Family and Education

b. 6 Sept. 1767, 6th s. of Abel Smith† (d. 1788), banker, of Nottingham and London and Mary, da. of Thomas Bird of Barton, Warws.; bro. of George Smith* and Samuel Smith*. m. (1) 1 Dec. 1793, Sarah (d. 23 Sept. 1794), da. of Thomas Boone, commr. of customs, s.p.; (2) 6 Jan. 1800, Mary (d. 9 Apr. 1809), da. of Lt.-Col. Martin Tucker, 2s.; (3) 1 May 1811, Emma, da. of Egerton Leigh of West Hall, High Leigh, Cheshire, 2da. d. 20 Jan. 1842.

Offices Held

Vol. London and Westminster light horse 1798.

Dir. W.I. Dock Co. 1804-11, 1817-24, 1828-30, 1832-4, 1837-8, dep.-chairman 1812-13, chairman 1814; treas. bd. of agriculture 1807-16; dir. Imperial Insurance Co. 1813-31, Imperial Fire Insurance Co. 1831-4, 1836-40; commr. of exch. bill loans 1818-40.

Biography

Smith, ‘one of the City’s most eminent bankers’, was with his brother George in effective control of the London bank of Smith, Payne and Smith from 1799, and he belonged to the boards of the family concerns in Derby, Hull and Nottingham.1 With George he also shared the patronage of Midhurst, for which he again returned himself in 1820. He was an assiduous attender and frequent speaker, who continued to vote on most issues with the Whig opposition to Lord Liverpool’s ministry, including parliamentary reform, 9 May 1821, 25 Apr. 1822, 24 Apr., 2 June 1823, 26 Feb. 1824, 13 Apr. 1826. He divided for Catholic relief, 28 Feb. 1821, 1 Mar., 21 Apr., 10 May 1825. On fiscal matters, in which his expertise was widely acknowledged, and in which the influence of David Ricardo* and other political economists is apparent,2 he steered his own course. He called for ‘the establishment of a permanent system of finance’ to enhance confidence in the economy, 12 May 1820. While advocating repeal of the wool tax, 26 May, he cautioned that ‘any measure tending to lessen the means of supporting the public credit should be viewed with some degree of alarm’. He queried an issue of exchequer bills to reduce the unfunded debt, 31 May. Responding to the budget, 19 June, he observed that ‘the real state of our finances was very little known in the House’ and called for their careful scrutiny, while he chided the chancellor of the exchequer, Vansittart, for his overoptimistic forecasts for debt reduction.3 He spoke and voted for greater efficiency in revenue collection, 4 July 1820.

Encouraged by George Tierney*, Smith convened a meeting of London merchants, bankers and traders, 24 Jan. 1821, when he proposed resolutions in support of Queen Caroline.4 Presenting the resulting petition, 2 Feb., he complained of the organized disruption of the meeting by opponents, and gave notice of a motion for the restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy. Thomas Creevey* noted that ‘coming from him this motion may be considered as made from that City meeting, and must consequently produce a great impression’. The resulting speech was ‘listened to with the deepest attention’, 13 Feb., when Smith claimed that his only motive for acting was to end the ‘disturbance and distraction which prevailed in the country on this subject’. While he might welcome the appointment of a Whig ministry, he neither sought nor expected to benefit personally from such a development. He also took the opportunity to attack the government’s foreign policy and its inaction on domestic distress, though he was ‘not among those who thought that agriculture was in a state of ruin’. His motion was lost by 298-178, and this was the last throw of the opposition campaign.5 He supported repeal of the house and window taxes, 6 Mar., but his preference was for lifting the duty on salt. He opposed repeal of the additional malt duty, 3 Apr., suggesting that relief from agricultural distress might be more effectually achieved by reform of the poor laws and adherence to ‘a rigid system of economy’. He denied that the agricultural interest had been damaged by the resumption of cash payments, 9 Apr. He supported a reduction in the army estimates, 30 Mar., declaring that ‘no person should be employed by the state whose services were not absolutely necessary’. However, he only voted to reduce the ordnance office grant after Hume agreed to omit a number of proposed salary reductions from his amendment, 14 May. He spoke against the grant for Millbank penitentiary, 29 May.6 He favoured mitigation of the punishment for forgery, 26 Mar., 13, 25 May, 4 June, explaining that its severity deterred many bankers from prosecuting.7 In supporting the steam engines bill, 7 May, he expressed concern for the health of the poor. He approved of legislation against cruelty to horses, 1 June.8 His bill to liberalize the bankruptcy laws gained a third reading, 4 June 1821, but made no further progress.

