HOWARD, George William Frederick, Visct. Morpeth (1802-1864), of Howthorpe Manor, Yorks.

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



1826 - 1830
1830 - 1832
4 Feb. 1846 - 7 Oct. 1848

Family and Education

b. 18 Apr. 1802, 1st s. of George Howard†, 6th earl of Carlisle, and Lady Georgiana Dorothy Cavendish, da. of William, 5th duke of Devonshire. educ. privately by Rev. Richard Roberts, Mitcham, Surr. 1811-13; Eton 1813; Christ Church, Oxf. 1819; continental tour 1823-4. unm. styled Visct. Morpeth 1825-48. suc. fa. as 7th earl of Carlisle 7 Oct. 1848; KG 7 Feb. 1855. d. 5 Dec. 1864.

Offices Held

Chief sec. to ld. lt. [I] Apr. 1835-Sept. 1841; PC 20 May 1835; chief commr. of woods, forests and land revenues July 1846-Mar. 1850; chan. of duchy of Lancaster Mar. 1850-Feb. 1852; ld. lt. [I] Feb. 1855-Mar. 1858, June 1859-Aug. 1864.

Ld. lt. Yorks. (E. Riding) 1847-d.; rect. Aberdeen Univ. 1853-d.


Howard (as he was known until 1825) was from a very early age expected to achieve great things. Variously described as reserved, studious, effeminate and dandified, he was always treated as a rare talent. In 1820 his aunt Lady Granville referred to him as a ‘clever, pompous darling’.1 He was always more interested in books than any physical activity, and when he visited Althorp in 1811, his cousin Sarah Spencer was so alarmed that she told her elder brother Robert, ‘He talks of beauty, and dress, and poetry, and even novels, till I long to send him for a summer at sea’.2 He was rather portly as a youth, but Lady Holland was able to report to her son, Henry Edward Fox*, his close friend and contemporary at Christ Church, 9 Feb. 1827, ‘You would be agreeably surprised at the alteration for the better in George Howard. He is less full and swelled in his features, and though not slim yet his figure is less clumsy’.3 His grandfather, the 5th earl of Carlisle, had been a close associate of Charles James Fox†, to whom he remained loyal until 1792, when he became a supporter of Pitt’s ministry. Carlisle’s son, Lord Morpeth, this Member’s father, who sat for Morpeth, 1795-1806, and Cumberland, 1806-20, was a personal friend and political associate of George Canning*, but from 1804 acted with the Grenvillite Whig opposition. Howard was greatly influenced by Canning, whom he regarded as some sort of political mentor, and during his years at Oxford he took every opportunity to travel to London to hear him speak. Always interested in politics, his ambition was to make his maiden speech in support of Catholic relief, and it was assumed that he would come into Parliament at the earliest opportunity. His mother assured him in February 1822, ‘I know how much you have the ability and the knowledge to be a great statesman’.4 Despite his affection for Canning, he was always more of a Whig than a liberal Tory, often dining with Henry Fox at Holland House. His connection with the Whig Cavendishes through his mother, and her own influence, doubtless helped to reinforce this inclination, but he was reluctant to upset his father and grandfather by airing his views. This natural reserve was noted by Granville Venables Vernon*, who told Howard’s mother in 1825:

George is so singularly cautious and reserved, it is difficult to know what his opinions are on any subject, not only on politics but about persons and things. He is fond of society, likes talking to ladies, his manner is open and agreeable, his friends dote on him, but they say the only drawback is that it is impossible to get at his opinions.5

The Rev. Sydney Smith, a close friend of the Howards, commented to Lady Holland, 25 Aug. 1825, that ‘his nature is fine: he wants ease, but that will come, and indiscretion, which will never come’.6 Howard nevertheless appears to have been the life and soul of all manner of social gatherings. A passionate dancer and keen cricketer, and an accomplished player of whist and croquet, he apparently delighted everyone. Lady Granville told his mother, 22 Sept. 1828: ‘How anybody exists anyhow, anywhere, without [George] I do not know. From the moment he arrived all has been gaiety and animation’.7

At the 1820 general election his father reluctantly stood again for Cumberland, telling his wife, 6 Mar., that ‘I undertake it for others and not myself’ and ‘I hope George may benefit by the attempt, but I think I could safely leave him to his own future exertions’.8 Reporting the latest developments, 9 Mar., however, he wrote, ‘All this you see is against George’s future prospects, and to say the truth it would be embarking him on a sea of trouble’.9 Morpeth relinquished the contest soon afterwards. Howard toured Scotland with Lord Ashley* in the summer of 1820, but kept in touch with the political developments involving Queen Caroline through correspondence with Henry Fox, to whom he confided, 1 Sept., that ‘I cannot help, like you, feeling a little rebellious feeling in her favour, though this is the first time I have dared own it’. He informed Fox that ‘no consideration shall prevent me attending the trial’, 7 Oct. 1820, and he attended the Commons debates on the affair in January 1821, telling his mother, 28 Jan.:

Your brother [the duke of Devonshire] and I agreed last night that having all our previous lives viewed the subject with abhorrence ... we both now see the expediency and necessity of reform. This really is my present impression, for when 310 Members vote that the exclusion from the liturgy was not inexpedient and ill advised, after the debate I heard, I think in spite of all risk a moderate reform becomes a desirable measure. You had better suppress this from my father if you think it may bring on another attack of his gout.10

In 1821 he was awarded University prizes for both his Latin and English verses. Reporting that the commemoration ceremony went extremely well, 25 July, his friend John Stuart Wortley*, son of the Member for Yorkshire, told Fox that ‘his family ... were of course in ecstasies’. His fears that Howard would fall into ‘idle habits’ the following year by playing whist into the early hours were unfounded, however, as he secured a first in classics.11 In October 1823 the Yorkshire Whigs turned their attention to deciding whom to put forward for the additional seats granted to the county. Lord Althorp* advised Lord Milton, the sitting Whig Member, that ‘as to G. Howard he appears to me to be out of the question. Lord Carlisle is disliked and Morpeth not known’.12 Stuart Wortley told Fox, 13 Oct., that he had received ‘very melancholy epistles from poor George upon ... his prospects’.13 Howard was on a continental tour from October 1823 and wintered in Rome, where he remained until the death of Lady Carlisle in March 1824, returning home at the behest of James Loch*, Carlisle’s estate manager, who needed his assistance to help sort out Carlisle’s enormous debts. His agreement was needed for an arrangement with Coutts’s bank for a loan of £220,000, which Loch hoped would not only put the estates back on a sound financial footing, but ‘contribute materially to the future comfort and happiness of your life’.14 On 2 Mar. Howard’s brother-in-law George Agar Ellis* informed him that he had been unanimously elected a member of the Literary and Scientific Club, and he joined Brooks’s, 11 May 1824, sponsored by Lords Holland and Duncannon*.15

