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

Background Information

Estimated number qualified to vote:


Number of voters:

300 tendered in 1820, 1,753 in 18312


17 Mar. 1820JOHN LOWTHER190
 George Howard, Visct. Morpeth933
16 June 1826(SIR) JOHN LOWTHER, bt. 
16 Jan. 1829SIR JAMES ROBERT GEORGE GRAHAM, bt. vice Curwen, deceased 
10 Aug. 1830(SIR) JOHN LOWTHER, bt. 
8 Dec. 1830GRAHAM re-elected after appointment to office 
 William Lowther, Visct. Lowther454

Main Article

A Lakeland county separated from Scotland by the Solway Firth, Cumberland was noted for having numerous small farmers (statesmen) and few great landowners, its corn, lead and hand-woven cottons, and its coal trade with Ireland. Administratively it was divided into five wards (Cumberland, Eskdale, Leath, Allerdale below and Allerdale above Derwent). The city and county of Carlisle, the county town, shared the assizes with the county’s second parliamentary borough, Cockermouth, which was the usual venue for elections. The other principal settlements and the source of most petitions were the ports and coal mining towns of Harrington, Maryport, Whitehaven and Workington, the wool and lead mining towns of Caldbeck, Keswick, Alston and Brigden, the foundry town of Dalston, and the agricultural centres of Kirk Oswald, Penrith and Wigton, where county meetings were commonly held.4 Over 32,000 acres, mainly in the Allerdale wards, the remote south of the county and its lead mining district, were enclosed under 25 awards, 1820-32, and there were signs that the number of yeomen was declining.5 Party loyalties, fostered in the local press, remained well defined among the gentry and those with votes in Carlisle and neighbouring Westmorland. The county had not polled since 1768 and representation was determined by the aristocracy through a one-and-one compromise negotiated in 1774 between the Tory James Lowther†, the Yellow earl of Lonsdale, and the ‘independent’ Whig or Blue junta headed by the dukes of Portland and Norfolk and the earls of Carlisle and Egremont. The Whigs’ ambitions were to be thwarted by political in-fighting until the 1830s.6 The sitting Yellow, 60-year-old John Lowther of Swillington, Yorkshire, brother of the current 1st earl of Lonsdale, had represented Cumberland since 1796. Created a baronet in 1824 for his political services, he was to have his hopes of retiring in favour of his son John Henry Lowther, Member for Cockermouth, repeatedly dashed. His Whig colleague from 1806, Lord Morpeth, the son and heir of the 5th earl of Carlisle, sat with the acquiescence of the Lowthers and his Cavendish in-laws, the 5th and 6th dukes of Devonshire, who, as successors to the Portland interest, were perceived as the obvious leaders of the Cumberland Whigs following the death in 1815 of the 11th duke of Norfolk. Initially the statesmen acquiesced in the arrangement, which was replicated in Carlisle, but dissatisfaction with the sitting Members as absentees was mounting and the aspirations of the Blue gentry remained unfulfilled. These included Yates (afterwards Aglionby) of the Nunnery, Benson of Wreay, Blackburn of Knorren Lodge, Brougham of Scales Hall and Brougham, Browne of Tallantire, Crackenthorpe of Bank Hall and Newbiggin, Curwen of Workington, Fetherstonhaugh of Kirkoswald, Lawson of Brayton, Marshall of Hallsteads, Wybergh of Isell and Sir Frederick Fletcher Vane of Armathwaite, whose kinsman Sir Henry Fletcher† of Clea Hall had shared in the Whig triumph of Henry Curwen† in 1768. (The Fletcher Vanes of Hutton were Tories in this period.) The ‘calamity’ of a contest involving Morpeth and Curwen’s nephew and son-in-law John Christian Curwen, the Blue Member for Carlisle, had been avoided at each election since 1806; but the post-war depression in agriculture, an unstable market for coal and lead and Devonshire’s refusal to fund the Whig lawyer Henry Brougham*, who polled a close third to the Lowthers in Westmorland in 1818, had made the statesmen restive. Wilfrid Lawson and his future brother-in-law, the Whig heir to Netherby James Robert George Graham*, whose estates and pedigrees made them serious contenders, were manoeuvring. With Curwen and Brougham they addressed the Cumberland Peterloo meeting of 13 Oct. 1819 from which Morpeth held aloof, so further antagonizing his critics, who castigated him as a Yellow in disguise.7

