MAXWELL, John (1791-1865), of Pollok House, Renfrew and 10 Duke Street, St. James's, Mdx.
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Educationb. 12 May 1791, o.s. of Sir John Maxwell†, 7th bt., of Pollok and Hannah Anne, da. of Capt. Richard Gardiner of Aldeburgh, Suff. educ. by Rev. Dr. MacLetchie of Mearns 1798; Market Rasen 1802-5; Westminster 1806-9; Christ Church, Oxf. 1809; Edinburgh Univ. 1812; foreign tour 1813-15. m. 14 Oct. 1839, Lady Matilda Harriet Bruce, da. of Thomas, 7th earl of Elgin [S], s.p. suc. fa. as 8th bt. 30 July 1844. d. 6 June 1865.
Lt.-col. Renfrew militia 1813-18.
Maxwell, whose family had been established at Pollok since the fourteenth century, joined Brooks’s Club, 10 May 1815, and was returned for Renfrewshire in 1818 as the nominee of the triumvirate of Whig families who controlled the county’s representation. He was praised by the 10th duke of Hamilton for the ‘Roman virtue that you determine to manifest in this corrupt age’, and was described by another Whig friend as having spoken in the House with the ‘free and unembarrassed air of a high bred gentleman’.1 He was again returned in 1820, defeating a Tory opponent, and promised to pursue the same ‘independent’ course, resisting ‘inroads on the constitution’ by the crown, which should be ‘beloved ... not dreaded’, helping to restrain the ‘wild and ruinous movements’ into which the people had been led by radical agitators and working for the ‘real welfare and comfort of the labouring classes’.2 In a pamphlet published at this time, addressed to ‘the honest reformers of Scotland’, he warned that ‘a few bad men’ were busy ‘preaching up revolution, equality and atheism’, by means of ‘infidel publications and the demoralisation of youth’. He believed the chief causes of discontent were ‘the neglect of external religion amongst the wealthy, the profuse misapplication of the public money and the poor rate’. If Britain’s ‘religious and legislative establishments’ had ‘collected dirt and rust’, it would nevertheless be ‘folly’ to ‘destroy the best constitution in the world’, when ‘it only requires cleaning’. To ‘give every knave and beggar a vote’ would ‘not make honest Members’, and the ‘purification of Parliament’ was best achieved by disfranchising venal boroughs. He maintained that ‘the law of nature has no language but one ... inequality of ranks’, and the wealth and distinctions enjoyed by the aristocracy were ‘for the interest of all classes and of political necessity’, as they ‘stimulate to activity, and turn to the use of the state, the talents ... of all the country’. He asserted that ‘all property comes out of the soil, a mine that is inexhaustible’, and if Britain was to ‘continue great, good and free’, a corn law was required to protect the agricultural interest; the export trade in manufactures was ‘temporary and little more than speculation’. Ultimately, the ‘one guide ... alone for man’ was ‘the word of God’ and the ‘steadfast observation of the principles of Christianity’, in the hope of finding ‘a more sublime destiny’.3
He was a regular attender and continued to vote with the Whig opposition to Lord Liverpool’s ministry on all major issues, including parliamentary reform, 9, 10 May 1821, 20 Feb., 24 Apr., 2 June 1823, 26 May 1826. He paired for Catholic relief, 28 Feb. 1821, divided against the Irish unlawful societies bill, 15 Feb., and voted for relief, 1 Mar., 21 Apr., 10 May 1825. He presented a petition from a ‘large number of distressed persons’ in Renfrewshire who lacked the means to emigrate, 19 May 1820.4 He said that he had asked to be removed from the select committee on agricultural distress, 31 May, as its ‘avowed object was to adhere to the principle of prohibition’ when he believed the only ‘just [and] efficacious’ measure was a ‘protecting duty’. The condition of the ‘manufacturing classes’ in Renfrewshire was ‘more deplorable and more afflicting’ than anywhere else, and his personal interests were ‘essentially affected’ by their plight. Yet he was ‘not so ignorant of the real interests of the state’ and accepted the need to protect agriculture, which constituted ‘the great market for manufactures’ and was ‘the great interest of the empire’, though he knew his stance would provoke ‘unpopularity and dislike’ among his constituents. He presented a Paisley mechanics’ petition for assistance to emigrate, 1 June, and implored the government to do ‘an act of humanity becoming a Christian country’, warning that the petitioners ‘in their misery ... might be operated upon to engage in plans of reform, and even risings to any extent’. In moving for a select committee to inquire into distress among the cotton weavers, 29 June, he urged the House to consider whether power loom factories derived an unfair advantage from tax exemptions and condemned the injustice of the combination laws, which enabled employers to ‘combine ... for depressing the wages