By early 1825, when rumours of a dissolution surfaced, the Whig hierarchy of Yorkshire were apparently more inclined to support him, for Lady Holland told Fox, 18 Mar., that ‘George will apparently come in without difficulty’.16 He was in Paris, where his uncle Lord Granville was ambassador, for the coronation of Charles X, when his mother reported to him the latest news, 9 May, but she made no mention of his own involvement.17 However, by the following month the notion was firmly established among the Yorkshire Whigs and on 24 June James Abercromby*, Devonshire’s man of business, informed Howard’s father that ‘George’s interest’ would be taken into consideration over the potentially politically sensitive appointment of a new registrar for the West Riding.18 Three days later Morpeth told Lady Holland that whether there was a dissolution or not, ‘George will at all events attend the assizes at York the 16th of next month’.19 The Leeds Mercury reported that it was ‘pretty well understood’ that Howard would be a candidate, and that ‘in answer to certain enquiries on the subject, made at York’, he had ‘avowed himself a friend to parliamentary reform, and generally to the reform of all public abuses’.20 On 24 Aug. Stuart Wortley told Fox that he was confident of Howard’s election.21 Following his father’s succession to the peerage on the death of Lord Carlisle, 4 Sept., Howard took the courtesy title of Lord Morpeth. His candidacy appeared settled when Milton wrote to Carlisle, 18 Sept., to discuss who should nominate and second him and to decide on colours. Milton was concerned that he and Morpeth should between them appeal to the broad sweep of Yorkshire opinion and interests, and must therefore carefully co-ordinate their campaigns, but not officially make a joint appeal.22 It had been anticipated that the pro-Catholic Richard Bethell* would come in alongside the like-minded sitting Member James Archibald Stuart Wortley on the Tory interest; but the incensed anti-Catholics were determined that the county would not have four pro-Catholic Members and therefore requisitioned Richard Fountayne Wilson* and William Duncombe*. On 29 Nov. Townshend warned Fox, ‘I am afraid Morpeth will have an opposition in Yorkshire, if so, I believe he cannot afford to stand a contest’.23 Abercromby hinted that Devonshire would not be disposed to pay the cost of a poll, in which Morpeth’s youth would make him the weakest candidate.24 Carlisle voiced similar fears, 4 Dec., when he told Lady Holland that he was ‘not sanguine’ in view of the ‘raging’ anti-Catholicism of the West Riding.25 However, John Ramsden, Whig Member for Malton, assured Milton, 6 Dec., that ‘if Devonshire would only guarantee money to Morpeth and the Whigs hold their nerve they would see off the challenge without a contest.26 Devonshire, however, was unwilling to give such a commitment and it was certain that Carlisle could not provide any money. Another of Morpeth’s kinsmen, Lord George Cavendish*, was approached for funds, but declined.27 On 29 Dec. 1825 Carlisle determined that Morpeth would have to refuse to stand, telling Milton that the requisitions that had been organized to his son should be answered ‘openly and decidedly’.28 This alarmed the leading Whigs, who sought to persuade Carlisle that the manner of retreat was of paramount importance to Morpeth’s own future and the Whig cause.29 Although the requisitions were ready, a delay was arranged to give Morpeth time to reconsider, but Carlisle insisted that the invitation had to be declined.30 Morpeth consequently consulted the influential Whigs George Strickland*, Daniel Sykes* and Smith to advise on the wording of his reply, in which he emphasized his youth and inexperience and stated that circumstances beyond his control ‘would not justify me in attempting to support the great and unavoidable expenses of a contested election’.31 ‘We had I think no alternative, without embarking in a sea of difficulty’, Carlisle told Lady Holland, 13 Jan. 1826.32 ‘Morpeth is behaving admirably about it himself and bears the disappointment in a very manly and creditable manner’, Althorp informed Milton, 22 Jan.33 Loch commented to Lady Carlisle, 23 Jan.:

I am sure ... it will be a source of infinite satisfaction to Lord Morpeth in after life to reflect that he has had the prudence and magnanimity to make so great a sacrifice ... I believe it is better for him to represent in the first place a smaller place; he may thus select as much of private business as he chooses and of the sort he chooses [giving him] time to make himself fully master on those great points of national policy by taking a share in the consideration of which, he is to give himself that place in the country which I am certain we shall soon see him fill.34

Holland suggested to Fox, 8 Feb., that Morpeth might come in for the current vacancy for Oxford University, but Carlisle explained to Lady Holland, 12 Feb., that he would have ‘no chance’, as ‘the anti-Catholic prejudice is too strong’ and that it was the same in Northumberland.35 Devonshire was the official British representative at the coronation of Nicholas I in Russia and, as he was no longer required to fight an election, Morpeth accepted his invitation to be his attaché and was said to be ‘much pleased with the prospect of his Russian trip’.36 Townshend reported to Fox, 21 July, that ‘Morpeth as usual is bursting with joy and happiness ... and puffing through many a dance, as if his legs had no connection with his body’.37 After the coronation, 3 Sept. 1826, he came home via Berlin and Paris.

During his absence he was returned at the general election for his family’s pocket borough of Morpeth, where his uncle William Howard made way and canvassed for him.38 On 25 Nov. 1826 he told his mother, ‘I have attended all the Houses this week, but have not yet had occasion to exercise my privilege of voting, having of course found myself unable to do so for Mr. Hume’s amendment, and gone away before the division’.39 Before the 1827 session, and after a reception in his honour at Newcastle, he visited his constituency, 12 Jan., when he presided at a dinner for 130 freemen.40 By now his ambition of making his maiden speech on the Catholic question seemed a distinct possibility, as Sir Francis Burdett intended to bring on a motion early in the session. Burdett had paid a visit to Castle Howard the previous July, and Abercromby informed Carlisle in February 1827:

Burdett told me last night that the duke of Norfolk had expressed to him a wish that Morpeth should second the motion on the Catholic question ... I have turned it in my mind, and feel doubts ... and on the whole I wonder whether it would not be as well for Morpeth to take his chance in debate. It is clear that ... Norfolk would wish a Howard to speak, and Burdett is perfectly happy to acquiesce if you wish it.41

