 18; CJ, lxxxi. 114.
- 45. CJ, lxxxi. 51, 176, 187, 325.
- 46. Hants Telegraph, 24 Apr. 1826; Baring Jnls. ii. 209; Bonham Carter mss F33.
- 47. Baring Jnls. i. 45.
- 48. Ibid. i. 45-6; Hants Telegraph, 12 June 1826.
- 49. Hants Telegraph, 6 Aug. 1827; Extracts from Portsmouth Recs. 26-27.
- 50. CJ, lxxxii. 555; lxxxiii. 87, 105; LJ, lx. 54, 55, 67, 72, 125.
- 51. CJ, lxxxiii. 264.
- 52. Hants Telegraph, 23 Feb., 2 Mar.; The Times, 2 Mar. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 103, 132, 170, 177; LJ, lxi. 124, 137, 281.
- 53. Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1823-4), 323; CJ, lxxxv. 255, 432; LJ, lxii. 191.
- 54. Portsmouth Herald, 9 May 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 284, 463, LJ, lxii. 324.
- 55. Portsmouth Herald, 8 Aug., Hants Telegraph, 9 Aug. 1830; Baring Jnls. i. 65-66.
- 56. Baring Jnls. i. 74.
- 57. E. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 159; The Times, 8 Jan. 1831.
- 58. CJ, lxxxvi. 61, 182, 202, 445; LJ, lxiii. 22, 32, 69, 100, 450, 456, 457.
- 59. Hants Telegraph, 20 Dec. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 237.
- 60. Hants Telegraph, 13 Dec. 1830.
- 61. Ibid. 20 Dec.; Portsmouth Herald 19 Dec. 1830; Bonham Carter mss F12, Bonham Carter to Baring, 17 Dec. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 295; LJ, lxiii. 240.
- 62. Portsmouth Herald, 13 Mar.; CJ, lxxxvi. 381.
- 63. Hants Telegraph, 14, 21 Mar. 1821; Baring Jnls. i. 85; CJ, lxxxvi. 407.
- 64. Hants Telegraph, 2 May 1831.
- 65. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 227-9.
- 66. Parl. Deb. (ser. 3), v. 1059. The account of Croker’s speech in the Mirror of Parliament is garbled.
- 67. LJ, lxiii. 1022, 1041.
- 68. The Times, 11 May; Hants Telegraph, 14 May 1832.
- 69. Hants Telegraph, 13 Aug. 1832.
- 70. P. Salmon, Electoral Reform at Work, 260.
- 71. PP (1835), xxiv. 146-7, 158.
- 72. R. Cook, Portsmouth at the Polls, 5-6.