Available from Cambridge University Press
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Estimated number qualified to vote:
742 in 18311
Number of voters:
522 in 1830
5,079 (1821); 6,840 (1831)
|8 Mar. 1820||FRANCIS MOLYNEUX OMMANNEY|
|8 Mar. 1824||FREDERICK HODGSON vice Nolan, appointed a Welsh judge||181|
|10 June 1826||FREDERICK HODGSON||401|
|2 Aug. 1830||STEPHENS LYNE STEPHENS||370|
|Sir Colin Campbell||246|
|3 May 1831||FREDERICK HODGSON||245|
|JOHN PALMER BRUCE CHICHESTER||218|
Barnstaple, a seaport and market town situated at the head of the Taw estuary, had been an important distribution centre since medieval times. By the early nineteenth century it depended on a ‘steady ... perhaps not very lucrative’ coastal trade, involving corn, leather and other materials drawn from ‘an extensive and improving’ hinterland, though there was some revival of overseas trade after bonded warehouses were established in 1822. The woollen industry was in decline, but lace manufacturing had recently been introduced and many people were employed in malting and shipbuilding. Its favourable location had encouraged many ‘independent families’ to settle in the town, making it ‘one of the most genteel ... in North Devon’, exhibiting ‘some marks of a metropolis’.2
The borough and parish were coextensive. Local power was exercised by the corporation, a non-partisan but self-perpetuating body consisting of a mayor (the returning officer for parliamentary elections), two aldermen and 22 capital burgesses, selected from the resident freemen; all held their offices for life. In 1834, five families supplied 13 of the corporation’s members. The franchise was in the freemen, who obtained their privilege through birth (all sons of freemen were eligible), apprenticeship or, more rarely, honorary gift. Freemen’s exemption from the town dues levied by the corporation was an additional cause of resentment among the unfranchised residents. Admissions were concentrated in the election years, totalling 28 in 1820, 48 in 1824, 38 in 1826, 65 in 1830 and 30 in 1831. Approximately two-thirds of the freemen were out-voters, many of whom resided in the west country, and there was a very large contingent in London.3 Barnstaple had a notorious reputation for venality and, as a local newspaper observed, ‘the political character’ of a candidate was of ‘small importance’ compared to his willingness to ‘bleed freely’. Corrupt practices had been organized into a system, exemplified by the operations of the London-based ‘agent or middle man’, John Stanbury, who told a Commons committee in 1827 that he had been active in his native borough since 1802. His method was to find a wealthy candidate whom he could recommend to the freemen with all his ‘persuasive eloquence ... backed by arguments of sterling weight’, which included bribes, lavish treating and the payment of extravagant ‘travelling expenses’. Many freemen apparently showed few scruples about breaking their promises and taking money from more than one candidate.4 After the 1818 general election Sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes*, whose contest, organized by the banker John Gribble, had cost £3,050, was unseated on petition and prosecuted for bribery, though he was finally acquitted. The Commons meantime suspended the writ while a bill was introduced to reform the borough by extending the franchise to freeholders in the surrounding hundreds. This encountered strong resistance from the corporation and London freemen, who incurred heavy legal expenses, and it failed to pass in the 1819 session. When the Lords rejected a proposal to add Barnstaple to Lord John Russell’s writs suspension bill, February 1820, the way was clear for normal electoral service to be resumed.5
At the dissolution in 1820 Joseph Davie Bassett of Watermouth, who had earlier canvassed the borough in the expectation of the franchise being extended, announced his withdrawal. It appeared there would be a ‘strong contest’ between three candidates ‘all friendly’ to Lord Liverpool’s ministry, the sitting Member, Francis Ommanney, a London naval agent, Michael Nolan, an Irish barrister who had acted as counsel for the corporation and freemen against the 1819 bill, and alderman John Atkins*, a wealthy merchant and former lord mayor of London. However Atkins, ‘not receiving sufficient support, declined the contest’, and Ommanney and Nolan were returned unopposed. Nolan congratulated the freemen on their conduct, which provided ‘a decided ... refutation of those calumnies with which you were so unjustly aspersed’, and he looked forward to a long connection with the borough.6 The occupiers of neighbouring land petitioned the Commons for relief from agricultural distress, 