Morpeth was eager to seize the chance, and in a magnificent début, his speech confirmed the expectations of many and established his reputation in the House. Seconding Burdett’s motion, 5 Mar. 1827, he concentrated on questioning the propriety and consequences of not granting relief to the Catholics, a measure ‘equally demanded by policy and by justice’, which would probably pacify Ireland. The Orangeman George Dawson followed him and formally congratulated the House ‘upon the acquisition of eloquence and talent which it had obtained’. Morpeth’s political friends heaped praise on his speech, Mackintosh saying that he had never heard a maiden speech of more promise, whilst Henry Brougham declared it to be the best for 20 years. His parents, who were present, basked in his glory; Canning told Carlisle that it was ‘all that ever a father could desire’.42 Morpeth divided against the grant to the duke of Clarence, 16 Feb., and for a 50s. duty on corn, 9 Mar. He voted for inquiry into Leicester corporation, 15 Mar., the spring guns bill, 23 Mar., information on the Lisburn Orange procession, 29 Mar., to postpone the committee of supply, 30 Mar., and for inquiries into the Irish estimates and delays in chancery, 5 Apr. He was in the majority to disfranchise Penryn, 28 Apr. He presented a Morpeth petition for repeal of the Test Acts, 7 June. On 18 June 1827 he criticized the agriculturists in the Lords for amending the government’s proposals on the corn bill, but he backed the government’s revised scheme, which he considered as ‘good as could be expected at that late period of the session’.43

After Lord Liverpool’s incapacitation in February 1827, Carlisle had become one of the negotiators in Canning’s attempts to form a ministry in association with the Whigs, and had reluctantly entered the cabinet as chief commissioner of woods and forests. On 10 Apr. Mackintosh informed Lady Holland of reports that Morpeth was destined ‘for Canning’s treasury’, for which he was ‘sorry’ since ‘it is an engagement for life’.44 In the event no offer was forthcoming, and John Cam Hobhouse* advised him that having ‘commenced his political career in such auspicious circumstances’ with his speech on emancipation

it is very well for less persons to begin with showing what is called a talent for business ... which some kind or kindred minister may call them to occupy ... [but] it would be inconsistent with your illustrious situation ever to have your name found amongst the sneaking sinecures and exceeding knaves of the treasury.45

Canning’s death in August was deeply regretted by Morpeth, who felt ‘a sense of individual affliction at his eternal loss’, and despite his father’s position in Lord Goderich’s cabinet, he felt that there was not a ‘less original, less guiding, less commanding minister’ than the new premier.46 Nevertheless, he was willing to move the address (as Huskisson wished him to do), although his mother had reservations as to the propriety of a cabinet minister’s son doing so.47 Following Goderich’s resignation Morpeth went into opposition to the duke of Wellington’s ministry for the opening of the 1828 session. He spent much of it defending Canning’s reputation and fighting for a pension for his family. He took immediate offence at the apparent disavowal of Canning’s foreign policy with the description of Navarino in the king’s speech as ‘an untoward affair’ and, after brooding on it for two days, condemned it, 31 Jan., as ‘injudicious and unjust’, and ‘the most injurious and shabby epithet which could have been supplied’, 31 Jan.48 Lord Jersey, though acknowledging that Morpeth had talent, deprecated his style, telling Arthur Paget† that he ‘spoke as a shouting schoolboy’.49 During the postmortem debate on the Canning and Goderich ministries, 18 Feb., he was severely critical of Herries and Huskisson, whom he described as the ‘arcades of the present cabinet’: he had looked to Huskisson to carry forward Canning’s legacy, and accused him of desertion. After eulogizing Canning’s foreign policy, he pronounced his cause to be now ‘without a leader, an existence, or a name’. Soon afterwards he lamented to his mother: ‘The only thing I should really mind in politics is coming to pass, the separation of the Whigs and liberal Tories. Never mind, we shall have our virtue and the memory of Mr. Canning to carry us through life’.50 On 1 Apr. he gave notice that unless the government brought forward a measure to provide a pension for Canning’s family, he would do so. Ministers apprised Morpeth of their intentions (£3,000 per annum and a peerage to his widow) in early May, and although Morpeth agreed with Lady Canning that it was insufficient, he feared that there was little more they could do. However, he assured her, 7 May, that whenever it was introduced, ‘I shall be prepared to state what I think will meet your views’.51 He described the proposal, 13 May, as ‘not adequate to its avowed object ... to mark the merits of the dead ... the exigencies of the living, or to record, in a worthy manner, the sympathy and gratitude of a great nation’; but he accepted it, reasoning that it was desirable to secure ‘all attainable unanimity’, and quoting Canning’s own words when a pension was granted to Pitt’s family:

We will not consent to receive the vote as an eleemosynary grant to posthumous necessities, not as the boon of pity or compassion, but as a public debt, due to a highly meritorious public servant.

Lord George Cavendish Bentinck* told Lady Canning, 14 May, that it was ‘a beautiful speech’, while John Backhouse informed her, 15 May, that it was ‘beyond all praise’.52 Irredeemably influenced by Canning’s view of foreign policy, Morpeth welcomed with ‘unequal satisfaction’ Peel’s announcement that the government would do all in its power to effect the pacification of Greece, 24 Mar. In April his verse tragedy The Last of the Greeks; or the Fall of Constantinople, inspired by the Greek war of independence, was published. On 30 June he urged Peel to pledge the government to a policy of ‘fair neutrality’ over Portugal. He voted for repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb., presented multiple petitions for Catholic relief, 29 Apr., 6 May, and divided thus, 12 May. Welcoming what he saw as ‘hopeful signs of progress’, he hoped ‘that another session of Parliament will not be allowed to pass over without some measure [to] grant the claims of the Catholic to the fullest extent’, 12 June. He voted against the extension of the East Retford franchise to the hundred, 21 Mar. He objected to the scale of corn duties proposed by government, 31 Mar., and voted for a pivot price of 60s. rather than 64s., 22 Apr. He divided for the production of information on civil list pensions, 20 May. He contended that ‘the present system of game laws is an evil that ought no longer to be tolerated’, 13 June. His motion to reduce the grant for the Royal Cork Institution by £500, 20 June, was rejected by 66-22. That month he was listed by Lords Palmerston* and Colchester among the Canningite rump. Before voting to reduce the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 July, he warned that ‘the country will certainly have much reason to be astonished if this House was, on the first opportunity, to nullify its own [finance] committee, in respect of a reduction which they have recommended’. He divided against the grant for North American fortifications, 7 July 1828.

