CAMPBELL, John I (1798-1830), of Succoth, Dunbarton
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Educationb. 28 May 1798, 2nd but 1st surv. s. of Sir Archibald Campbell, 2nd bt. (Lord Succoth SCJ, d. 1846), of Succoth and Elizabeth, da. of John Balfour of Balbirnie, Fife. educ. Harrow 1808-11; adv. 1821. m. 8 July 1824, Anna Jane, da. of Francis Sitwell of Barmoor, Northumb., 2s. d.v.p. 3 July 1830.
Campbell came from a family of eminent Scottish lawyers: his grandfather Islay Campbell, who was created a baronet in 1808, was lord president of the court of session, 1789-1818, sitting as Lord Succoth; his father, who succeeded to the baronetcy in 1823, was a lord of session from 1809 until 1824, also as Lord Succoth. He was returned unopposed for Dunbartonshire in 1826 on the 3rd duke of Montrose’s interest, and declared that ‘his politics were those of a succession of ministers, who had governed this empire for nearly half a century’, in which time ‘the country had flourished to an unprecedented degree’.1 He presented a Dunbartonshire landowners’ petition against any alteration of the corn laws, 19 Feb., and one from the inhabitants in favour of emigration, 9 Mar. 1827.2 He divided against Catholic relief, 6 Mar. 1827. He may have been the ‘Mr. Campbell’ who asked if the government intended to include the prices at Irish ports when striking the corn averages, 28 Apr. 1828. He voted with the duke of Wellington’s ministry on the customs bill, 14 July 1828. In February 1829 Planta, the patronage secretary, listed him as being ‘with government’ on Catholic emancipation, and he duly voted for their bill, 6, 30 Mar. The Ultra Tory Sir Richard Vyvyan* listed him that autumn as one whose sentiments on the formation of a putative coalition ministry were ‘unknown’. He divided against Lord Blandford’s reform bill, 18 Feb., and the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb. 1830. He presented several petitions from Dumbarton and Dunbartonshire against the Clyde navigation bill, 12, 15, 22 Mar., and supported calls for the proceedings of the committee on it to be investigated, 28 May, as they had ‘certainly outstepped the bounds of their duty’. When presenting a Dunbartonshire petition for inquiry into distress, 15 Mar. 1830, he observed that ‘the alteration of the currency ... has been found injurious in this country’, though he would not ‘undo all that has been done’, and he praised ministers for their ‘sacrifices of patrona