1 June 1820, 6 Mar. 1821.7 In November 1820 the news of the withdrawal of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline was celebrated with a dinner at the Golden Lion, attended by some 50 ‘respectable gentlemen, merchants and tradesmen’, where the speakers included Gribble and the merchant Robert Linnington. Following a requisition ‘signed by several clergymen, half-pay officers, and members of the corporation’ the mayor, Thomas Copner, chaired a public meeting, 22 Dec. 1820, when a loyal address to the king ‘full of complaints of the seditious press’ was proposed. Bassett moved an amendment, arguing that the address ‘ill became the corporation’, given the recent corruption proceedings, and he was supported by the Rev. Charles Hern and one Tamlyn, a conveyancer. Colonel Cutcliffe replied ‘in his usually violent language’ and the address was agreed, though few people were considered likely to sign it.8 The corporation and inhabitants petitioned the Commons for repeal of the coal duties, 11 Apr. 1823, 23 Feb. 1824.9
In March 1824 Nolan’s appointment as a Welsh judge obliged him to seek re-election. His hopes for an undisturbed return were disappointed when Atkins announced his ‘fixed and unalterable determination to go to the poll’. This prompted friends of the London brewer Frederick Hodgson, who had pledged to stand at the first opportunity when canvassing the borough the previous October, to put his name forward although he was in France and unable to return in time. For a week before polling the town was ‘all bustle, mirth and revelling’, as the non-resident voters arrived ‘in considerable numbers’. Hodgson’s campaign was organized by his attorney, one Burt, his friends Captain George Richardson, Henry Hole of Ebberly and William Curlin of London, and by ‘that celebrated General’, Stanbury. Nolan was introduced by the banker John Law and Captain John May, who commended his services in protecting the rights of the freemen and promoting the borough’s commercial interests. Atkins was nominated by the Rev. Henry Nicholls, who thought Nolan’s achievements had been exaggerated, and by the Rev. Charles Davie, who hoped ‘a man standing so high in the commercial world might with his giant arms swell the tide of our prosperity’. Hodgson was sponsored by George Cudlipp, a Tavistock attorney, and B. Oram. Nolan argued that it would be unfair to penalise him for accepting promotion from the king, Atkins made a ‘long and very able speech’ and Burt, representing Hodgson, maintained that neither commercial nor legal qualifications were required to make a good Member and that his client’s high character was a sufficient guarantee of his conduct. During the early hours of polling Nolan and Atkins had a clear advantage, ‘so much so that when ... Nolan had polled 91 votes ... Hodgson had only ... 37’; but thereafter the balance shifted and at the end of the day Nolan and Hodgson were level on 124 votes, ahead of Atkins with 109. It was unprecedented for polling to be extended to a second day, and the intervening Sunday was ‘a fearful and busy time’ as the candidates ‘collected their remaining forces’. On Monday morning ‘a few persons’ in Nolan’s interest ‘took up their freedom’, polling recommenced and it lasted until 2.30, when Hodgson was declared elected. Nolan addressed the crowd ‘in a serious, manly and liberal strain’, while Atkins spoke ‘as merrily as if he had been the successful Member, and very argumentatively’. Burt returned thanks for Hodgson, Richardson was chaired on his behalf and the victorious party gave several dinners.10 All of the 450 votes cast (one was given to the mayor) were of course plumpers: 40 per cent voted for Hodgson, 34 for Nolan and 25 for Atkins. Of those who polled, 166 (36 per cent) were residents, from whom Hodgson secured 72 votes (40 per cent of his total), Nolan 61 (46) and Atkins 33 (29). Hodgson received 45 votes (25 per cent of his total) from the London freemen and Nolan only 19 (12), while Atkins did better with 27 (24).11 The inhabitants petitioned the Commons for inquiry into the trial of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara, 24 May 1824, and against slavery, 17 Apr. 1826.12 They also presented anti-Catholic petitions to Parliament, 18, 20 Apr. 1825.13