of the labourer’, who was ‘liable to punishment if he attempted to raise them’. He favoured the ‘application of public money’ to provide land for the surplus population, and was ‘alarmed to see taxation arrive at such an extent as to endanger the existence of our institutions’. After a brief discussion, he postponed his motion until the next session. In a private letter he argued that at a time of national crisis a ‘great and disinterested effort of the rich’ was required, in the form of a ‘one per cent property tax for transferring labour from manufacture to husbandry’, which ‘reproduces capital for the maintenance of itself’. He also believed that the ‘mad and impious although well meant’ Scottish poor law should be abolished.5 While he had initially supported the aliens bill he opposed the second reading, 7 July, explaining that circumstances had changed with the proceedings against Queen Caroline and the ‘barbarous indifference’ displayed by ministers towards the distressed labourers. He now feared that government would use the powers it sought to ‘obstruct witnesses from abroad’, whose testimony might benefit the queen. He supported punishing the editor of Flindell’s Western Luminary for libelling her, 25 July 1820. He advised his mother at this time to spend the winter abroad, pointing to the ‘probability of more or less disturbance on the decisions about the queen’s future rank and residence’, and he confessed that ‘I do not like to have numbers of houses and of servants at a time when so many poor people around me are almost in a state of starvation’.6 He attended the Renfrewshire county meeting, 4 Jan. 1821, when he unsuccessfully moved an amendment to a loyal address, calling for the removal of ministers.7 He ‘strenuously supported the principle’ of the Grampound disfranchisement bill, which would ‘give the manufacturing classes their due weight in the state’, 12 Feb., and said next day that he might ‘put in a claim’ for Glasgow.8 He supported Lord Archibald Hamilton’s motion criticizing the Church of Scotland’s decision to remove the queen’s name from the liturgy, 15 Feb., as it was ‘prejudging’ the issue. He was granted one month’s leave for urgent private business, 16 Feb., and another two months on account of ill health, 13 Mar. He supported the petition of James Turner, a Glasgow rioter arrested for treason but not tried or compensated, whose case was ‘more severe than it ought to have been’, 2 May. He explained on 8 May that he had accepted the Seditious Meetings Act in 1819 as a temporary measure, and would therefore ‘consider himself guilty of a breach of faith’ if he voted for repeal, although he thought it was no longer necessary. However, he ‘laboured under no such difficulty’ with regard to the Seditious and Blasphemous Libel Act. He warned that unless ‘the work of machinery was subject to the revenue laws and ... the poor rates’, unemployment and poverty would continue to increase, 7 June. Next day he complained that the West of Scotland was being ‘inundated’ with Irish labourers, who ‘received lower wages than the rest of the population and could live upon them because they disregarded all the decencies and comforts of life’. It was essential for ‘some guarantee’ to be ‘given by the manufacturer out of his profits in times of prosperity’, to maintain ‘those whom he could not employ’ when trade declined.9 In a flowery speech, 26 June, he moved for a committee to examine Robert Owen of New Lanark’s plan (presented at a Lanarkshire meeting which he had attended, 9 Apr.)10 to provide permanent employment for the working classes. He admitted that it was ‘impossible to say’ whether the scheme could be applied generally, but he believed its ‘tendency’ was to ‘increase the consumption of the poor and ... augment the value of all articles of home production’. He complained that Parliament had neglected the interests of the labourers, who had seen their common land, ‘the life-rent property of successive generations’, taken by enclosure to ‘become the haunt of the pettifogging attorney or the unsightly villa of some sordid money lender’, while they were forced into ‘crowded assemblies of manufacture’. They felt ‘deeply injured by the privileged and influential classes of society’, who had imposed high taxes and the corn and combination laws on them, and the ‘degradation of human nature’ had driven many to crime and violence. At least in him they had ‘a feeble but ... sincere advocate’, who would endeavour to save the country from the ‘undue influence of the crown and ... misgovernment’. He said that he would not divide the House, and his motion was negatived; a radical Whig Member described his speech as ‘wild’ and ‘absurd’.11 He seconded Hamilton’s motion to repeal the clause in the Beer Duties Act requiring accounts of beer sales, 29 June, observing that ‘the error which pervaded this measure’ was ‘apparent in other measures connected with Scotland’, such as the malt tax and the proposed duty on herring fishing, ‘each of which tended to destroy a portion of the trade of the country’.12 At the Michaelmas head court in Renfrewshire, 9 Oct., he raised the corn law question, declaring that it ‘operated to the hurt of the commercial classes’ and suggesting a ‘fair and moderate duty’ of 5-6s. to allow for the local expenses borne by landowners. He chaired a subsequent county meeting, 10 Dec. 1821, when he advocated setting the duty at a level to keep the price of wheat at 30s. a quarter; he defended his position in two letters published in the local press.13