He advocated reduction of the ‘odious’ tax on salt, 28 Feb. 1822. He was critical of the privileges of the Bank of England and opposed the extension of its charter, 2 May. He blamed agricultural distress on the ‘superabundant harvest’, 13 May, when he expressed regret that illness had prevented him from opposing Wyvill’s proposed tax reductions five days earlier. He warned that any attempt to reduce stockholders’ interest would lead to disinvestment, and so to ‘infamy and ruin’. In response to the budget, 1 July, he observed that the ruin of many small farmers would inevitably drive up prices and so relieve agricultural distress. Speaking as a member of the London Tavern relief committee, he informed the House of the gravity of the famine in Ireland, 17 June. He advocated Catholic relief, tithe reform and inquiry into the state of the country rather than renewal of the Irish Insurrection Act, 9 July 1822, as the failure of repressive measures had been demonstrated. He was added to the select committee on foreign trade, 25 Feb. 1823 (and reappointed, 4 Mar. 1824). He defended the government’s policy on the sinking fund, 3, 6, 11 Mar. He supported reform of the law regarding insolvent debtors, 11, 18 Mar., and on the former date backed the small debts recovery bill.9 He derided the usury laws for their practical uselessness, 17 June, and was a tireless advocate of their repeal in the next three sessions, although this ran contrary to the majority view of the committee of bankers, of which he was chairman. His bill for the better protection of merchants’ goods abroad gained royal assent, 25 July (4 Geo. IV c. 83). Surprisingly, The Times listed him as having voted with ministers against repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 16 Apr.10 He spoke in favour of the abolition of punishment by whipping, 30 Apr. He approved of the suppression of cruel animal sports, 21 May, but saw education as the best solution. He highlighted the success of non-denominational Sunday schools as a civilizing influence in Ireland, 12 May. In the debate on the prosecution of the Dublin Orange rioters, 26 May, he expressed disappointment that Canning’s return to office had not signalled the adoption of a more liberal policy. He advocated government grants to promote employment in and encourage migration from Ireland, 23 June 1823.11 Next day he complained of widespread abuses in that country’s administrative machinery.

He approved of William Courtenay’s bill to amend the bankruptcy laws, 18 Feb. 1824. He attacked puritanical attitudes towards debt, 23 Feb., arguing that ‘credit was the basis of our prosperity and the foundation of all property in the country’. His speech that day against the tax on legal proceedings won a concession from ministers. He congratulated them for rescinding the duty on silk, 5 Mar. However, he was critical of grants for building work at Windsor Castle and for new churches, 9 Apr., and cited the education of the poor as a more deserving object of expenditure. He called for further measures to minimize the risk to traders operating abroad, 17 May, 1 June,12 and was a teller for the marine insurance bill, 15 June. He advocated an end to flogging in the army, 11 Mar. He supported reform of the game laws, but not the use of hard labour as a punishment, 31 May.13 In the context of the vagrants bill, 3 June, he argued for the effectiveness of solitary confinement in gaols. He demanded an inquiry into the cost of the Irish government, 12 Mar., and larded his subsequent speeches with examples of rough justice and maladministration. He defended the miscellaneous estimates grant with an assertion that ‘much of [England’s] present splendour and prosperity derived from the humiliation of Ireland’, 19 Mar. He regarded ‘moral improvement’ as an imperative for the Irish people and supported a select committee on education, 25 Mar. He queried the religious bias of voluntary subscription schools, 29 Mar. He backed Maberly’s proposal for low interest loans to stimulate Irish manufacturing, 4 May, citing his experience as a commissioner of road and bridge building grants to illustrate the effectiveness of this kind of interventionist policy. Having no personal interest at stake he declined to be added to the select committee on the state of Ireland, 25 May, to the disappointment of Thomas Spring Rice, who praised his exertions on this subject.14 He opposed the renewal of the Irish Insurrection Act, 14 June 1824. At the end of the year he attended the London Tavern meeting to raise a subscription on behalf of Spanish and Italian refugees.15 He contrasted the government’s readiness to suppress the Catholic Association with its failure to act against Orange Lodges, 10 Feb., and accordingly felt ‘deep grief’ at the unlawful societies bill, 23 Feb. 1825.16 He spoke in favour of Catholic relief, which he saw as a matter of civil rights, 19, 21, 26 Apr., and praised the conduct and integrity of English Catholics. He favoured a reduction in the sugar duties, 28 Feb., and the transfer of the duty on beer to malt, 15 Mar. In opposing the quarantine laws as an unnecessary restraint on trade, 10, 30 Mar., 13, 19 May, he propounded the anti-contagionist theories then coming into vogue. He spoke in favour of restricting the hours worked by children in cotton mills, 6, 16, 31 May. He opposed the reduction proposed in the London tithes bill, 7 May 1825. That summer, after a fraud case involving his own bank had highlighted the inefficiency of the London police, he sought advice from Henry Brougham*, as he thought the committee of bankers might ask him to raise the matter. He complained that the home secretary Peel ‘has often swaggered about in the ... Commons, but [he] is incapable of forming a national plan which might be adopted without any infringement of the liberty of the subject’.17