In September 1825 Henry Alexander, an East India merchant, canvassed the borough with assistance from Captain Charles Gribble, Copner and others, and declared his intention of offering at the next election.14 At the dissolution in 1826 four candidates, Ommanney, Hodgson, Alexander and Atkins, were reportedly in the field, but Ommanney announced his withdrawal, giving no reason. The ‘party ... attached to the interest’ of Atkins ‘sustained a most severe disappointment’ when he too withdrew, citing ill health (despite which he was returned for Arundel), and steps were immediately taken to find another candidate. Alderman Richard Metherell chaired a meeting of freemen at the Shipwright’s Arms, 26 May, when 119 signed a declaration pledging support for a ‘third man’ attached to ‘true church and state principles’. Several country gentlemen were solicited in vain, including John Palmer Bruce Chichester of nearby Arlington Court, and with time running out William Syle, the proprietor of a short-lived local newspaper, travelled to London in search of a candidate. Hodgson and Alexander meantime canvassed, ‘numerous houses’ were opened every evening to entertain their supporters, ‘agents’ were ‘actively engaged in promoting their interests’ and it seemed likely that they would walk over. However, on 6 June a deputation of freemen waited on Nolan in London and persuaded him to stand again. He arrived in Barnstaple on the 8th only to depart the next day, issuing an address in which he thanked the ‘freemen of the town and its immediate neighbourhood’ for fulfilling their ‘engagement’ but explained that ‘finding ... the votes of my more immediate friends ... already engaged by a previous canvass, and that many more [from] whom I was taught to expect decided support have withheld their assistance’, he was unwilling to proceed. The election was held in the new guildhall, despite its ‘unfinished state’, as the old building was too small. Hodgson was introduced by Hole, who stressed ‘the many bountiful donations which the various charities of the town had received at his hands’, and by the attorney Richard Bremridge. Alexander was sponsored by Charles Gribble and Bassett, who condemned the ‘highly reprehensible’ conduct of those who had asked Nolan to come forward ‘at the fag end of a canvass’, pointing out that it was ‘through such practices’ that the borough had risked being disfranchised. When the mayor asked if there were any more candidates, P. Burch and Adam Britton nominated Nolan, without his consent, and W. Rock rose to protest against Bassett’s ‘libel on the freemen of Barnstaple’, who were no less respectable because they ‘moved in an humble sphere’. Hodgson and Alexander both professed support for the constitution in church and state. The show of hands was called in their favour, but ‘several freemen ... in the body of the hall’ demanded a poll. Nolan’s supporters were always in a clear minority, and at the end of the day Hodgson and Alexander were declared elected; Hodgson’s poll, as he later observed, was ‘unprecedented in the electioneering annals of this borough’. The successful candidates were chaired in ‘very splendid’ cars, Hodgson gave a dinner to ‘about 240’ people at the Rooms and Alexander one to ‘upwards of 200’ at the Golden Lion; the customary election ball was also held.15 Of the 500 who polled, 80 per cent cast a vote for Hodgson, 75 for Alexander and 25 for Nolan. Hodgson obtained 36 plumpers (nine per cent of his total), Alexander got 56 (15) and Nolan two. Hodgson and Alexander had 281 split votes (70 and 75 per cent of their respective totals), Hodgson and Nolan received 84 (21 and 67 per cent), and Alexander and Nolan 40 (11 and 32 per cent). Of those who polled, 168 (34 per cent) were residents; they gave Nolan 86 of his votes (70 per cent of his total). Hodgson and Alexander gained 26 and 39 of their respective plumpers and 247 and 244 of their respective split votes from non-residents. Among the London freemen, Hodgson and Alexander had 12 plumpers each, 99 split between them, two between Hodgson and Nolan and four between Alexander and Nolan.16
The occupiers of neighbouring land petitioned Parliament against revision of the corn laws, 26 Feb. 1827, and the maltsters pressed the Commons to repeal the Malt Act, 18 Feb. 1828.17 The Protestant Dissenters sent petitions for repeal of the Test Acts to the Commons, 15 June 1827, and both Houses, 18 Mar. 1828.18 In January 1829, following a county meeting at Exeter, signatures were gathered for the anti-Catholic petition and the pro-Catholic amendment, and in March for the county’s anti-Catholic address to the king; the archdeaconry petitioned the Commons in that sense, 4 Mar. 1829.19 Hodgson supported emancipation, but Alexander continued to oppose it. At a public meeting to consider a petition for repeal of the coastwise coal duty, 28 Apr., the attorney William Gribble successfully moved that it should call for the abolition of unmerited pensions and reduction of salaries as a means of supplying the consequent loss of revenue; it attracted ‘nearly 1,000 signatures’ and was presented by Hodgson, 12 May 1830.20 Shortly before the dissolution that summer tensions