He presented a Renfrewshire petition for relief from agricultural distress, 29 Apr., and argued that ‘all restrictions on the consumption of grain by prevention of distilling ought to be revised’, 7 May 1822.14 His remedy was ‘protecting duties and reduction of taxes ... until the labourer can live as cheaply as the Frenchman or the Belgian’, 13 May. He was ‘satisfied that the eau medicinale brought forward by the government in the shape of Peel’s [1819 currency] bill had created the existing distress by throwing the burden on the producer’, 2 July 1822. He was instrumental in summoning a Renfrewshire meeting on distress, 16 Jan. 1823, when he called for ‘very great retrenchments’ and relief from the ‘great pressure of taxes’, which would increase consumption, cheapen labour costs and enable landowners to reduce rents. He presented the resulting petition, 20 Feb., but regretted the prevailing mood of ‘total indifference’ in the House.15 He seconded Peter Moore’s motion to amend the combination laws, which gave ‘protection to wealth and power by withdrawing it from poverty and weakness’, 3 Mar. Next day he advocated repeal of the Scottish cottage window tax, which was ‘viewed in the most unpopular light’ as revenue officers often pocketed the money.16 He admitted that he now doubted the wisdom of imposing taxes on machinery, 25 Apr., but he thought ‘some regulations ... fixing ... minimum’ wages in the silk industry would be ‘serviceable to the community at large’, 21 May, and maintained that labourers, ‘whether agricultural or manufacturing’, should ‘be protected as much as possible from the effects of machinery’, 30 May. That day he presented a petition from Middlesex inhabitants for higher wages. He seconded Hamilton’s motion for reform of Scotland’s representation, 2 June, maintaining that the people were ‘extremely dissatisfied with the existing system’, which was responsible for Parliament’s neglect of the labourers, excessive taxation, ‘vice and general discontent’. He paired with the majority for the Scottish juries bill, 20 June 1823. In notes on Christianity made about this time, he observed that it ‘inculcates the love of our neighbour and pleads the cause of the poor’, but he feared these values were being lost in ‘pomp and pageantry’ and wished to see the abolition of ‘those human abuses which disfigure our form of communication with the Supreme Being’.17 He presented a Glasgow petition against the combination laws, 12 May 1824.18 He was ‘decidedly opposed to approximating the Scotch poor laws to those ... in England’, 14 May.19 He favoured ‘the principle’ of extending the Small Debts Act to Scotland, 10 June 1824, but wished to end imprisonment in such cases. That month he wrote to the home secretary, Peel, in support of a memorial from the Glasgow Episcopalians requesting financial aid from government. He observed that ‘the Tweed and the Solway seem insurpassable obstacles to enlightened statesmanship in advancing the salutary reign of the English liturgy, and their energy seems impaired in proportion to the necessities of those who claim its exercise’.20 He approved of Richard Martin’s ill-treatment of animals bill, 24 Mar. 1825, believing that ‘no duty’ was ‘more imperative upon the House than that of affording protection to animals’. He clarified his position on the corn laws, 2 May, explaining that farmers deserved protection ‘to the extent of the poor rates and the particular duties drawn from agriculture’, but that they were ‘not ... entitled to the same protection against foreign competition as other manufacturers received’. He presented a Renfrewshire cotton spinners’ petition for reduced working hours, 31 May, and one from weavers in the West of Scotland against re-enactment of the combination laws, 21 June, when he suggested that they might be ‘bound by indentures ... to ensure ... good workmanship’.21 He voted for Hume’s amendment to the combination bill to prevent factory masters from enforcing the law as justices, 27 June, and declared that ‘combinations must be rendered legal, or a minimum of wages established’, 30 June 1825. He attended the Renfrewshire meeting, 28 Feb. 1826, and carried modified resolutions on the Scottish banking system, recommending that the withdrawal of small notes be deferred until the superiority