As crisis in the financial world loomed, Smith sought to allay fears about the depletion of the country bankers’ gold reserves, 22 June, and the parallel overcirculation of paper currency, 27 June 1825. He told Brougham, 2 Sept., that the stock exchange panic of the previous month had been ‘entirely attributable to the measures pursued by the Bank of England of diminishing their circulation’, and warned that the directors’ ‘imprudence’ had excited ‘so strong a feeling ... among the leaders of the monied interest that I anticipate important consequences’. Six days later he was more optimistic, reporting that ‘the exchanges and the funds are rising so that I hope the commercial world will in time, though I fear not immediately, recover its former tranquillity’. In December 1825 he came to the aid of the stricken banking house of Pole, Thornton and Company, liaising with Bank of England directors, but he could not avert its eventual collapse.18 At the opening of the parliamentary session, 2 Feb. 1826, he urged the chancellor of the exchequer Robinson to clarify his stated intention of allowing the Bank to open branches. He joined in the call for a return of bankrupt country bankers, 9 Feb., though he deplored the scapegoating of this group for the panic. He missed Robinson’s speech the next day, owing to a ‘severe indisposition’, but, noting the particular sufferings of poorer holders of worthless paper currency, he supported the chancellor’s proposal to limit the circulation of small notes, 13 Feb., as he believed that public disquiet made some form of action imperative. Nonetheless, he indicated support for a bimetallic currency standard, the favoured scheme of Alexander Baring, who moved the hostile amendment on this occasion. After the debate he told John Cam Hobhouse* that there was ‘the greatest confusion and panic in the City’.19 He approved the exemption of the Bank from the promissory notes bill, 20 Feb., and defended the conduct of its directors during the December panic. In keeping with his belief that ‘the conduct of government, on this and other occasions, should be regulated by public utility’, he urged ministers to make an exchequer bill issue to assist economic recovery. He expressed concern that the restrictions on the note issues from country banks were being imposed with undue haste, 28 Feb., 7 Mar. He condemned as ‘absurd and ill-digested’ an attempt to remodel the Bank’s charter along the lines of the Bank of Ireland, 9 Mar., and showed himself to be more enamoured of the Scottish banking system, 14 Mar. About this time he wrote to a colleague that

ministers have bungled the currency question most unpardonably. They have created a new panic, which I trust is subsiding, but which has occasioned great mischief. They treated my proposition of a committee with contempt, though they have displayed a complete ignorance of banking, and an entire distrust of those who knew something about it, and whose integrity they had no reason to suspect. This is Lord Liverpool’s doing and not Huskisson’s, who in his heart must be ashamed of the whole proceeding.20

He expressed understanding with Catholic antipathy to the Protestant charter schools in Ireland, 20 Mar., 14 Apr., 9 June. He called for inquiry into the condition of the Irish poor, 25 Apr., and the introduction of a poor law into that country, 27 Apr. He quizzed ministers over allegations of torture in New South Wales gaols, 14 Apr. He favoured a ban on spring guns, 27 Apr. His support for the government’s plan to admit foreign corn, 1, 8 May, stemmed from his concern over urban distress, on which he privately consulted leading ministers, 24 July 1826, and was reassured.21 At the general election that summer he again returned himself for Midhurst.