between the corporation and the resident freemen erupted when it was proposed to make Captain Robert Grace an honorary freeman and appoint him immediately to a vacancy in the common council; three corporators succeeded in delaying this move. Some 140 freemen attended a meeting at the Castle, 13 June, when the chairman, the linen draper George Harris, alleged that the corporation’s policy was to appoint only ‘gentlemen’ to its ranks, as it ‘appears to think it would be degraded and contaminated by the admission of a respectable tradesman’. He also suggested that there was an ulterior motive behind the corporation’s conduct, recalling how in the 1824 by-election ‘the corporation, almost to a man, was arrayed against the freemen. The strength of the parties was then tried, and the corporation was defeated’. The corporation, he believed, had ‘not forgotten this’ and was trying to strengthen its position for any future conflict. Resolutions were unanimously carried asserting that honorary freedoms should be exceptional and complaining of the way in which the freemen’s privileges had been invaded, and a committee was appointed to scrutinize the corporation’s conduct. Next day, the freemen proceeded to the guildhall with their ‘protest’ and were offered a public meeting at which their grievances could be aired. This took place on 17 June 1830, when Charles and William Gribble voiced the freemen’s discontent before the corporation proceeded to enrol Grace.21
At the subsequent dissolution both sitting Members retired without explanation. Charles Gribble was instrumental in bringing forward Stephens Lyne Stephens, who offered on ‘perfectly independent principles’, while Harris, Rock and the paper manufacturer William Thorne were behind the candidature of George Tudor, who avowedly stood as the freemen’s champion; both were men of independent fortune and had the support of Wellington’s ministry. A handbill from ‘that veteran manufacturer of MPs’, Stanbury, was circulated, announcing that he would again ‘create an opposition’ with an unnamed candidate, who would ‘contest the borough in my old fashioned way’; he openly offered to ‘pay £10 to any of my friends resident in London for travelling expenses’. After some delay, alderman Samuel Bremridge and Charles Roberts identified this mysterious ‘third man’ as General Sir Colin Campbell, a Peninsular war hero, and preparations were undertaken for his reception. Rumours abounded of a ‘secret understanding ... between Stanbury and certain members of the corporation’, which prompted Rock to issue an address deploring the ‘disgraceful state of parties’ and promising to find a ‘fourth man’ of ‘integrity, sense, consequence and respectability’ to stand with Tudor, as Stephens was too inexperienced. However, no such candidate was forthcoming. Campbell’s arrival, two days before the nomination meeting, relieved the ‘anxiety and impatience’ of those freemen who had withheld their promises.22 Lyne Stephens was introduced by John and Charles Gribble, Tudor by Captain Cottel and Harris, and Campbell by Hole (a former Hodgson supporter) and Samuel Bremridge. All the candidates professed devotion to the constitution in church and state and promised to support government measures for economy and retrenchment. There was uproar when Rock intervened to condemn the corporation as ‘traitors to their trust’ who, having failed to ‘nullify’ the freemen’s privileges with honorary creations, had ‘joined in the malpractices of Stanbury to effect the [borough’s] disfranchisement’. The mayor, Richard Bremridge, reportedly lost his temper and stormed off the platform. Polling commenced on Monday morning at eight o’clock and continued until six, when Campbell retired as his cause was hopeless. Many freemen, apparently ‘kept back purposely to keep the poll open another day’, immediately ‘rushed forward’ to tender their votes and polling was therefore extended until ‘nearly 7 o’clock’, when Lyne Stephens and Tudor were declared elected. The result was hailed as a ‘triumph’ for the freemen and the cause of ‘great mortification’ to the corporation, and Tudor looked forward to ‘a new order of things in this borough’. He and Lyne Stephens were chaired and gave the usual dinners, but they each donated £100 to the improvement commission in lieu of a ball. There was no reference to the French revolution during the proceedings, but William Gribble subsequently forwarded £3 12s. 6d., raised from 61 inhabitants, to support those ‘fighting the battle of liberty and civilization’.23 Analysis of the pollbook suggests a more complicated picture than that presented in the Whig press. Of the 522 who polled, 72 per cent cast a vote for Lyne Stephens, 64 for Tudor and 47 for