On 24 Oct. 1828 Morpeth set out on his first visit to Ireland. His trip generated controversy when the Catholic Association invited him to a public dinner in his honour, through its ‘Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty’ offshoot.53 Richard Sheil* and Daniel O’Connell* presented the invitation, 6 Nov., and although he was initially unsure whether to accept, Morpeth concluded in a letter to his mother that ‘English liberals’ had nothing to gain by being ‘backward and lukewarm’. Abercromby advised him, 22 Nov., that, considering his family connections, a refusal could have been politically embarrassing, and told Carlisle, 24 Nov., that whatever their reservations, ‘in this case there was no alternative but to act as he has done’.54 In a widely reported speech at the dinner, 27 Nov., he alluded to his own family’s association with Catholicism, praised Ireland and the Irish, urged the laying aside of jealousies to fight for a common cause, and, although he was in no doubt as to their ultimate success, urged ‘those amongst you who suffer under the odious disabilities’ to ‘use every effort that human nature is capable of, but resistance’ and ‘to strive to conquer reluctant Protestantism, by a display of Catholic virtue [mixing] temperance with zeal’.55 Before the 1829 session a rumour arose that he was to contest the vacant Cumberland seat, but there was no truth in it.56 In the House, 10 Feb., he said that although he was willing to accept the supression of the Catholic Association to secure emancipation, he believed that the only effective way of disbanding it was to grant that relief, for ‘to talk of the other only seems a piece of tautology’. ‘George spoke well the other night. He has gained in self-possession and manliness prodigiously by his journey last summer to Ireland’, Lady Holland told Fox, 14 Feb.57 He of course voted for the ministry’s concession of emancipation, 6, 30 Mar., and he presented a number of favourable petitions that month. On 20 Mar. he stated that while he objected ‘in principle’ to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders, he saw no option ‘but to make virtue out of necessity, and with one hearty gulp, swallow [the securities] ... because we think we are contributing to help, to hasten, and to secure Catholic emancipation’. He reluctantly ‘found himself unable to vote in support of the claim’ of O’Connell to be allowed to take his seat without swearing the oath of supremacy, 18 May; but he welcomed the ‘fair and legitimate’ opportunity afforded by making an amendment to the bill, 21 May, which would allow O’Connell to take his seat. He voted to transfer East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 May, but when this was defeated declared that he must vote for the issue of a new writ rather than to ‘transfer the franchise into the well known dukery of the already sufficiently represented county of Nottingham’, 7 May. He was in the minority of 12 for a fixed duty on corn imports, 19 May, seconded Hobhouse’s motion for a bill to regulate the working hours of children in factories, 21 May, and divided to reduce the hemp duties, 1 June 1829.

Morpeth voted for Knatchbull’s amendment to the address drawing attention to the distressed state of the country, 4 Feb. 1830. On 12 Feb. he welcomed Sir James Graham’s motion to reduce official salaries and paid tribute to the late George Tierney*. Lansdowne reported to Holland, 12 Feb., that his speech had been ‘excellent’ on the subject of finance, had shown ‘taste and feeling’ with respect to Tierney, and that ‘all he said too on currency and retrenchment was exactly what it ought to be’.58 He voted for tax cuts, 15 Feb., military reductions, 19, 22 Feb., 1 Mar., and argued that the Royal Military College ought to be self-financing, 26 Feb. He was absent from the meeting of Whigs held in early March to co-ordinate opposition to the administration, but, according to Graham, those who had attended ‘considered you were assenting, though not present’.59 He divided steadily with the revived opposition for economy and reduced taxation from that month onwards, but only started attending their meetings in July, reasoning that he had not done so previously because he had not considered them sufficiently hostile to ministers.60 He voted to transfer East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 11 Feb., 5, 15 Mar. Before voting for the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb., he outlined his view on the need for reform:

The state of the country has undergone a great change within the last few years. The people are everyday acquiring intelligence, and with this intelligence they obtain moral power ... but they are at the same time becoming more distressed ... In my opinion a temperate and timely reform ... while it forms a safeguard against any virulent expression of popular feeling, is at the same time recommended by every consideration of justice, policy and prudence.

He voted for Russell’s reform motion, 28 May. He divided for the production of papers on the Bombay judicature, 8 Mar. Speaking before voting in favour of Palmerston’s critical motion on the interference of British troops in Portugal, 10 Mar., he condemned the government’s actions and their explanation of it, declaring it an ‘illiberal and retrograde policy’. He secured the appointment of a select committee to investigate the condition of the London to Edinburgh road, 10 Mar. Presenting its report and moving the first reading of the Northern roads bill, 20 May, he recommended the appointment of a commission to study the proposals and said that 30 miles could be saved from the existing route. On its second reading, 3 June, responding to criticism, he emphasized that the route alteration would occur on the Northern stretches, would not affect the Midland and Southern counties and would involve no expenditure. He was strenuously opposed by Lord Lowther, who claimed that it would only benefit the Scots at English expense, but the bill was committed. Morpeth presented petitions in its favour from the royal burghs of Scotland, 7 June, Ayr, 5 July, and Inverness and Nairn, 9 July, but petitioning by the various interested turnpike trusts and inn owners in the south led to its falling at the close of the session. He voted for Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr., when he asserted that ‘every person who contributes to the exigencies of the state, who pays its taxes and defrays the wages of its public servants, has an equal right to all the privileges and distinctions of the constitution’, and 17 May. He presented four petitions from Yorkshire against the East India Company’s monopoly, 27 Apr., when he voted to alter the laws governing Irish vestries. He voted for abolition of the Irish lord lieutenancy, 11 May, and endorsed a Dublin petition against the assimilation of Irish and English stamp duties, 14 May. He divided for abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 24 May, 7 June, and for reform of the divorce laws, 3 June. On 22 Feb. he had given notice of a motion to repeal the banishment clause of the Libels Act, which made those convicted of a second offence liable to transportation, but he postponed it, 3 May, and reluctantly again, 18 May, after Sir James Scarlett, the attorney-general, agreed to introduce an amendment to remove the clause, but also to raise by £100 the security that newspaper printers must provide, which Morpeth promised to oppose. Proposing his amendment, 6 July, he said that he did not seek to defend the excesses of the press, but that there were already adequate laws to deal with them. Although he triumphed by 26-21, Scarlett gave notice that he would seek to overturn the vote, and the penalty increase was reinserted on the third reading by 68-46, 9 July, when Morpeth again opposed it. He presented a petition from the printers of London and Westminster for reduction of the duty on newspapers and advertisements and promised to introduce his own measure to deal with the latter, 2 July. He seconded Brougham’s motion for the abolition of slavery, 13 July, and brought up a relevant Leeds petition, 20 July 1830.

At the ensuing dissolution three of the four sitting Members for Yorkshire retired. Strickland had been sure as early as October 1829 that Morpeth would be one of the candidates, and his name was one of many mentioned by the Whig press.61 Abercromby asked Lady Carlisle, 10 July:

Would it really be an advantage to Morpeth to have it? I have always a scruple about his taking a seat which is inconsistent with his holding office ... To be sure it may be said that to represent Yorkshire is a distinction equal to that of a cabinet minister, if the election is obtained by the voice of the people, and the duties are well performed ... [but] I have always thought Morpeth was a very unlikely person to be thought of. He has all the requisites to please Whigs and people, except money. They may be shy of making an overture after what happened before, but they may make it, and it is right to be prepared.

