Available from Cambridge University Press
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Estimated number qualified to vote:
rising to about 300 in 1831
Number of voters:
266 in 18301
881 (1821); 786 (1831)
|8 Mar. 1820||HON. JOHN CHARLES VILLIERS|
|GEORGE PETER HOLFORD|
|22 Mar. 1824||LORD WILLIAM FREDERICK CAVENDISH BENTINCK vice Villiers, called to the Upper House|
|10 June 1826||JOHN CAPEL||144|
|SIR ULYSSES BAGENAL BURGH, Bar. Downes [I]||131|
|Lord William Frederick Cavendish Bentinck||115|
|2 Aug. 1830||WILLIAM HOLMES||138|
|SIR PHILIP CHARLES HENDERSON DURHAM||130|
|Double return of Durham and Capel|
|CAPEL and GLADSTONE on petition, 2 Dec. 1830|
|2 May 1831||JOHN CAPEL||124|
|SIR COLQUHOUN GRANT 2||121|
|James Whitley Deans Dundas||83|
Queenborough was a decayed market town of 270 acres on the Isle of Sheppey, off the north Kent coast. Its already much reduced defensive role was further undermined in this period by the rise of neighbouring Sheerness, where the royal dockyard was greatly expanded. The population was almost entirely dependent on local fisheries, but trade was not prosperous and about a quarter of the 200 houses in the town were unoccupied.3 Politics in the borough revolved around a struggle between the select body of the corporation and the ordnance interest on the one hand, and the poor fishermen and independent burgesses on the other. Although authority was vested in the mayor, four jurats, two bailiffs and the burgesses, the last had long been excluded and the select body of seven officers formed an ‘immaculate junto’. The leading figure was Thomas Young Greet, who frequently served as mayor, and was also the chamberlain or treasurer. Formerly an officer in the preventive service, he had moved to Queenborough in 1814 and risen to prominence as a champion of the freemen, who occasionally rebelled against the dominant government interest. However, he had then used his position to cream off the profits of the fisheries, claiming that it was merely a just return for his timely investments, which had prevented the corporation from going bankrupt.4 Freedom was obtainable by birth within the town limits, apprenticeship and gift, and about ten freemen were admitted each year between 1800 and 1831. In practice, however, the select body was able to manipulate entry and so bolster its own support.5
Although in the late eighteenth century the admiralty and the ordnance had each nominated one Member, this arrangement had apparently changed before the start of this period.6 In 1821 Lord Melville, the first lord of the admiralty, described how the borough
is somewhat of a sore subject with me. One of the Members at least used to be from the admiralty, but in consequence of Lord Mulgrave’s† removal from that office to the ordnance [in May 1810], and carrying along with him several of his friends who had been with him at the admiralty, the admiralty seat was transferred by a coup de main to the ordnance at the next general election.7
The duke of Wellington, as master-general, therefore had the paramount influence in the borough, although he realized that he had to indulge Greet’s demands, notably by promising his brother a better command in the revenue service, if he was to continue to ally with the ordnance.8 Presumably in case Greet, or anyone else, put up a third candidate at the general election of 1820, the ordnance was at pains to summon to the poll their non-resident employees, who formed a significant proportion of the 134 electors.9 But any such fears proved groundless and two supporters of the Liverpool administration were returned unopposed: John Charles Villiers, who had sat there in the 1807 Parliament, and George Peter Holford, who transferred from Hastings. Melville commented that ‘as long as the seat was held by an official person I did not care much whether he belonged to the one department or the other’, but he was annoyed that one of the members of his board, Sir John Osborn*, having lost Bedfordshire, was kept out of the House by Villiers, when he might have been given a safe berth at Queenborough.10