of the metallic substitute had been ‘demonstrated by the projected alteration in the currency of England’.22 He maintained that it was ‘impossible to keep faith with the public creditor and ... continue a metallic currency’ without tax reductions, 26 May. That day he presented a petition from a ‘vast number’ of unemployed artisans at Pollokshaws asking for assistance to emigrate. Shortly afterwards the chancellor of the exchequer, Robinson, wrote expressing regret that he and the premier had not been able to meet with Maxwell on this subject.23 At the general election that summer he was returned unopposed for Renfrewshire, after giving a detailed account of his parliamentary stewardship and explaining that, while he had ‘formerly advocated the cause of the farmer’, he believed the ‘case was now different’ and that the price of corn ‘should be regulated by the wages of the manufacturers’. He rejoiced at the triumph of ‘liberal opinions’, through the ‘all-powerful force of moral truth’, and acknowledged that there was ‘in the popular part’ of Liverpool’s government ‘a desire for improvement, and an anxiety to educate the people, which would do honour to the Whigs themselves’. He pledged to do ‘all ... in his power to remove the shackles which had so long been laid on human nature’; ‘they should have free thought as well as free trade’.24
He attended the Lanarkshire meeting on distress, 23 Sept. 1826, when he urged the need to ‘strike at the root of the evil’, as the ‘great mass of the inhabitants’ had been ‘reduced to a state of mendicity from the effects of war and misrule’, and everything should be done to help them even if it involved ‘trenching on the property of the county or the kingdom’.25 Early in 1827 he presented several petitions from Scottish operatives for assistance to emigrate, and he expressed the hope, 16 Feb., that ministers might ‘take advantage of the feeling which at present prevailed in the House on the subject’. He again complained of the ‘inundation’ of Irish into Scotland, 9 Mar. That month he sent Peel details of a scheme to help 300 families emigrate to Canada, with some accompanying remarks on the ‘abuse of the poor law in Scotland’. However, his requests to the new prime minister, Canning, for the coalition government to make a £50,000 donation to the emigration relief committee fund were finally disappointed, 18 May.26 Presenting a petition from the ‘productive classes’ of Renfrewshire for free trade in corn and parliamentary reform, 22 Feb., he observed that the former would ‘partly indemnify the artisan and labourer for the evils induced by the rivalry of mechanical labour without disturbing the general law for agricultural protection’, and declared that ‘the genius and spirit of the constitution’ justified extending the franchise to ‘those who paid taxes’, which would in turn ‘produce greater economy in government’. He presented a Rutherglen petition for revision of the corn laws, 12 Mar., and stated that ‘it was his intention to vote for the lowest duties’.27 He paired for Catholic relief, 6 Mar. He divided against Canning’s ministry to separate bankruptcy jurisdiction from the court of chancery, 22 May. He voted with the majorities to disfranchise Penryn, 28 May, and for Lord Althorp’s election expenses bill, 28 May 1827. He divided against the duke of Wellington’s ministry for more efficient control over crown proceedings for the recovery of penalties under the customs and excise laws, 1 May, to condemn the misapplication of public money for building work at Buckingham House, 23 June, inquire into the Irish church establishment, 24 June, refer the additional churches bill to a committee, 30 June, and reduce the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 July 1828. However, he voted ‘with pleasure’ for the financial provision for Canning’s family, as his services to the country were ‘well deserving of reward’, 22 May. He presented three Glasgow petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, which reflected ‘the sentiments of the whole body of Dissenters in Scotland’, 2 May. He divided for Catholic relief, 12 May. He hoped that government would pass the ‘anxiously looked for’ Scottish parochial settlements bill, 6 May, and argued that the Irish, who ‘benefit by a low price of labour’, should ‘partake of the burdens which its introduction imposes upon Scotland’; he added that the poor law system ‘diminishes the real value of the union between the three countries’. He considered the usury laws amendment bill ‘somewhat objectionable in a moral point of view, and on the principle of justice’, 20 May, and cautioned against making it retrospective, as many would be ‘involved in ruin’. He declared his ‘decided feeling in favour of a silver currency’, 16 June. He supported an inquiry into the Colne handloom weavers’ petition for wage regulation, 1 July 1828, warning that ‘the question is not yet set at rest’.