Carlisle was apprehensive of damaging Morpeth, who was emerging as the favoured candidate amongst the Sheffield Whigs, by a second withdrawal if money were needed, and Abercromby again wondered whether Devonshire would help.62 After meeting a number of North Riding Whigs at the quarter sessions in Northallerton, where they agreed that Morpeth ought to be invited, Strickland and Sir John Johnstone* of Hackness went to Leeds, 14 July, to sound the opinion of the West Riding liberals. Here Morpeth’s name was received with ‘some degree of coldness’, but they persevered and secured backing for him, and an agreement to bring in their candidates free of expense.63 Carlisle advised Morpeth to accept the requisition on these conditions, 17 July.64 Following the adoption of Brougham as a second Whig candidate, Johnstone told Carlisle, 23 July, ‘I consider Morpeth’s position both as to success and expense unaltered and unalterable ... [and] as certain as ever’.65 A requisition from Leeds, signed by 200 freeholders and pledging to bring them in free, was presented to both men, 26 July. Privately, however, Morpeth told his mother that ‘coupling us (which is evidently their wish) is the difficult point, the management of which requires great delicacy’, 25 July.66 Lady Carlisle advised that there was no harm in being associated with Brougham ‘as a public man’, but warned Morpeth not to cross him privately, for ‘I should dread his revenge’. Carlisle, equally worried, warned that ‘if your friends show any jealousy of him you will go to the wall’.67 Morpeth decided to have his own committee, but to go with Brougham, 27 July, to the Leeds Cloth Halls, where all the canvassing tours started. Introduced by John Marshall*, he quickly gained the crowds’ confidence by invoking the name of William Wilberforce*. He acknowledged that he was a member of the aristocracy and had been proposed by the landed interest, but appealed for a chance to prove himself. He declared that he favoured a ‘great amendment’ in parliamentary representation and promised to back such a measure as he deemed ‘practicable and most efficient’. He denounced all monopolies, especially that of the East India Company, objected to the corn and game laws, and advocated strict economy.68 He was given an ecstatic reception, after which he returned to York, as he was ‘labouring under a slight indisposition’, which his sister Caroline Lascelles revealed to Lady Carlisle to be a boil on the leg.69 After Brougham expressed concern that Morpeth was pandering too much to the landed interest, adding that he was having difficulty in preventing ‘the good men’ in the towns from starting Strickland with him as the second Whig, Morpeth spoke again with him at Bradford, 29 July, telling his mother that ‘all is on a proper footing now; we are together when circumstances so arrange it, but we do not contrive it ourselves’.70 He continued:

I have at one time a country gentleman representing to me that I had better not speak out of the same window [as Brougham], and at another a manufacturer begging I will get in the same carriage. However, as I receive so much of his support in the West Riding, I think for the sake of appearance he ought to have my father’s.71

Strickland, a member of both committees, told Milton, 31 July, that ‘after much discussion, it is decided to keep it separate from Brougham’s, but the interests are so united in the West Riding, as to cause some difficulties’.72 Caroline Lascelles informed Lady Carlisle the same day that there were many local joint committees in the West Riding towns canvassing to return them both.73 Even on the day before the nomination, 4 Aug., Brougham confided to Holland that some Whig squires were still pressing Morpeth to stand independently of him

and he has been weak enough to yield to their folly. But finding the West Riding to a man refused to support him if he persisted in such weakness he today has shown more spirit, and ... he knows to whom he owes his election.74

At the nomination Morpeth urged the necessity of domestic reform, applauded ‘the triumphant and bloodless march of freedom ... [when] it sweeps away a Bourbon, a Dom Miguel, or a grand Turk’, and called for the abolition of slavery.75 Caroline Lascelles reported to her mother that ‘George ... surpassed himself; his speech was the most beautiful, the most eloquent thing I ever heard, everybody is quite enthusiastic about it, and he was most rapturously received’.76 He was returned at the head of the token poll. ‘By dint of waiting when things went wrong till they got better, I flatter myself that everything has ended well and smoothly’, he informed Lady Carlisle, 7 Aug., adding, ‘I am not fonder of Brougham than I was before; but nothing in any way disagreeable has passed between us’.77 Lascelles told Lady Carlisle, 7 Aug., that ‘the enthusiastic feeling which was everywhere shown towards [Morpeth] was not of a party or political nature but was a general testimony of admiration and respect for his character from the whole county’.78 Over the next month he attended a number of victory dinners and a Leeds Anti-Slavery Society meeting, 22 Sept. 1830.79

Morpeth joined Althorp at Brougham’s, 29 Oct., and again at a larger meeting of leading Whigs in early November, when it was decided that Brougham would move for reform early in the session.80 On 3 Nov. he spoke against the address, telling ministers that an improvement, not an overthrow, of national institutions was needed and warning them that unless there was a reform of Parliament he feared for the welfare and safety of the country. He presented the petition of Andrew Lawson, whose family were seeking to restore their interest at Boroughbridge, against the return there, 4 Nov., and Stapylton’s petition demanding that all Members be required to swear an oath that they had acted on principles of purity at their elections, 9 Nov. He presented his first anti-slavery petition of the session, 4 Nov., when he said that its object was the most anxious desire of Yorkshire, another 254 from the county, 11 Nov, and many others that month, including one from Leeds with 15,000 signatures, 23 Nov. He had of course been listed by the ministry as one of their ‘foes’ and he voted against them in the crucial division on the civil list, 15 Nov. During the construction of Grey’s ministry Lansdowne asked if Morpeth would take office, but he declined ‘on account of Yorkshire’.81 Carlisle entered the cabinet as minister without portfolio, while Agar Ellis became chief commissioner of woods and forests. Welcoming the new appointments, 23 Nov., Morpeth hoped that ministers would ‘place slavery on its proper footing and be friends of retrenchment and reform ... pursuing a liberal and enlightened policy with respect to commercial affairs, and that the principle of their foreign policy may be summed up in the short, but comprehensive word - peace’. Brougham (whom Morpeth would have liked to have been lord privy seal) had accepted the great seal, thereby precipitating a by-election for his Yorkshire seat.82 Johnstone emerged as the favourite, but at the nomination Strickland declared against him, forcing a brief contest that Johnstone won. Morpeth, a friend of both, felt obliged to support Johnstone after his efforts on his behalf at his own election, and accompanied him on his canvass.83 Morpeth presented a Menlogh petition praying that Catholic freeholders be placed on an equal footing with Protestants, 2 Dec., and several other Irish petitions in similar terms during the Parliament. He gave his ‘entire approbation’ to the regency bill, 9 Dec., denied that there was any resemblance between the conditions of labourers in the south of England and those of slaves, 13 Dec., and said that despite his support for reform, he could not back the Tory call for inquiry into the Evesham election. He presented two Yorkshire petitions for repeal of the assessed taxes and abolition of ‘all useless offices’ and defended Plunket’s appointment as Irish lord chancellor, 20 Dec. 1830.