Outside Parliament, Smith’s philanthropic efforts in the field of education were conspicuous during the mid-1820s, when he was deeply involved in the foundation of University College, London. A member of the first council, he corresponded with Brougham on the site of the new institution and the recruitment of subscribers, and was himself a generous benefactor of land and money. His commitment to the ethos of the project was evident in the ‘great difficulties’ he found over his relative William Wilberforce’s* insistence on the inclusion of a Christian element in the curriculum as the price for his support.22 At the same time, he reported on the success of an experiment in elementary education which he had initiated, involving the instruction of ten poor boys in French and Latin. In a letter of 1829 he proudly referred Francis Place to his ‘little school’, apparently located near the Sussex residence he had purchased in 1827, which had been honoured by a visit from James Mill. Later he collaborated with Place on similar projects in London.23

Smith supported an inquiry into Members’ interest in joint-stock companies, 5 Dec. 1826, and denied that any of those in which he was involved, such as the Australian Company, were speculative ventures. His son subsequently noted that he was ‘endeavouring to remove from his mind feelings of anger and animosity’ towards newspaper editors who had impugned his motives for adopting this stance.24 He called for bankruptcy cases to be removed from the jurisdiction of chancery and for a reduction in the number of commissioners, 27 Feb. 1827. He divided for Catholic relief, 6 Mar. He advocated non-denominational education in Ireland, 19 Mar., spoke against taxing Catholics to build Protestant churches, 3 Apr., and voted for inquiry into the Irish miscellaneous estimates, 5 Apr. He questioned the efficiency and honesty of customs officers, 13 Mar., and voted for information regarding the mutiny at Barrackpoor, 22 Mar. In presenting a Bolton petition for a minimum wage, 28 Mar., he argued that mechanisation, far from causing distress, was an engine of wealth creation.25 He backed inquiry into London’s gaols, 3 Apr. He presented petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 30 May, 6 June 1827.26 With Lord John Russell, he was anxious to introduce the necessary legislation that session, but it was eventually deemed expedient to wait until the next. On 4 Feb. 1828 he apprized the House of the United Committee of Protestant Dissenters’ resolution not to link their claims with those of the Catholics, and he presented numerous petitions that month. In seconding Russell’s motion for repeal, 16 Feb., he observed that while the Test Acts were seldom enforced, their presence on the statute book was an insult to Dissenters, who were ‘as intelligent ... loyal ... industrious and prosperous a clan of people as any within His Majesty’s dominions’. The prejudice enshrined in these laws had no place in Smith’s world view, in which progressive forces could not be ‘gainsayed, or resisted’. He later cited his role in the repeal campaign as being among the proudest achievements of his parliamentary career. A numerously signed address from Liverpool Dissenters, 26 May, paid tribute to the ‘active and distinguished part you have taken in bringing about this happy event’, and praised his ‘generous zeal in favour of the principles of religious liberty’. Ill health prevented his attendance at a commemorative dinner, 18 June, when his eldest son represented him.27 He was not unfriendly towards Wilmot Horton’s proposals for the encouragement of emigration, 4, 27 Mar., but was more enthusiastic about an allotments scheme which he had promoted to relieve unemployed labourers in one Sussex village. He recognized the need to halt migration from Ireland and supported the introduction of a poor law system there, 18 Apr. He spoke against flogging in the army, 10 Mar. He voted against the duke of Wellington’s ministry to extend East Retford’s franchise to Bassetlaw freeholders, 21 Mar. He paired for Catholic relief, 12 May 1828, and continued to present numerous petitions in its favour. Ill health was surely the explanation for his non-attendance to support the government’s emancipation bill in 1829, when there is no record of any parliamentary activity. In a letter to the editor of the Edinburgh Review, 13 Oct. 1829, he mentioned plans to visit Bath to cure a stomach complaint, and the recuperative effects of a sojourn in Perthshire earlier that year.28

He reappeared in the Commons to speak in favour of providing allotments for the poor, 9 Mar. 1830, citing the success of a scheme which he had originated in Essex and warning that ‘unless something is done to assist the labouring classes, violence, murder and destruction of property will ensue’. He voted with the revived Whig opposition to omit the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 29 Mar., and reduce the grant for Prince Edward Island, 14 June. He divided for Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr., 17 May, and parliamentary reform, 28 May. In April, Wellington noted the conversion to ministerial politics of certain members of the Smith family, including Lord Carrington, who ‘thinks he can neutralise his brother John Smith’. However, this proved to be a forlorn hope: Smith’s personal attitude to Wellington can be guessed at from a nursery rhyme in his archive, written in his own hand, which characterized the duke as a baby-eater.29 He presented a petition from several eminent bankers against the death penalty for forgery, 14 May, and voted accordingly, 7 June. He presented a petition against taxes on paper and newspapers from a self-improvement society of which he was a patron, 19 May, and one for the substitution of a solemn affirmation for oaths, 24 June. He called for information on Irish loans, 6 July 1830. At the general election that summer he accepted an invitation to stand for Chichester. His campaign emphasized his commitment to parliamentary reform, civil and religious liberty, and retrenchment and tax reductions, and he praised the government’s efforts in the last area. He condemned the ‘harsh application’ of the game laws and pointed to his efforts to promote education. His religious affiliation came under scrutiny on the hustings and, though he denied being a Unitarian, he admitted to reading unorthodox pamphlets. He was comfortably returned in second place, ahead of a radical.30