He voted for the government’s Catholic emancipation bill, 6, 30 Mar. 1829, when he claimed that the Scottish people were ‘nearly divided upon it’, with the ‘lower classes’ being mostly hostile, whereas ‘the more intelligent’ were ‘happy to see the legislature following the lights of the age and spreading blessings over the kingdom’. He concurred with a friendly petition from Paisley, 7 Apr., that ‘the principles of the constitution are attacked’ by the Irish disfranchisement bill, on which he had not voted from ‘fear of having it used as a precedent in cases of future votes upon corrupt boroughs’. Nevertheless, he believed that Irish 40s. freeholds were a ‘great encouragement to those hovel establishments, which send out constant swarms of poor, uneducated labourers ... into England and Scotland’. That day he favoured referring petitions from the silk trade to a committee, observing that outside Parliament ‘there prevails the greatest possible disbelief of the advantages of the free trade system’. He presented a Renfrewshire freeholders’ petition for inquiry into distress, 7 May, but said he had refrained from submitting the desired motion for wage regulation because of the ‘strong feeling’ in the House against it. However, when presenting a Renfrewshire weavers’ petition for such regulation, 1 June, he announced that if no inquiry was granted he would move for one next session. He voted for a fixed duty on imported corn, 19 May. On 28 May he and the deputy advocate, Henry Home Drummond, introduced the Scottish landward parishes assessment bill, to give magistrates discretionary powers to vary the poor rate in certain districts, ‘so as to preserve the distinction between the local poor and the hordes who flock in upon them’. It permitted a higher rate of assessment to be imposed on ‘those bringing in [Irish] migrants’, who had spread the ‘same improvident spirit among the lower classes of the Scotch people’; his measure sought to ‘uphold those distinctions of character which it is ... important to maintain among the poor and the unfortunate’. The bill gained its second reading, 1 June, but made no further progress.28 He thought it was ‘now obvious’, 12 June, that the resumption of cash payments ought to have been accompanied by tax reductions on the necessaries of life, but the ‘unequal management of the public concerns’ had ‘operated ... injuriously upon prices and given a stimulus to machinery, so as to affect the wages of labour’. He urged ministers to consider a levy ‘even ... at the rate of 25 per cent upon real capital’, and favoured ‘some arrangement’ to encourage employers and workmen to fix wage rates monthly. He was surprised that the government’s seisins bill did not ‘put an end to these forms altogether’, 31 Mar. He supported the Scottish gaols bill, 27 May, but reiterated his desire to see an end to imprisonment for small debts. He voted to reduce the grant for the sculpture of the marble arch, 25 May, and for Lord Blandford’s reform resolutions, 2 June. He presented a Renfrewshire petition against renewal of the East India Company’s charter, 3 June 1829. In January 1830 he approved of the planned county meeting on distress and advised against any appearance of hostility to ministers, who had ‘already shown so much political resolution, when the general good required it’ and might be persuaded to ‘speedily introduce a more equitable system of finance’. He chaired the meeting, which carried resolutions in favour of tax reductions and public works, 4 Feb.29 He said he would not oppose the second reading of the poor removal bill, 26 May, but warned that ‘some apprehension is felt on the subject in Scotland’. He reintroduced his landward parishes bill, 7 June, and secured its second reading, 24 June, but he agreed to postpone it until another session, 8 July. He supported Attwood’s currency motion, 8 June, as the silver standard was ‘merely ... a restoration of our ancient system’ and would promote employment and better wages. He welcomed the government’s ‘most proper and just’ Scottish judicature bill, to create a more ‘expeditious and economical’ system, 1 Apr., and praised their conduct in ‘giving up so much patronage’. He was pleased that it was ‘only an incipient bill’, 18 June, but noted with regard to judges’ salaries that ‘even in these pinching times ... [the] question of expense ought not to be too closely looked at’, as ‘first-rate talent ... must be liberally paid’. He voted to reduce the grant for public buildings, 3 May, and for