He moved for an account of woollen exports, 3 Feb., and was appointed to the select committee on the East India Company, 4 Feb. 1831. He reminded ministers that they had promised to assist Lord Chandos’s bill to reform the game laws, 8 Feb., and welcomed confirmation of this intention, 15 Feb. He spoke against a general amnesty for the ‘Swing’ rioters convicted by special commissions, 8 Feb. He presented Yorkshire petitions complaining of distress and in support of reform, 9, 14 Feb., 11 Mar. He welcomed the budget proposals for reductions and retrenchment, 11 Feb., and presented and endorsed petitions for the abolition of newspaper stamps, 14 Feb. Challenged that day by the radical Henry Hunt to state his opinion on the ballot, he said that he had not ‘expressed either dissent or concurrence upon the proposition’. He welcomed Hobhouse’s proposals to regulate the hours of children in factories, 15 Feb., and was appointed to the committee on the ensuing bill, 14 Mar. On 17 Feb. Thomas Gladstone* told his father:

I am much disappointed in Lord Morpeth, and believe the feeling is general. He deals too much in Latin quoting for the present day, and seems determined to make speeches whatever the subject matter may be.84

During discussion of the proposed increase in the army, 21 Feb., Morpeth denied accusations that he had abandoned his belief in the need for economy and said that he looked on ‘this augmentation of our military force as a necessary, but temporary evil’. He presented several Yorkshire petitions for and against the numerous road and railway bills affecting the county, as well as steering through the Sheffield and Manchester railway bill. He presented 76 Yorkshire petitions against slavery, 28 Mar., and when Fowell Buxton’s motion for abolition came before the House, 15 Apr., claimed to have presented in excess of 500, warning that ‘if we forbear much longer to pronounce the sentence of emancipation, it will accomplish itself in the most appalling manner’. He presented a Leeds petition with 17,000 signatures for reform, 26 Feb., and several others, including one from Sheffield Political Union, that day. In a long speech welcoming the ministerial reform bill, 2 Mar., he insisted that there was ‘nothing in it which need alarm the friends of order and existing establishments’. He presented multiple constituency petitions in its favour, 16 Mar., when he paid tribute to the non-resident freeholders of York for indicating their willingness to sacrifice their rights, and 21 Mar. He voted for the second reading of the bill next day. Bringing up another favourable petition, 28 Mar., he insisted that despite Yorkshire’s size and diversity of interests, it had met with unanimous support, and defended the planned division of the county. When a hostile one from Doncaster was presented by Duncombe, 19 Apr., he protested that it did not represent majority opinion. He voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. Responding to Duncombe’s assertion that ministers could not appeal with credit to the country, he declared that a dissolution would show ‘spirit and wisdom’ and admonished Duncombe for criticizing measures which he had shied from voting against, 21 Apr. 1831.

At the ensuing general election he offered again as a reformer. He was joined by Johnstone, Ramsden and Strickland, and, facing no opposition, they made a triumphant tour of the West Riding. At the nomination he declared that the bill would not only give the right of election to Leeds and Sheffield but would bring ‘freedom of election to Newark and Knaresborough, and purity of election to Beverley and Pontefract’, and that he ‘fondly anticipated ... an increase of good understanding and a return of confidence between the different classes and various interests mixed up in our body politic’.85 He celebrated his unopposed return by taking a three-week sojourn in Paris. He voted for the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July 1831, and thereafter was a consistent and regular supporter of its details, casting no known wayward vote. On presenting a Bradford petition for annual parliaments, universal suffrage and the ballot, 11 July, he said he would always ‘oppose those wishes of my constituents ... which appear to me to be impolitic and dangerous’. When Milton moved an amendment for two Members to be given to the boroughs in schedule D, 4 Aug., Morpeth said that although he agreed with the principle that two representatives were better than one, and that Bradford, Halifax and Huddersfield ought to have two, he must resist the proposal because ‘the bill was intended as an adjustment between the two great interests, the agricultural and the commercial’. He supported the suggestion of Farrand that the town rather than the township of Bradford should form the borough, and denied Wrangham’s assertion that Huddersfield would become a nomination borough, since the property there ‘is all let out on building leases, which will, I think, effectually prevent nomination’. When Goulburn proposed that Sculcoates should have representation separate from Hull, 9 Aug., Morpeth said that although he would not oppose its having its own Member, he doubted whether it had a ‘sufficient separateness and distinctness’ from Hull, and pointed out that Goulburn had furnished the strongest argument against his own proposition when he had said that he had never heard of the place until the bill was brought in. He dismissed Wrangham’s suggestion that Yorkshire should have ten, rather than six, county Members, 10 Aug., explaining that he supported the division of the county, with two Members for each Riding ‘because I consider it a matter of necessity ... although I cannot adopt such a course without some feelings of regret’. He voted twice with government on the Dublin election controversy, 23 Aug. As a member of the committee investigating corruption at the Liverpool election, he described the motion to issue a new writ as merely a question of expediency, 5 Sept., and, holding out the reform bill as the cure for abuses, said that Liverpool ought to have both its Members in the House when ‘a question of great and general importance is under consideration’. On Thomas Duncombe’s attempt to disfranchise Aldborough, 14 Sept., he observed that while there were other places in Yorkshire which he would prefer to return Members, notably Doncaster, as Aldborough legitimately fell within the criteria laid down for the retention of one Member, he would ‘not give a vote which will have the effect of placing it in a worse situation’; he was a teller for the hostile majority. In a long and wide-ranging speech, 19 Sept., he defended the principles and objectives of the reform bill, attacked those who predicted nothing but doom, and was particularly scathing of the criticisms of Scarlett. He was a majority teller for the third reading that day, voted for its passage, 21 Sept., and the second reading of the Scottish measure, 23 Sept. He divided for Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. When Althorp presented a favourable Yorkshire petition of 40-50,000 signatures, 7 Dec. 1831, Morpeth said he had attended the meeting which produced it and declared it to be ‘the strongest argument that can be adduced in favour of reform’.