Campbell. Lyne Stephens obtained 53 plumpers (14 per cent of his total), Tudor got 20 (six) and Campbell 23 (nine). Lyne Stephens and Tudor had 203 split votes (55 and 61 per cent of their respective totals), Lyne Stephens and Campbell received 114 (31 and 46 per cent) and Tudor and Campbell 109 (33 and 44 per cent). Of those who polled, 181 (36 per cent) were residents: their support for the candidates was fairly evenly distributed, with 19 plumping for Lyne Stephens, eight for Tudor and 11 for Campbell, while 46 split their votes between Lyne Stephens and Tudor, the same number between Lyne Stephens and Campbell and 51 between Tudor and Campbell. Lyne Stephens and Tudor owed their success to the non-resident freemen, particularly those from London, who gave them 100 and 99 votes respectively, whereas Campbell got only 28.24 Stanbury later showed that Lyne Stephens’s party had paid £1,916 in ‘travelling expenses’ to 197 non-resident freemen and £10 each to 173 residents, ‘including the gentlemen of the corporation’, and estimated the total cost of his election at about £5,000, which he considered excessive. It seems unlikely that Tudor spent £8,000, as has been stated. Roberts and Samuel Bremridge claimed to have incurred expenses of £2,620 on Campbell’s behalf, but their legal action for reimbursement failed after Campbell told the court that they had spent the money contrary to his instructions.25
Some 200 farmers from the vicinity attended a meeting at the Golden Lion, 28 Jan., to consider revision of the tithe laws; the resulting petition was forwarded to Parliament, 21 Feb., 24 Mar. 1831. At a subsequent meeting, 22 Apr., a North Devon Agricultural Association was formed.26 The Independents and Methodists sent anti-slavery petitions to Parliament, 29 Mar., 13, 15 Apr.27 On 5 Feb. ‘about 250 persons, comprising a large portion of the merchants and tradesmen, with numerous other respectable and influential individuals’, attended a reform meeting at the guildhall, chaired by May in the absence of the mayor, Edward Roberts, who wished to remain above partisan politics. William Gribble’s motion that reform was needed to relieve the nation from the weight of taxation was seconded by one Marsh and agreed, and an amendment in favour of the ballot, proposed by John Gribble and Robert Mortimer, received ‘almost universal’ support. The resulting petition was presented to Parliament by Tudor, 26 Feb., and Lord King, 28 Feb.28 May chaired another meeting at the guildhall, 9 Mar., to petition the Commons in favour of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, which proposed to leave Barnstaple’s representation intact but to disfranchise the non-resident freemen. Nearly 1,000 signatures were attached to the petition, which was presented on 19 Mar. by Tudor, who indicated to his constituents that he might support the bill ‘under certain modifications’.29 In fact, he voted against it, as did Lyne Stephens, who had ignored a request to support the first petition. A petition in favour of allowing freemen’s sons to retain their privileges was organized and ‘signed by upwards of 200 resident ... burgesses’, but it was not presented.30 Lyne Stephens retired at the 1831 dissolution but Tudor declared his intention of standing again, while Chichester, who had issued an address at the end of March, came forward as a supporter of the bill. Chichester had the advantage of being a local man, but there were doubts as to whether he would be supported by the resident freemen, who resented the impending loss of their ‘birthright’. As canvassing commenced, the ‘party which usually supports the interests of the "third man"’ waited ‘in restless anxiety for his appearance’. Nobody materialized until the day before the nomination meeting, when Stanbury arrived and handbills were circulated stating that ‘Adam Gordon esquire’, presumably James Adam Gordon*, was on his way. He appeared that afternoon and entered into consultations with ‘two members of the corporation and many of the freemen’, but ‘after two hours he again quitted the borough’. It was thereupon decided to nominate Hodgson, who was in France and probably unaware of what was happening. Tudor was proposed, ‘amidst mingled hisses and cheers’, by Harris and Thorne, who maintained that he had conscientiously discharged his duty and was not altogether opposed to reform. Chichester was introduced by George Fortescue* and William Gribble, who ridiculed the claims of Tudor’s supporters. Hodgson was sponsored by Richard Bremridge and Charles Roberts, who claimed that he was ‘free from all party interests’ and wished to ‘relieve the people so far as ... practicable without endangering the constitution’. Tudor claimed that he had exercised