In mid-1820 there began a rebellion by the poor burgesses that was to continue for much of the decade. It was caused by the combination of four grievances.11 First, the resident freemen were deprived of their rights within the corporation, and were unable to vote for its officers or to attend its meetings. Second, the fishermen were gradually deprived of their privilege of sharing in the profits of the fisheries, became increasingly subject to the vagaries of wage labour as distinct from employment as of right and were granted only paltry relief in times of severe distress. Third, they were not allowed to attend the annual audit of the corporation’s accounts, which would have revealed growing debts, or to prevent Greet and his associates from receiving lucrative salaries, percentages and conveyances. Finally, the freemen were denied any effective recourse in law because the mayor and senior jurat were the only magistrates with local jurisdiction and other proceedings were prohibitively expensive. At an assembly, 26 June 1820, the select body ruled that all persons wanting to be employed in the oyster fishery were required to enrol their names in the water bailiff’s book, under threat of punitive fines.12 Dansey Sawkins Garrington, the collector of customs, and 45 others brought a chancery injunction against them, but on 12 Feb. 1821 Sir John Leach† upheld the select body’s right to superintend the fisheries within the borough’s jurisdiction. In retaliation the select body successfully brought an action for trespass against Garrington at the Kent assizes, 17 Aug. Greet and the mayor, Stephen Grestock, were caught up in an affray after the trial, but a jury at the Lent assizes in 1822 refused to convict the ringleaders of riot. Three freemen attempted to assert their privileges by dredging for oysters, 4 Aug. 1821, but the water bailiff, James Bowton, declined to receive their catch, which was thrown back. Other means were used to intimidate the inhabitants, notably the threat that the oyster-beds would not be re-stocked, a vital measure if future yields were to be ensured. Greet, whose argument was that the trade could not be made profitable without rigorous management, even went so far as to offer the fishing grounds for sale as if they were his own property. Further oppressive by-laws were enforced, including those of 22 July 1822, restricting all work to persons specifically employed by the mayor or water bailiff. Other legal cases followed, many of them quo warranto proceedings, but the burgesses made little headway against the powers of the select body.13 As part of his campaign against excessive expenditure, Joseph Hume attacked the ordnance interest in the House, for instance on 12 Apr., 14 May 1821, alleging that about three-quarters of the 200 Queenborough freemen were employed solely in order to return two government Members. However, largely through neglect and obstruction by other departments, the ordnance gradually lost its dominance in the borough. Efforts were made to remove Garrington’s disruptive influence and quell the unrest in the town, but the treasury refused to allow him to be appointed elsewhere.14 Even minor patronage requests were made with a view to shoring up government support, but as Captain Thomas Dickinson of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich warned Lord Fitzroy Somerset*, the secretary to the ordnance, 15 Oct. 1821, the ‘unavoidable reductions that have already taken place have reduced the number of voters in the borough very considerably and if the few that remain are to meet with no protection, I see no chance of success in any future election’.15
When Villiers succeeded his brother as 3rd earl of Clarendon in March 1824, Lord William Frederick Cavendish Bentinck, a retired soldier, was offered the seat by Wellington and was returned unopposed, despite fears about the erosion of the ordnance interest.16 Official anxiety grew as the next general election approached, and although some positive steps were taken, such as the removal of Garrington, not enough was done.17 There were also criticisms that the home office was undermining the ordnance by supporting a popular candidate, John Capel, a wealthy London stockbroker, who had come forward as a Whig (or Blue) at the request of the beleaguered freemen, to oppose their oppression by the select body. As Holford retired, the way was opened for Lord Downes, the surveyor general of the ordnance, to stand as its second candidate.18 Capel topped the poll with 144 votes (or the support of 54 per cent of the 265 voters), and Downes was elected with 131 (49), while Cavendish Bentinck was defeated with 115 (43). Ministers were mortified by the result, which they blamed on mismanagement and the continuing enmity between the select body and the independent freemen. Opinion was, in fact, remarkably polarised. Only ten votes were split between Capel and Downes, the rest being divided into 134 plumpers for Capel and 115 splits for Downes and Cavendish Bentinck, with a further six plumpers for Downes. According to the analyses of Downes and an anonymous freeman, 16 ordnance employees and about ten others in receipt of government patronage voted against the ministerial candidates, while only 16 ‘free votes’ were cast in their favour. Capel had a clear majority of support from the resident fishermen: three-quarters of the roughly 140 resident freemen, but only about a quarter of the same number of non-residents, voted for him; conversely, of the gentlemen and professionals, including several ordnance clerks, 35 split for Downes and Cavendish Bentinck, while only seven plumped for Capel.19