Throughout this Parliament he acted as the principal medium for many Yorkshire petitions expressing local grievances and played a part in the passage of a number of regional road and railway bills. He led the opposition from Yorkshire to John Campbell II’s general register bill, requesting that the county, which already had its own registration, be exempted from the bill’s operation, 30 June 1831. Campbell appeared to agree, but when the bill came before the House, 4 Oct., no such exemption was included. Morpeth complained, and after Campbell had conceded that the change could be made in committee if it was still the wish of Yorkshire, he said he would consult his constituents. On 7 Dec. 1831, however, Campbell refused to leave out Yorkshire, and after a number of the county’s Members had declared their hostility to the bill, Morpeth informed Campbell that he would bring in a motion of exemption. He presented dozens of Yorkshire petitions against it thereafter and was appointed to the select committee on it, 22 Feb., but Campbell abandoned it, 16 July 1832. He presented a West Riding petition from the magistracy and clergy complaining of the Beer Act, 3 Aug. 1831, but although he shared many of their concerns, he cautioned against ‘taking any step which may infringe upon the comforts of the working classes’. On 10 Aug. he presented a Yorkshire petition for the introduction of a system of Irish poor relief, observing that while the English system could not ‘with advantage’ be introduced there, ‘if the people are starving, the people must be fed’. He presented and endorsed three Yorkshire petitions in similar terms, 12 Aug., contending that ‘the destitute [of Ireland] ought not to be supported by perpetual drains on English charity’. He welcomed Sadler’s motions for the introduction of a system of Irish poor laws, 29 Aug., and his factory regulation bill restricting child labour, 15 Dec. 1831, and was ordered to bring it in with Sadler and Sir Richard Vyvyan that day. Over the ensuing months he brought up numerous Yorkshire petitions on the issue and on the bill’s second reading, 16 Mar. 1832, approved its referral to a committee, to which he was appointed. Fearing that the committee would be unable to complete its work that session, he observed that ‘sufficient evidence has been given there to convince me of the necessity of the legislature agreeing to some measure of regulation’, 27 June. Sadler managed to present the report, 8 Aug. 1832, but there was insufficient time for further progress before the dissolution.

Morpeth voted for the second reading of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, and was again an assiduous supporter of its details. He favoured York as the polling place for the North Riding, 24 Jan., and advised the House that his enquiries at Leeds had informed him that ‘raising the qualification of voters’ would ‘be attended with the worst consequences’, 3 Feb. 1832. On 5 Mar. he presented a Huddersfield petition complaining that the bill had restricted the area of the proposed constituency to the town, and by omitting the parish threatened to make it a nomination borough. He defended the decision to confine Wakefield to the town only, but criticized the limits imposed at Sheffield, 7 Mar. When Goulburn complained that Whitby was to receive a Member although it was in decline, 9 Mar., Morpeth retorted that it was a place of great local importance, connected with national shipping and commercial interests, suffering only a temporary downturn in prosperity. As the bill approached the end of its committee stages in the Commons, Althorp told Grey that if a number of new peers were not created to force it through the Lords, he would resign, and Brougham, Graham and Holland backed him. Morpeth warned Holland:

An immediate creation of a certain number of peers, as a measure of demonstration, may be very proper and fitting; but if this is made the point of rupture, it being in your power to take office and carry the bill, I much question whether you would retain, and even whether you would deserve, the confidence of your party, or the support and sympathy of the sound portion of the community.86

He voted for the bill’s third reading, 22 Mar. Before voting for Ebrington’s motion for an address calling on the king to appoint only ministers who would carry it unimpaired, 10 May, he said that as a representative of the largest constituency in the kingdom, who had refused office in order to remain so, he applauded Grey’s ministry, believed that Peel would be unable to carry a satisfactory measure, and feared the ‘victory of more extreme options’ if Grey, the only man who could ‘tread the path of safety’, was not permitted to carry on. He presented multiple West Riding petitions for the withholding of supplies until the bill passed, 22 May, and voted for the second reading of the Irish reform bill, 25 May, and against a Conservative amendment to increase Scottish county representation, 1 June. He presented a Leeds petition for the relief of Ireland, 23 Jan., and a Dewsbury one supporting the new plan of Irish education, 28 Mar. He voted with ministers on the Russian-Dutch loan, 26 Jan., 12, 16 July, when he spoke of their ‘debt of honour’, and 20 July. He was reappointed to the select committee on the East India Company, 27 Jan., presented an ‘enlightened’ petition from the physicians and surgeons of Leeds in favour of the anatomy bill, 2 Feb., and spoke and acted as a majority teller against Courtenay’s critical motion on relations with Portugal, 9 Feb. He presented and endorsed a petition of Leeds merchants claiming compensation for losses suffered in Brazil, 16 Apr. Acknowledging his ‘personal prepossession in favour of Russia’, 28 June, he nevertheless criticized its intervention in Poland. He welcomed the budget, 27 July 1832, but urged the chancellor to consider the reduction of duties on bills of exchange during the recess.

At the 1832 general election Morpeth was returned unopposed for the West Riding.87 He played a prominent role in promoting factory reform and was elected unopposed in 1835. He moved the amendment to the address which preceded the downfall of Peel’s first administration in 1835, and was appointed Irish secretary in Lord Melbourne’s second ministry, defeating Stuart Wortley at the ensuing by-election. During his time in office he carried the Irish Tithe Act, Irish Municipal Reform Act and Irish Poor Law Act. Holland, reflecting on the younger generation of Whigs that he had helped to nurture, observed in 1836: ‘It seems to me that Lord Morpeth, steady, firm, diligent, and conciliatory, has risen most rapidly and most surely in public estimation’.88 In 1837 he won the first contested general election in the West Riding, securing the largest vote ever received by a candidate anywhere, and he came entered the cabinet in 1839.89 His rise was interrupted when he unexpectedly lost his seat at the 1841 general election. He took the opportunity to indulge in travel, visiting the United States and Canada. During his absence his popularity in Ireland led to his unsolicited nomination for a vacant seat at Dublin in January 1842, but he was defeated. He regained his West Riding seat in 1846, and was drafted back into the cabinet. That year Campbell wrote:

I am sorry that Lord Morpeth ... one of the most amiable and excellent of men, has rather gone down in the world lately. He had a brilliant reputation at the conclusion of Lord Melbourne’s government, and I remember the duke of Sussex prophesizing to me that Morpeth would one day be prime minister ... He may rally again, but I would not give much for his chance of the premiership.90