The anti-Lowther Carlisle Journal announced that the Blues would field two candidates at the general election of 1820.8 Morpeth, who anticipated defeat, was persuaded by his father and the Cavendishes to stand again.9 A declaration was expected independently from Curwen, who had prevaricated before canvassing Carlisle, where he polled second and was suspected of collusion with the radical third man, William James* of Barrock.10 With Lawson disqualified as sheriff, attention focused on Graham, who canvassed openly, making no secret of his ultimate ambition. He attributed the ‘sad jealousies and confusion’ exhibited by his fellow Blues, many of whom were prepared to risk Morpeth’s defeat, to the unnatural alliance of the Lowthers and Cavendishes.11 To avoid endangering Morpeth directly and embarrassing his Tory father (d. 1824), Graham agreed a strategy with Curwen, who he wrongly anticipated would ‘make his run for the county on a single vacancy’ on Lord Carlisle’s death, turned down a Carlisle requisition, and, after dining at the assizes where the grand jury was the bluest known, left to stand for St. Ives shortly before the county adopted the customary addresses of condolence and congratulation, 8 Mar.12 Even so, the Carlisle attorney George Gill Mounsey, who acted for the Cavendishes and Howards, fully expected Graham to be nominated, if ‘only with a view to putting him on the list of candidates’ and testing Morpeth’s resolve. Notices on behalf of an unnamed ‘resident Blue’ appeared from the outset and the Tory Cumberland Pacquet, which predicted an uncontested election, was hard pressed to deny reports that the Whig 9th earl of Thanet, hereditary sheriff of Westmorland, where Brougham stood again, would sponsor a third man ‘for the purpose of annoying and distracting’ the Lowthers.13 The Yellows in turn were discomfited by the absence early in the campaign of Lonsdale’s heir and party manager Lord Lowther* and dissension between Lonsdale and his brother, who had made his candidature conditional on Lonsdale reversing his decision to deny his son a Cockermouth seat.14 Dismissing the earl of Muncaster as a minor and the Tories Sir Philip Musgrave* of Eden Hall and the Senhouses of Hensingham and Nether Hall, who had previously done their bidding, as unsuitable, Lonsdale contemplated transferring Lord Lowther from Westmorland before acceding to his brother’s wishes.15 Tory magistrates, among them Edward Stanley of Ponsonby Hall and William Ponsonby Johnston of Walton, threatened to withdraw their support from Lowther as an absentee. Sir James Graham† of Netherby delayed declaring for him until his son had left.16

Infuriated by the Tory Member for Carlisle Sir James Graham’s eulogy of the Lowthers at the Westmorland election, 15 Mar. 1820, the Blues requisitioned Curwen, who was at Appleby to vote for Brougham. He agreed to stand and arrived at Cockermouth for the Cumberland election two days later attended by a makeshift committee and host of West Cumberland partisans, determined to ‘try what they can do by volunteer exertions’.17 Amid ‘hisses and groans’ Musgrave and Stanley of Ponsonby proposed Lowther as a ‘church and state’ candidate and made light of his non-residence and erratic parliamentary attendance. Morpeth’s proposer Vane of Armathwaite acknowledged the ill-feeling generated by his absence from the Peterloo meeting and his failure to vote against the repressive Six Acts, but praised him as a man of conscience eminent among parliamentary Whigs.18 Dissenting on behalf of a ‘large number’ of ‘unrepresented’ freeholders, Joseph Dykes Ballantine Dykes of Dovenby Hall and the Rev. Edward Stanley of Plumbland claimed that Morpeth ‘was in secret communication with the Lowthers and not acting up to the principles which he professed in 1806’ and proceeded to nominate Curwen as their ‘saviour’ from ‘aristocratic bondage’. Curwen spoke similarly, referring also to his campaign for repeal of the agricultural horse tax and support for retrenchment and parliamentary reform. Lowther and Morpeth were shouted down. The show of hands was overwhelmingly for Curwen, who finished in second place that day, 166-138 behind Lowther, leaving Morpeth, with 92, a poor third. An estimated 300 voted.19 Thanet’s prediction that zeal would ‘carry’ the yeomanry for ‘two or three days and ... end as such zeal usually does in disappointment’ proved false. The Lowther agent John Peile observed that Morpeth ‘certainly had a very few friends here except those for our interest also’, and he retired ‘for the present’ early on the second day, so avoiding the expense of a contest and the dubious merit of being returned by Lowther second votes.20 He denied any collusion or ‘confederacy of peers’, claimed that the contest was ‘aided and encouraged by proceedings in Westmorland’ and ‘calculated, if continued, to divide the independent interest in Cumberland’.21 Angry at Morpeth’s replacement by the ‘sycophant’ Curwen, the Whig leaders blamed Brougham and Thanet for the debacle: Brougham for ‘fixing’ the Cumberland election ‘so late after Carlisle’ and failing to give Morpeth adequate warning; Thanet for colluding in Curwen’s candidacy to serve his Westmorland interests.22 They countered that with £5,000 pledged and £5,000 to hand, victory was Morpeth’s ‘for the asking’ had he ‘had the pluck to stand’, and endorsed the prevailing opinion in the two counties that Morpeth’s replacement by Curwen was a ‘decisive victory’ for the Blues.23 The notion that the Cavendishes were at fault for refusing to oppose the Lowthers gradually prevailed.24 Lord Carlisle’s agents concluded that their dependence on out-voters made the cost of retaining the seat unsustainable in the long term and blamed Lonsdale for making the aristocracy unpopular with Curwen’s natural supporters, the middle and lower classes local to Cockermouth:

In candour it must be admitted that by Lord Lonsdale naming in Cumberland two Members for Cockermouth, one for the county, one for Carlisle, two for Westmorland, one for Appleby, Lord Thanet the other, Lord Carlisle’s son the other representative for the county of Cumberland, it was not surprising that this aristocratical influence should awaken the opposition it has met with. The complaint, which was true, that neither of the Members for Cumberland was resident in the county, operated strongly against Lord Morpeth.25

Morpeth turned down Thanet’s Appleby seat and refused to contribute £222 towards the Lowthers’ £1,915 costs (he had paid one third in 1818.)26 Curwen spent £163 on hospitality, proclaimed Cumberland’s independence and called on Westmorland to follow suit.27

Petitions against the agricultural horse tax, 2 May, for Catholic relief, 15 May, action on distress, 25 May, and abolition of the Irish linen duties, 2 June 1820, were presented by Curwen, who with Lord Lowther undertook most county business.28 Others from the ship owners and merchants of Harrington, Maryport, Whitehaven and Workington, backing a proposal for a new harbour on the Solway at Port Patrick, 6 June, and opposing any alteration in the timber duties, were received, 6, 7 June; and the wool manufacturers of Keswick petitioned for inquiry with a view to equalizing the duties on English and Irish drapery, 2 June 1820 (and again in 1821 and 1823).29 Blue in-fighting continued at the inaugural Cumberland independence dinner in August 1820, when Graham, as president, disputed Curwen’s arguments for agricultural protection, which resembled those of the Tory agriculturists George Holme Sumner and Thomas Gooch, whose select committee he backed.30 Having long deployed Schoose Farm, agricultural meetings and the Whitehaven Gazette for political purposes, he retaliated by publicizing his testimony on Cumberland.31 Interest in the proceedings against the queen was heightened by Brougham’s role as her advocate, and the Whitehaven address and illuminations marking their suspension in November 1820 became part of the local anti-Lowther campaign to wrest control of the harbour from Lonsdale, whose agent John Benn was developing collieries at Reagill, Sleagill and Newby. In 1825 Lonsdale failed to prevent Curwen’s town of Workington from becoming a customs port. The following year Lonsdale was found to have misappropriated the St. Bees coal and tithe revenues.32 The Cumberland-born recorder of Newcastle, James Losh, encouraged the Blues to back Lonsdale’s former agent, the Carlisle attorney Joseph Holme, against the Yellow nominee Richard Lowry of Stanwix in a protracted contest for county coroner in March 1821 that had ‘all the trappings of a parliamentary poll’. It terminated when Holme retired suddenly on the fifth day, 968-946 ahead, leaving Lowry, who polled a further 54 votes, the victor.33 A county distress meeting to petition the Commons for retrenchment, lower taxes and parliamentary reform was requisitioned, 1 Mar., and Dykes’s refusal to sign was interpreted as a signal of his likely defection. Before it could be held, a moderate agricultural distress petition from certain landowners and occupiers, that delegated the remedies to Parliament, was quietly adopted and presented to the Commons, 19 Mar.34 The county meeting was scheduled for 5 Apr. to coincide with the parliamentary recess and market day at Wigton, and it became a platform for radical speeches by Graham, Curwen’s son Henry, Lawson, Browne and Brougham. The sheriff John Marshall signed the unanimously adopted petition on behalf of an estimated 4,000 freeholders. Its presenter Curwen endorsed and Lord Lowther dissented from its prayer, 17 Apr. A moderate petition from Caldbeck, submitted the following day, detracted from its impact.35 Distress petitioning in 1822 was exclusive to Curwen’s West Cumberland strongholds and his proposals for a county meeting that year and in 1823 to petition ‘for additional protection in the shape of an import duty on corn’ were scotched by Brougham and Graham, who deemed the ‘country people ... weary of meeting and petitioning in vain’.36 A lively debate, however, ensued in the local and national press on the legitimacy of petitions linking distress and parliamentary reform, and Cumberland rents and land prices.37 The landowners’ petition of 6 June 1823 attributed distress to lower distilling duties in Scotland and sought equalization; but most of those forwarded from farmers and freeholders earlier that year had criticized the state of the roads and sought concessions, under the general Turnpike Act, to use narrow wheeled vehicles to carry lime to improve their land.38 Harrington, Whitehaven and Workington participated in the petitioning for repeal of the coastwise coal duties, 30 May 1821, and the combination laws, 15 Mar. 1824 (which Penrith’s journeymen also sought) and requested corn law revision, 25 Apr., which the farmers of Leath ward opposed in petitions to both Houses, 28 Apr. 1825, 28 Feb. 1826. Protectionist petitions were sent up from Workington, Harrington and Maryport, 17 Apr., following the relaxation of the navigation laws, and the same ports petitioned against the Dublin coal bill, which the Lowthers supported and Curwen opposed, 13 Apr. 1824.39 Petitions from the county’s wool producers, however, requested further deregulation of their trade, 15 Mar., 5 Apr. 1824.40 Enclosures and proposed improvements to the Alston turnpike, the Carlisle-Cockermouth, Keswick-Ambleside, Penrith-Cockermouth and Workington-Cockermouth roads were locally contentious and major petitioning issues in 1824 and 1825 (as subsequently).41 There was strong support for the 1824 petitioning campaign against taxing sheepdogs and Curwen’s contributions towards securing repeal of the taxes on husbandry horses (1821) and salt (1822, 1825) and vehement opposition to Lord Londonderry’s corn bill.42 Curwen’s failure to vote in condemnation of the indictment in Demerara of the missionary John Smith, 1, 11 June 1824, however, angered the Blues and cost him the support of the Dissenters and Nonconformists, who had petitioned for it, 26 May, and promoted others in 1823, 1824 and 1826 from the inhabitants of Keswick, Penrith, Shap, Wigton and the Whitehaven district for the abolition of colonial slavery.43 The Members divided for and against Catholic relief in 1821, 1822 and 1825, when Curwen as seconder, 10 May, cited the harmonious establishment of a Roman Catholic chapel in Workington in 1824 as proof of growing toleration.44