Capel presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters in favour of repealing the Test Acts, 6 June 1827; and one from the mayor, jurats, bailiffs, free burgesses and inhabitants against Catholic emancipation was presented (probably by Sir Edward Knatchbull, the county Member), 18 Mar. 1829. The corporation objected to a bill for the improvement of the pier at Sheerness. Their petition, agreed at an assembly, 30 Mar. 1828, was not forwarded to Parliament, but another, approved on 27 Apr. 1829, was brought up by Capel the following day. The clergy, gentry and other inhabitants of the Isle of Sheppey had petitioned against slavery, 16 Mar. 1824, and a similar petition from Queenborough was presented, 10 Nov. 1830.20 The internal affairs of the borough spilt over into legal and parliamentary proceedings as a result of Capel’s championing of the cause of the freemen. He paid for the defence of Edward Skey, a fisherman who was prosecuted for illegal dredging, after the closure of the oyster beds by the select body at an assembly, 28 Oct. 1826. At the Kent assizes, 24 Aug. 1827, Serjeant Henry Alworth Merewether argued that the burgesses had a right to participate in the management of the fisheries, and the jury found against the oppressive by-laws.21 However, the select body’s power to control the trade was not reduced and further intimidation was reported. Greet was alleged to have dismissed one approach for alleviation of distress by saying, ‘I’ll drive you all to the earth - no matter if it cost me £10,000. I’ll drive you all to poverty’. Capel was at the forefront of attempts to raise subscriptions for the impoverished townspeople, and neighbouring communities, such as Rochester, also lent their support.22 It was probably Capel who presented the petition of a meeting of resident freemen, 13 Feb. 1828, for a bill to confirm that the borough’s charter vested authority in the select body and burgesses, and to increase the number of magistrates within the town. Leave was given, and the bill was read a first time, 17 Mar., but the select body agreed a counter-petition, 30 Mar., which was brought up by Downes, 24 Apr. 1828. When Capel heard that a legal objection would be raised against it in the Lords he withdrew the bill.23 With about half the population unemployed there was great distress in Queenborough the following winter, and Capel drew public attention to their plight at a meeting in London, 19 Jan. 1829. An attempt by one correspondent to defend Greet led to a spirited vindication of the freemen in the press. Their cause appeared to have triumphed when, to their unrestrained pleasure, Greet died, 26 Dec. 1829.24
Capel stood again as an independent at the general election of 1830. Merewether was requested to offer with him, but he declined, while, following a supposedly successful canvass, Sir Colquhoun Grant, an army officer, also withdrew at the prospect of an expensive contest. Capel was then joined by Thomas Gladstone*, the son of the Liverpool West India merchant, John Gladstone*, who was introduced by Merewether. Against them were William Holmes*, the treasurer of the ordnance and government whip, and Admiral Sir Philip Durham†, who were unpopular in the town, but threatened to spend thousands of pounds to secure their return.25 It was also rumoured that Captain Henry Prescott of the East India Company would enter the contest. Capel and Gladstone emphasized their independence and support for the resident freemen, for which they were praised in electoral verses and at a meeting in the town, 23 July. They also sought to apply their influence through the City, and over the out-voters, for instance at Woolwich, by excessive treating. Holmes and Durham used a mixture of sweeteners, such as the lifting of four of the objectionable by-laws and bribes to stop freemen voting. They were also alleged to have kidnapped certain voters for the duration of the poll and to have had the oyster beds opened on that day in order to reduce the turnout.26 The hustings speeches centred on allegations of ordnance corruption, but Durham claimed that he had briefly intervened at Queenborough 35 years earlier and had declined seats at Colchester and in Scotland because he so much wished to represent the seat. After a squabble about admitting certain voters, the show of hands was in favour of the popular candidates.27 The poll produced a victory for Holmes with 138 votes (representing support from 53 per cent of the 262 voters), while Durham and Capel were subject to a double return with 130 votes each (50), and Gladstone was fourth with 121 votes (46). As in 1826, voting behaviour was highly