In 1848 he succeeded to his father’s earldom. From 1855 (with a brief interruption) until 1864, he was a remarkably popular Irish viceroy. Throughout his career his religious fervour coloured his actions. He believed in a common gospel of all Christians, and was closely associated with a group of Whig Liberal Anglicans who opposed the Evangelical movement. His belief was central to his social policy, and particularly influenced his views on education.91 He had suffered bouts of dizziness since January 1864, and in March began periodically to lose the ability to speak or write. Diagnosed as suffering from a form of gout, he continued to work until his resignation. His left-hand side was paralyzed in September and he died peacefully at Castle Howard in December 1864. Obituaries concentrated on his amiable character, but noted that he ‘left no enduring work behind him to make him known to future generations, or to illustrate his own time’.92 Francis Thornhill Baring* noted:

His virtues made his abilities underrated. As a public man his faults arose from his goodness; he was constantly getting into scrapes with the treasury from his kindness of heart. It was no small praise that in Ireland he had obtained the attachment, almost, and respect of all; and no small proof of ability.93

In 1870 a bronze statue was erected in Phoenix Park, Dublin, paid for by public subscription. He published a number of books, including a Diary in Turkish and Greek Waters (1854) and The Second Vision of Daniel: a Paraphrase in Verse (1859), and was a frequent contributor in prose and verse to various journals. By his will, dated 23 Aug. 1864, he left annuities of £2,000 to his surviving brothers and sisters and a number of smaller ones to his nephews and nieces. The rest of his personalty was placed in trust with the Castle Howard and Naworth estates. He never married, although he had briefly courted Lady Anne De Grey, daughter of the first Earl De Grey, in 1833, and was succeeded in the family estates and earldom by his younger brother, the Rev. William George Howard (1808-89).

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Authors: Philip Salmon / Martin Casey


See D. D. Olien, Morpeth, A Victorian Public Career (1983).

  • 1. Countess Granville Letters, i. 11.
  • 2. Lady Lyttelton Corresp. 124.
  • 3. Lady Holland to Son, 52.
  • 4. Castle Howard mss J19/1/2/25.
  • 5. Ibid. J19/1/3/17.
  • 6. Smith Letters, i. 414.
  • 7. Countess Granville Letters, i. 25.
  • 8. Castle Howard mss.
  • 9. Ibid.
  • 10. Add. 52010; Castle Howard mss.
  • 11. Add. 52011.
  • 12. Fitzwilliam mss 114/2.
  • 13. Add. 52011.
  • 14. Castle Howard mss J19/1/2/27.
  • 15. Ibid. J/19/1/2/53.
  • 16. Lady Holland to Son, 40.
  • 17. Castle Howard mss J19/1/3/4.
  • 18. Ibid.
  • 19. Add. 51580.
  • 20. Leeds Mercury, 30 July 1825.
  • 21. Add. 52011.
  • 22. Castle Howard mss.
  • 23. Add. 52017.
  • 24. Castle Howard mss.
  • 25. Add. 51580.
  • 26. Fitzwilliam mss 123/7.
  • 27. Castle Howard mss, Abercromby to Carlisle, 25 Dec. 1825.
  • 28. Fitzwilliam mss 124/16.
  • 29. Ibid. Althorp to Milton, 1 Jan. 1826.
  • 30. Castle Howard mss J19/1/3/27.
  • 31. Ibid. J19/1/3/28, 29, 30; Leeds Mercury, 21 Jan. 1826.
  • 32. Add. 51580.
  • 33. Fitzwilliam mss.
  • 34. Castle Howard mss.
  • 35. Add. 51749; 51580.
  • 36. Add. 51580, Carlisle to Lady Holland, 2 May 1826.
  • 37. Add. 52017.
  • 38. Newcastle Chron. 10 June; Tyne Mercury, 20 June 1826.
  • 39. Castle Howard mss.
  • 40. Ibid. Morpeth to Lady Carlisle [Jan.1827].
  • 41. Add. 51580, Carlisle to Lady Holland, 21 July 1826; Castle Howard mss.
  • 42. Add. 52017, Townshend to Fox, 5 Mar.; Castle Howard mss, Canning to Carlisle, 6 Mar. 1827; Broughton, Recollections, iii. 173; Lady Holland to Son, 60.
  • 43. The Times, 8 June 1827.
  • 44. Add. 51655.
  • 45. Add. 47226, f. 90.
  • 46. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to Percy, 28 Aug. 1827.
  • 47. Ibid. Lady Carlisle to Huskisson [Dec.], same to Morpeth [12 Dec. 1827].
  • 48. Howard Sisters, 108.
  • 49. Add. 48406, f. 147.
  • 50. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle [c. May 1828].
  • 51. Harewood mss.
  • 52. Ibid.
  • 53. Morning Chron. 22 Nov. 1828.
  • 54. Castle Howard mss.
  • 55. Morning Chron. 1 Dec. 1828.
  • 56. Castle Howard mss, Abercromby to Carlisle, 14 Dec. 1828.
  • 57. Lady Holland to Son, 98.
  • 58. Add. 51687.
  • 59. Castle Howard mss.
  • 60. A. Mitchell, Whigs in Opposition, 228.
  • 61. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G83/95, Strickland to Milton, 14 Oct. 1829.
  • 62. Sheffield Mercury, 10 July 1830; Castle Howard mss.
  • 63. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G2/23.
  • 64. Castle Howard mss J19/1/5/3.
  • 65. Ibid.
  • 66. Ibid.
  • 67. Ibid. J19/1/5/7.
  • 68. Leeds Mercury, 31 July 1830.
  • 69. Castle Howard mss.
  • 70. Chatsworth mss 6DD/1961; Castle Howard mss.
  • 71. Castle Howard mss.
  • 72. Wentworth Woodhouse mun. G2/23.
  • 73. Castle Howard mss.
  • 74. Add. 51562.
  • 75. Leeds Mercury, 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 76. Castle Howard mss.
  • 77. Ibid.
  • 78. Ibid.
  • 79. Leeds Mercury, 25 Sept. 1830.
  • 80. Howard Sisters, 151; Mitchell, 244.
  • 81. Howard Sisters, 165-6; Chatsworth mss, Brougham to Devonshire [18 Nov. 1830].
  • 82. Howard Sisters, 167.
  • 83. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to Lady Carlisle, 19 Jan. 1831.
  • 84. St. Deiniol’s Lib. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 17 Feb. 1831.
  • 85. Leeds Mercury, 7 May 1831.
  • 86. Add. 51583, 10 Mar. 1832.
  • 87. Le Marchant, Althorp, 447.
  • 88. Holland House Diaries, 357.
  • 89. Leeds Mercury, 15 Dec. 1837.
  • 90. Life of Campbell, ii. 210.
  • 91. See R. Brent, Liberal Anglican Politics, passim; B. Hilton, ‘Whiggery, Religion and Social Reform: The Case of Lord Morpeth’, HJ, xxxvii (1994), 829-59.
  • 92. H. Martineau, Biog. Sketches, 369.
  • 93. Baring Jnls. ii. 203.