The ministry of course listed him among their ‘foes’, and he duly voted against them in the crucial civil list division, 15 Nov. 1830. He presented anti-slavery petitions from Dissenting congregations, 4, 17 Nov., and one from Catholic freeholders in Galway for an extension of the elective franchise there, 16 Dec. 1830. He felt that magistrates had dealt too leniently with rioters in the agricultural districts, 8 Feb. 1831, and maintained that the distress in his Sussex locality was not of a magnitude to excuse such behaviour. However, he admitted the extent of the problem in western counties, and suggested emigration as a partial remedy. He supported another attempt to promote allotment schemes, 16 Feb., and the following month he chaired the inaugural meeting of the Sussex Association for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes.31 His attempts to interest the House in the renewed problem of distress in Ireland received a muted response, 28 Feb., 18, 22 Mar. While professing reluctance to embarrass Lord Grey’s ministry, he nevertheless savaged the budget proposal to tax the transfer of stock, 11 Feb. He asserted that had such an ‘ill advised and dangerous’ measure been in operation before, it would have been impossible to fund the French wars and the consequences of the financial crisis of 1825-6 would have been disastrous. He recommended an income tax on the wealthy as an alternative. His intervention may have helped to influence the government’s decision to abandon its plan, for as Denis Le Marchant† noted, his was ‘the speech that vexed us most ... as we knew him to be a friend’.32 He spoke in favour of reforming the bankruptcy laws, 21 Feb. Commenting on the London merchants’ reform petition, 26 Feb., he emphasized the number of signatories who were recent converts to the cause because they saw it as a necessary means of social containment. He made similar remarks on the petition from Chichester corporation, 4 Mar., when he observed that his anomalous position as a borough owning reformer had ‘enabled me to do what I confess has given me delight, return one or two Whig Members to this House’. He admitted that the extent of the government’s bill had ‘taken away my breath, so surprised and delighted was I to find the ministers so much in earnest’, though he foresaw ‘difficulties in the execution of parts of the scheme’. One observer described his speech as being ‘strongly in favour of the bill’.33 He spoke in support of several Sussex reform petitions, 9 Mar., and divided for the bill’s second reading, 22 Mar. In presenting a friendly petition from London merchants, 18 Apr. 1831, he argued that this refuted the charge that the measure was revolutionary, as ‘the petitioners would be the first victims of revolution’. He voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment the next day. At the ensuing dissolution he declined an invitation to stand for London, owing to the arduous duties involved, but answered the call of the Buckinghamshire reformers to offer in place of his nephew Robert John Smith*. Possessed of no property in the county, he commended himself to the freeholders on the strength of his ‘well known and ancient attachment to the cause of liberty in general, and above all, to reform in Parliament’. Among the benefits he anticipated from the government’s measure were a fairer judicial system and an end to ‘unnecessary wars’, such as those against revolutionary France. He was returned after a contest, in which he was notably successful in attracting the votes of Dissenters.34