his independent judgement in opposing the ‘highly dangerous’ reform bill and warned that the increase in Ireland’s representation would encourage agitation for repeal of the Union. Chichester described himself as a ‘decided advocate for reform’ and supported the disfranchisement of the non-resident freemen, who had no interest in the borough, but he favoured preserving the rights of residents in perpetuity. When pressed on the question of Ireland’s representation, he appeared to oppose any increase. The show of hands was called in Hodgson and Tudor’s favour, but a poll was demanded. Polling commenced the following morning at nine o’clock and continued until shortly after four, when Tudor retired, expressing disappointment and surprise. Bremridge mentioned that a subscription fund had been proposed to defray Hodgson’s expenses but was ‘confident that [he] possessed too much ... honourable feeling ... to accept ... any pecuniary assistance’. The chairing took place ‘midst ... a torrent of rain’, the usual dinners were given and the Members donated 50 guineas each for town improvements in lieu of a ball. According to the Whiggish Western Times, Barnstaple had begun to redeem its reputation by returning a committed reformer and another Member apparently ‘favourable to the bill’, but this view was too simplistic.31 Of the 381 who polled, 64 per cent cast a vote for Hodgson, 57 for Chichester and 48 for Tudor. Chichester obtained 93 plumpers (43 per cent of his total), Hodgson got 13 (5 per cent) and Tudor ten (5 per cent). Hodgson and Tudor had 140 split votes (57 and 76 per cent of their respective totals), Hodgson and Chichester received 92 (39 and 42 per cent) and Chichester and Tudor 33 (15 and 18 per cent). Of those who polled, 191 (50 per cent) were residents, an unusually high figure. Hodgson and Tudor fared better with the residents, who gave them 136 and 106 votes respectively (89 were split between them), whereas Chichester’s strength lay with the non-residents, who gave him 133 votes, including 55 plumpers. Only 23 London freemen voted, of whom 18 split between Hodgson and Tudor; Stanbury later claimed that he had paid travelling expenses to ‘many more’, who failed to attend the poll, and that his ‘severe losses’ were the cause of his imprisonment for debt.32
At a public meeting chaired by John Gribble, 14 Sept. 1831, Samuel Linnington, Thorne and William Gribble were among the speakers advocating a petition to the Lords for the speedy passage of the reintroduced reform bill, which was agreed and presented by Lord Poltimore, 28 Sept.33 Following the bill’s rejection the new mayor, William Law, broke with convention by agreeing to chair a political meeting, 15 Oct., which was ‘twice as large in numbers and influence’ as any previous one. John Gribble moved an address to the king declaring support for his ministers, which was seconded by J. Clay and carried. An amendment by the shoemaker William Herepath against recommending the creation of new peers ‘was lost’, but another expressing ‘contempt and indignation’ at the bishops’ conduct was pressed by Mortimer and ‘carried by a very great majority’. George Meliss urged the people to persevere with peaceful methods and praised the role of the aristocracy in sponsoring reform. The address was forwarded to the home secretary Lord Melbourne for presentation, but Law distanced himself from the clause censuring the bishops.34 May chaired a meeting, 3 May, which sent a petition to the Lords in favour of the revised bill, 14 May 1832.35 Next day a meeting at the Golden Lion, chaired by Linnington and addressed by William Gribble and Meliss, resolved to establish a North Devon Political Union, which recruited ‘upwards of 300 members’. It was responsible for petitioning the Commons for an Irish reform bill similar to that for England, 20 June.36 The settlement of the reform question was celebrated by the distribution of food to 3,000 people, paid for by public subscription, 19 June 1832, when the Political Union organized a procession.37
The boundary commissioners found that Barnstaple contained ‘a sufficient constituency’ and recommended that its old boundaries be preserved. In 1832 there were 720 registered electors, of whom 261 were freemen.38 At the general election that year Hodgson retired and Chichester was returned ahead of a Conservative, sitting until his defeat in 1841. Hodgson was returned in 1837 and sat until his defeat in 1847. Barnstaple’s political inconsistency was doubtless attributable to the continued activities of men like Stanbury, who in 1832 was working for the unsuccessful Conservative candidate Lord George Hervey.39
Author: Terry Jenkins
- 1. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 495.