Labouchere’s motion regarding the civil government of Canada, 25 May. He divided against abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 7 June. He had ‘very serious objections’ to the usury laws repeal bill, which would ‘tend to produce great confusion’ with respect to public works contracts, 14 June. He paired against additional securities in the libel law amendment bill, 6 July 1830. At the dissolution that summer he made way for Sir Michael Shaw Stewart, Member for Lanarkshire, in accordance with an arrangement made in December 1828, and he chose not to contest Lanarkshire as originally envisaged, leaving it to his father. Intriguingly, before making this decision he had communicated with Lord Rosslyn, a prominent Scottish Tory, who assured him ‘respecting the Lanark election’ that ‘the support you have afforded to ... government in the late questions of the session will be acknowledged with thanks’.30 He delivered a farewell address at Renfrew, where he observed that last session he had ‘been seen supporting ministers more than on any former occasion’. He endorsed Shaw Stewart as an ‘independent’ who would ‘keep himself ... free from the wiles of Court and ... the patronage of ministers’ and not support ‘any rash or visionary wars ... to interfere with the liberties of other countries’. One who heard him speak did ‘not desire to hear him again’ and was ‘not surprised the H. of C. would not listen to him’.31
Maxwell offered for Lanarkshire at the general election in May 1831 as a supporter of the Grey ministry’s ‘great and efficacious’ reform bill. He maintained that ‘the people ... were entitled to the ... franchise from their education and intellectual capacities’, and was confident that reform would ‘strengthen’ the constitution. He was defeated by the Tory sitting Member after a riotous contest.32 On 17 Oct. he spoke at a Renfrewshire meeting in favour of an address to the king for the creation of new peers, to facilitate the passage of reform, and at a similar meeting in Lanarkshire, 7 Nov., he expressed confidence that Grey would be ‘the deliverer of this country’. A letter from him was read to a meeting of the Renfrewshire Political Union, 13 Nov. 1831, stating that he had been in communication with Lord John Russell to suggest improvements to the voter qualification clauses of the Scottish bill, but he declined an invitation to act as the union’s London representative.33 At the general election of 1832, when his father was returned for Paisley, he accepted a requisition to stand for Lanarkshire, as one who was ‘favourable disposed’ to the Whig ministry and prepared ‘in some questions, such as the emancipation of slaves, free trade, East India and Bank charters ... to defer to their knowledge and integrity’; he was comfortably returned and sat until his retirement in 1837.34 He succeeded to his father’s title and ‘large estates’ in Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire in 1844. He died in June 1865 and was succeeded by his nephew William Stirling Maxwell (1818-78).35
Ref Volumes: 1820-1832
Author: Terry Jenkins
- 1. Glasgow City Archives, Maxwell mss T-PM 116/184; 117/2/60.
- 2. Glasgow Herald, 6, 24 Mar. 1820.
- 3. Maxwell mss T-PM 117/3/225.
- 4. The Times, 20 May 1820.
- 5. Maxwell mss T-PM 117/2/81; 117/3/33.
- 6. Ibid. 116/213.
- 7. Glasgow Herald, 5, 8 Jan. 1821.
- 8. The Times, 14 Feb. 1821.
- 9. Ibid. 8, 9 Apr. 1821.
- 10. Glasgow Herald, 13 Apr. 1821.
- 11. HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 105.
- 12. The Times, 30 June 1821.
- 13. Glasgow Herald, 12 Oct., 14 Dec. 1821, 4, 8 Feb. 1822.
- 14. The Times, 30 Apr., 8 May 1822.
- 15. Glasgow Herald, 10, 17, 24 Jan.; The Times, 21 Feb. 1823.
- 16. The Times, 5 Mar. 1823.
- 17. Maxwell mss T-PM 117/5/34.
- 18. The Times, 13 May 1824.
- 19. Ibid. 15 May 1824.
- 20. Add. 40364, f. 125.
- 21. The Times, 1, 22 June 1825.
- 22. Glasgow Herald, 3 Mar. 1826.
- 23. The Times, 27 May 1826; Maxwell mss T-PM 117/2/22.
- 24. Greenock Advertiser, 4 July 1826.
- 25. Glasgow Herald, 25 Sept. 1826.
- 26. The Times, 13, 17 Feb., 11, 12 Apr., 9 May 1827; Add. 40392, ff. 281-93.
- 27. The Times, 13 Mar. 1827.
- 28. P. Jupp, British Politics on Eve of Reform, 176-7.
- 29. Glasgow Herald, 22 Jan., 5 Feb. 1830.
- 30. Maxwell mss T-PM 117/1/179; 117/3/1.
- 31. Glasgow Herald, 13 Aug. 1830; Hopetoun mss 167, f. 161.
- 32. Glasgow Herald, 16 May 1831.
- 33. Ibid. 21 Oct., 11, 18, 21 Nov. 1831.
- 34. Ibid. 30 July, 24, 31 Dec. 1832.
- 35. Gent. Mag. (1865), ii. 244-5.