On hearing Thomas Macaulay’s speech in support of the reintroduced reform bill, 5 July 1831, Smith paid him an emotional private tribute;35 he divided for the second reading next day, and steadily for its details. He defended the inclusion of Midhurst in schedule A, 22 July, though he argued somewhat disingenuously for the incorruptibility of the burgage holders. When ministers failed to provide a lead in the case of Saltash, 26 July, he voted for its complete disfranchisement. That day he warned opposition leaders that their delaying tactics could provoke public unrest if the bill’s passage was imperilled, and he suggested an earlier starting time for debates. He denied that support for the bill in the country was confined to the middle classes, though he would ‘rather take [this] for a test than any other’. He was well disposed, as a former resident, to grant Tower Hamlets two Members, 4 Aug., seeing this as a ‘safety valve opening a safe and constitutional channel for the expression of public opinion’. He divided for the third reading, 19 Sept., the second reading of the Scottish bill, 23 Sept., and Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. He voted to punish only those guilty of bribery at the Dublin election, 23 Aug. He spoke in support of the general registry bill, 20 Sept., and revived his interest in reform of the bankruptcy laws, which he said was long overdue, 5, 12 Oct. He divided for the second reading of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831, and for its details. On 21 Feb. 1832 he faced opposition accusations that he had engineered the partial reprieve of Midhurst, which was now scheduled to retain one Member, and answered truthfully that under the new franchise his influence would be totally destroyed. In supporting the enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb., he again referred to the threat of insurrection. He voted for the third reading, 22 Mar., Ebrington’s motion for an address asking the king to appoint only ministers committed to carrying an unimpaired measure, 10 May, and against the Conservative amendment to increase Scotland’s county representation, 1 June. He was named to the committee of secrecy on the renewal of the Bank of England’s charter, 23 May. In supporting Sadler’s proposal to impose a tax on absentee Irish landlords, 19 June, he expressed personal concern for the condition of the poor in Ireland and criticized the indifference of landlords to their plight. He was a majority teller against a call of the House, 12 July, before voting with ministers on the Russian-Dutch loan, as he did again, 20 July 1832.

Smith was again returned for Buckinghamshire at the general election of 1832 and sat until his retirement in 1834. He died in January 1842 as a result of draining a bottle of laudanum in mistake for cough medicine. He divided his real estate between his sons John Abel Smith* and Martin Tucker Smith*, and left personalty sworn under £250,000.36

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Howard Spencer

Notes

• 1. J. Leighton-Boyce, Smiths the Bankers, 127, 270; NatWest Archives, Smith/2/1987.
• 2. Brougham mss, Smith to Brougham, 19 Sept. 1825.
• 3. The Times, 20 June 1820.
• 4. Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 13 Jan.; The Times, 25 Jan. 1821.
• 5. Creevey’s Life and Times, 138.
• 6. The Times, 30 May 1821.
• 7. Ibid. 27 Mar., 5 June 1821.
• 8. Ibid. 2 June 1821.
• 9. Ibid. 12, 19 Mar. 1823.
• 10. Ibid. 22 Apr. 1823.
• 11. Ibid. 24 June 1823.
• 12. Ibid. 2 June 1824.
• 13. Ibid. 1 June 1824.
• 14. Ibid. 26 May 1824.
• 15. Northants. RO, Agar Ellis diary, 17 Dec. 1824.
• 16. The Times, 24 Feb., 8 Mar. 1825.
• 17. Brougham mss, Smith to Brougham, 14 Aug. 1825.
• 18. Ibid. Smith to Brougham, 2, 8 Sept. 1825; Leighton-Boyce, 126.
• 19. Add. 56550, f. 49.
• 20. Cockburn Letters, 138.
• 21. Brougham mss, Smith to Brougham, 25 July 1826.
• 22. Ibid. Smith to Brougham, 15 July, 14, 24 Aug., 2, 8, 16 Sept. 1825, 25 July 1826; C. New, Henry Brougham, 361, 365, 371.
• 23. Add. 34613, f. 278; 35149, ff. 203-4; 37950, f. 52; D. Miles, Francis Place, 220; A. Dale, Fashionable Brighton, 54.
• 24. W. Suss. RO Add. 22339.
• 25. The Times, 29 Mar. 1827.
• 26. Ibid. 31 May, 7 June 1827.
• 27. R.G. Cowherd, Politics of Dissent, 68; R. W. Davis, Dissent in Politics, 240, 244; W. Suss. RO Add. 22258, 22263, 22466.
• 28. Add. 34613, f. 278.
• 29. Add. 40309, f. 31; W. Suss. RO Add. 22249.
• 30. Chichester Election Procs. (1830), pp. 22, 64, 135-6, 146, 158.
• 31. BL C.T. 17.
• 32. Three Diaries, 9, 50.
• 33. Add. 51576, Fazakerley to Holland, 4 Mar. 1831.
• 34. Bucks. Gazette, 30 Apr., 7, 14, 21 May 1831; R.W. Davis, Political Change and Continuity, 94-95.
• 35. Macaulay Letters, ii. 63.
• 36. W. Suss. RO Add. 22514; PROB 11/1960/208; IR26/1623/148.