- 2. Ibid. (1831-2), xxxviii. 109; Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1830), 179; W. Hoskins, Devon, 327-30.
- 3. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 495; (1835), xxiii. 427-34; J. Gribble, Mems. Barnstaple, 246, 252-4.
- 4. Oldfield, Rep. Hist. (1816), iii. 300-02; Gribble, 239-42; PP (1826-7), iv. 485-6, 490-1; Western Times, 6 Nov. 1830.
- 5. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 103-5.
- 6. Alfred, 7, 14 Mar.; Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 16 Mar. 1820; Add. 38458, f. 310.
- 7. CJ, lxxv. 263; lxxvi. 143.
- 8. Alfred, 28 Nov., 26 Dec. 1820.
- 9. CJ, lxxviii. 190; lxxix. 81.
- 10. Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 4, 11 Mar.; Woolmer’s Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 6, 13, 27 Mar. 1824; Gribble, 237-9.
- 11. N. Devon RO BCR 149, ms pollbook 1824.
- 12. CJ, lxxix. 404; lxxxi. 249.
- 13. Ibid. lxxx. 315; LJ, lvii. 600.
- 14. Alfred, 4, 11 Oct. 1825.
- 15. Ibid. 23 May, 6, 20 June; Syle’s Barnstaple Herald, 30 May, 6-20 June; Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 8 June 1826.
- 16. N. Devon RO BCR 150, ms pollbook 1826.
- 17. CJ, lxxxii. 230; lxxxiii. 79; LJ, lix. 104.
- 18. CJ, lxxxii. 567; lxxxiii. 181; LJ, lx. 118.
- 19. N. Devon Jnl. 22, 29 Jan., 13 Mar., 2 Apr. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 104.
- 20. N. Devon Jnl. 29 Apr., 6 May 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 411.
- 21. N. Devon Jnl. 17, 24 June; Western Times, 19, 26 June 1830.
- 22. N. Devon Jnl. 8-29 July, 5 Aug.; Western Times, 24, 31 July 1830; Wellington mss WP1/1134/6.
- 23. N. Devon Jnl. 5, 12, 26 Aug.; Western Times, 7 Aug. 1830.
- 24. N. Devon RO BCR 151, ms pollbook 1830.
- 25. N. Devon RO B440/4/2, 3, 5; Wellington mss WP1/1204/3, 18; D. Drake, Barnstaple MPs, 190; Besley’s Exeter News, 1 Jan. 1832.
- 26. N. Devon Jnl. 20 Jan., 3 Feb., 14, 28 Apr. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 278; LJ, lxiii. 371.
- 27. CJ, lxxxvi. 455, 491; LJ, lxiii. 415.
- 28. N. Devon Jnl. 10 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 310; LJ, lxiii. 263.
- 29. N. Devon Jnl. 10, 24 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 407.
- 30. N. Devon Jnl. 21 Apr. 1831.
- 31. Ibid. 31 Mar., 28 Apr., 5 May, 9 June; Western Times, 7 May 1831.
- 32. N. Devon RO BCR 152, ms pollbook 1831; Stanbury mss 50/11/141/3.
- 33. N. Devon Jnl. 15 Sept. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1014.
- 34. N. Devon Jnl. 13, 20 Oct., 3 Nov. 1831.
- 35. Ibid. 10 May 1832; LJ, lxiv. 203.
- 36. N. Devon Jnl. 17, 24 May, 7 June 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 419.
- 37. N. Devon Jnl. 21 June 1832.
- 38. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 109-10; (1835), xxiii. 434.
- 39. Woolmer’s Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 15 Dec. 1832; Stanbury mss 50/11/141/7-8.