polarized. With the exception of six splits for Capel and Holmes, there were 133 split votes for Holmes and Durham against 120 for Capel and Gladstone, while two voters plumped for Holmes and one for Capel. A handful of ordnance employees voted for Capel and Gladstone, and about 20 non-placemen supported the ordnance candidates, but otherwise there was a clear separation between the two sides. Out-voters accounted for 60 per cent of the electorate, compared with about half in 1826, reflecting the success of the ordnance in canvassing amongst them. Of these non-residents, about 80 per cent voted for Holmes and Durham, accounting for about 90 per cent of their vote. The remaining 20 per cent formed only a quarter of Capel and Gladstone’s total, as they were far more reliant upon the resident freemen. The pollbooks reveal that of the roughly 75 per cent of voters who can be identified as having voted in both contests, about a dozen of Capel’s plumpers in 1826 switched to the ordnance candidates in 1830, but otherwise almost all those who plumped for Capel in 1826 split for him and Gladstone in 1830, and similarly those who split for Downes and Cavendish Bentinck in 1826 did so for Holmes and Durham in 1830.28
The Unitarian minister William Shepherd of Gatacre, who had presumably been wrongly informed that Durham had lost, congratulated Henry Brougham*, 15 Aug. 1830, on ‘the Lascar’s defeat at Queenborough’.29 Attempts were made to find safe berths elsewhere for Capel and Gladstone in order to leave Holmes, who declined to opt for the other seat that he had won, and Durham in undisputed possession, but neither wished to abandon the freemen.30 Capel and Durham were obliged to wait for the House to pronounce on their double return, but in the meantime it was expected that Capel and Gladstone would petition against both their opponents. Gladstone believed that the allegations of bribery and the illegal polling of out-voters would provide a strong case, but by early October he had been persuaded by his legal advisers that the bribery issue was too hard to prove and that they should concentrate their efforts on having the non-residents struck off the poll.31 Another lawyer suggested proceeding by quo warranto writs, but Gladstone thought this too expensive and unlikely to succeed. He wanted to persuade Capel to divide his property in the town with him so as to unite their interests, and thought that if the non-residents could be permanently excluded they would both establish a stable interest against the ordnance. Despite repeated speculation that Holmes would choose to sit elsewhere, his obstinacy forced Capel and Gladstone to persevere. When it became clear that the two questions would be considered by the same committee, Gladstone decided to throw in his lot with Capel. Alderman William Thompson presented their joint petition, 9 Nov., alleging ‘gross and notorious bribery and corruption’ and the polling of illegal votes, and a counter-petition from Durham was brought up, 16 Nov.32 The change of ministry helped their cause, especially as it deprived Holmes of his office and its influence; for example, the House would not agree to postpone the election committee at his request, 25 Nov. Holmes and Durham declined to present their case, 2 Dec. 1830, claiming that they had had insufficient time to prepare a defence of their non-resident voters. It was also suspected that no opposition was raised because it might have revealed evidence of corruption on the part of the former government. With the issue of the double return having effectively been set aside, Capel and Gladstone were therefore duly seated that day, to scenes of popular rejoicing in Queenborough.33 Holmes took his seat for Haslemere where he had also been elected, but Durham had to wait until 1835 to enter the House.
After the death of Greet, the select body had conceded several of the burgesses’ demands and the oyster beds were restocked, but peace within the town did not last long. Partly because of worsened economic conditions and partly in retribution for their having again supported anti-government candidates, the select body attempted to reduce the fisherman’s remuneration at a court leet, 25 Oct. 1830, but a group of freemen forcibly occupied the hall until the authorities agreed to pay an extra shilling per stint of oysters. However, an action was brought against the rioters in king’s bench and the fishermen continued to suffer great distress. Though Capel assisted them with his customary open-handedness, Gladstone was much less willing to commit himself to such an expense. Both attempted to mediate between the two parties and to revitalize the fishing trade, but without success.34 Merewether was confident that the charge of riot would fail, but the disaffected freemen eventually had to capitulate.35 The Grey ministry’s reform bill proposed to disfranchise Queenborough, and on 18 Mar. 1831 Capel presented the resident burgesses’ hostile petition, which stated that the freemen would be at the mercy of the select body if they were deprived of the protection of their Members. Some support was given by Sir James Graham, first lord of the admiralty, to the idea of replacing the constituency with the whole Isle of Sheppey. A meeting in Sheerness, 29 Apr. 1831, agreed to address the king to this end, and a similar petition was subsequently presented to the Commons by the county Member Thomas Law Hodges, 27 Feb. 1832.36
Capel and John Gladstone quarrelled over the financial arrangements they had made to cover the costs of the 1830 election, and the rumour that Capel had contributed £2,000 of his £5,000 expenses to buy his colleague’s seat was an added embarrassment. Gladstone’s equivocal support of the freemen, his vote for the second reading of the reform bill, 22 Mar. 1831, and deteriorating relations with his election agents and Capel, who opposed reform, were enough to forfeit his chances of a second return. By late March, an indication had already been made to Grant that he would be elected if he pledged to oppose reform, while the select body had approached William Leader Maberly*, the surveyor-general of the ordnance, who would be expected to vote for the borough’s disfranchisement.37 However, it was Captain James Whitley Deans Dundas† of the Prince Regent who came forward in the government interest, and on the hustings, 30 Apr., he argued that as reform would eventually pass anyway, it was best to support a candidate who would secure employment in the fisheries. Capel and Grant, though not standing on a united ticket, spoke against reform and were elected with 124 and 121 votes respectively (or the support of 47 and 45 per cent of the 266 voters), as against 83 for Dundas (31). According to Capel, his own election was straightforward because the select body plumped for Grant through the influence of Holmes and Lord Beresford, the former master-general of the ordnance. Dundas was given ministerial support, but he had to rely on the non-residents, who made up nearly half the electorate. He stated that he had decided to retire on the first day of the poll when it became clear that they had not been summoned in time and that the resident freemen would support the popular ‘constitutionalist’ candidates. An unfounded rumour briefly circulated that Grant would accept an appointment abroad and resign his seat in favour of Dundas.38 With a small population and fewer than 12 of its 190 houses worth £10 or more, Queenborough clearly fell into schedule A of the reform bill.39 Both Capel and Grant spoke against its total disfranchisement, 26 July 1831, claiming that the seat was no longer a nomination borough and that they had recently been returned free of expense as popular candidates. The select body agreed petitions to the Lords against the bill, 27 June 1831, 26 Mar. 1832, which were presented by Wellington, 27 Sept. 1831, 2 Apr. 1832.40 Their efforts were ultimately futile and Queenborough, which was 22nd on the final list of condemned boroughs, was duly disfranchised by the Reform Act. Economic decline and political controversy continued in the borough for some years, and reform of the corporation was recommended by select committee reports in 1835 and 1844.41
Author: Stephen Farrell
- 1. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 83.
- 2. Grant is wrongly named Sir John Colquhoun Grant in OR.
- 3. PP (1831-2), xxxvii. 313; (1835), xxiv. 163; (1844), xxxi. 296-7; G. Bosworth, Kent, 6-7; VCH Kent, ii. 385-6; A. Daly, Hist. Isle of Sheppey, 262-8; Maidstone Jnl. 9 Sept. 1823.
- 4. D.S. Garrington, Answer to Address of Greet (1824); Kentish Gazette, 29 Mar. 1829; Rochester Gazette, 5 Jan. 1830; PP (1844), xxxi. 301; R. Goodsall, ‘Oyster Fisheries on N. Kent Coast’, Arch. Cantiana, lxxx (1965), 132-4.
- 5. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 83; (1835), xxiv. 164-70, 178; Kentish Chron. 2 Jan. 1828
- 6. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 219.
- 7. NAS GD51/2/628.
- 8. Wellington mss WP1/639/11; 640/20; 642/12; 653/3.
- 9. Ibid. WP1/639/14; Extraordinary Red Bk. (1821), 34.
- 10. NAS GD51/2/628.
- 11. PP (1835), xxiv. 161-79; (1844), xxxi. 295-308; Kentish Gazette, 29 Mar. 1829; Goodsall, 134-8.
- 12. Cent. Kent. Stud. Queenborough borough recs. Qb/AC 2.
- 13. Ibid. AC 2; AC 3, 48-226; PP (1844), xxxi. 301-2; Goodsall, 134-7; Maidstone Jnl. 4 Sept. 1821; The Times, 23 May, 4 July 1827.
- 14. Wellington mss WP1/682/2; 688/19; 712/1, 11, 12; 763/15; 764/19; 769/24.
- 15. Ibid. WP1/683/6; 689/9; 712/1, 12; 763/15; 773/10; 781/2, 15; 782/7.
- 16. Ibid. WP1/787/7, 10, 12, 14.
- 17. Ibid. WP1/793/6; 796/4; 800/18; 801/25; 803/18; 821/11; 825/12; 828/8, 12; 830/9, 13, 16, 20; 832/6, 10; 833/9; 834/1; 846/7.
- 18. Ibid. 822/20; 826/11; The Times, 23 July 1825, 20 June; Kentish Chron. 9 June 1826.
- 19. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/2/107; Wellington mss WP1/857/8, 9; Queenborough borough recs. RPp, ms pollbook (1826); Queenborough Pollbook (1826); Kentish Chron. 2 Dec. 1828.
- 20. CJ, lxxix. 168; lxxxii. 521; lxxxiv. 148, 241; lxxxvi. 52; Queenborough borough recs. AC 4; The Times, 19 Mar. 1829.
- 21. Queenborough borough recs. AC 4; Maidstone Jnl. 28 Aug. 1827.
- 22. Kentish Chron. 1, 8, 15 Jan.; Maidstone Jnl. 8, 29 Jan., 19 Feb. 1828.
- 23. Kentish Chron. 19 Feb., 9 Sept.; Maidstone Jnl. 29 Apr. 1828; Queenborough borough recs. AC 4; CJ, lxxxiii. 67, 166, 172, 262.
- 24. Kentish Chron. 20 Jan.; Maidstone Jnl. 27 Jan.; Kentish Gazette, 27 Jan., 13 Feb., 6 Mar. 1829; Rochester Gazette, 5 Jan. 1830.
- 25. St. Deiniol’s Lib. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 12, 19 July; Kent and Essex Mercury, 13 July; Kentish Chron. 27 July 1830.
- 26. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 20-23, 26, 27 July, 5 Aug.; The Times, 28 July, 3 Aug.; Kentish Gazette, 21 Sept. 1830.
- 27. Morning Chron. 5 Aug. 1830.
- 28. Glynne-Gladstone mss 1309; Kentish Chron. 7 Sept. 1830.
- 29. Brougham mss.
- 30. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to A. Gladstone, 4 Aug., to J. Gladstone, 5 Aug. 1830; Kentish Gazette, 21 Jan. 1831.
- 31. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 6, 7 Aug.; 196, same to same, 8, 18 Sept., 2, 5 Oct.; 453, Merewether to T. Gladstone, 25 Aug.; 521, T. Gladstone to Saunders and Comyn, 16 Oct.; 1311, opinion of Merewether and Joy, 2 Oct. 1830.
- 32. Ibid. 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 25-28 Oct., 3 Nov.; Rochester Gazette, 16 Nov. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 50-51, 90, 107.
- 33. Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 18-20, 22, 24, 26 Nov.; The Times, 3 Dec.; Maidstone Jnl. 14 Dec. 1830; Kentish Gazette, 21 Jan. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 139; [W. Carpenter] People’s Bk. (1831), 207-8.
- 34. Rochester Gazette, 2 Mar.; The Times, 28 July; Maidstone Jnl. 30 Nov.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 28 Oct., 24 Nov., 3, 13, 14, 17 Dec.; 521, Saunders and Comyn to T. Gladstone, 8 Dec., Breeze to same, 27 Dec. 1830, 24, 29 Jan. 1831; PP (1844), xxxi. 298, 302-6; Goodsall, 137-8.
- 35. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 10 Feb., 8 May 1831.
- 36. CJ, lxxxvi. 404; lxxxvii. 148; Kentish Gazette, 22 Apr.; Maidstone Jnl. 10 May 1831.
- 37. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 17 Feb., 8, 24, 25, 29 Mar. 1831; 521, J. Gladstone to Capel, 15 July 1830, Capel to T. Gladstone, 1 Apr. 1831.
- 38. Ibid. 198, T. to J. Gladstone, 3, 5 May; Maidstone Jnl. 3, 10, 24, 31 May; Kentish Gazette, 6 May 1831; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 83.
- 39. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 201.
- 40. Queenborough borough recs. AC 4; LJ, lxiii. 1011; lxiv. 140; Wellington mss WP1/1216/8; The Times, 28 Sept. 1831, 3 Apr. 1832.
- 41. PP (1835), xxiv. 170, 179; (1844), xxxi. 306-8.