At the general election of 1826 Graham refused to oblige Brougham by creating a diversion in Cumberland and came in for Carlisle.45 Curwen was rightly confident that Lonsdale would field his brother for want of an alternative and that there was no truth in speculation that the Cavendishes would put forward the 4th duke of Portland’s brother Lord Frederick Cavendish Bentinck* (as locum during the minority of the former Member’s heir) or that Brougham himself would stand. Rejecting coalition, Curwen further antagonized his ‘friends’ by backing the administration’s corn importation bill and neglecting to sign the declaration of support for Brougham in Westmorland.46 Schemes to field Brougham, Henry Howard* of Greystoke, Lawson or Musgrave had advanced little when John Benson and Lawson, who wanted Howard brought forward, visited Curwen on 13 June to

insist on his making on the hustings at Cockermouth an avowal that his refusal to sign ... was a great error of judgement proceeding from timidity ... In the face of the Lowthers he is to declare his intention to poll for Brougham, and to express his distinct opinion that the cause of the Lake counties is to be considered as common.47

Curwen issued notices that day countering ‘unfounded’ rumours of his disloyalty, in which he defended his pro-government vote on Spain in 1823 and views on agriculture.48 He and his proposers, Dykes and the Rev. Henry Barwis of Langrigg, were ‘conveniently’ shouted down on the hustings at Cockermouth, 16 June, and the declaration deferred until the Westmorland contest. Lowther was nominated as previously and cheered as an anti-Catholic. A last-ditch attempt by the Londoner Stamper Clemiston to rally opposition to Curwen as an adulterer failed when Lord Lowther successfully challenged his freehold qualification, and the Members were returned unopposed.49 At Appleby, Curwen only voiced opposition to the ‘two Lowther brothers’. Despite reports to the contrary, he steadfastly refused to contribute to Brougham’s election fund.50

At the 1826 and 1827 Abbey Holme Agricultural Society meetings Curwen, who professed support for Canning’s coalition ministry, 25 Apr. 1827, ‘incurred much obloquy’ and further exposed his differences with his nephew William Blamire*, Graham and the ‘Green Row Academy’ of the Quaker Joseph Saul, by recommending ‘a regular duty’ on corn and endorsing the 1826 and 1827 bills.51 Petitions for greater protection, 19 Feb. 1827, repeal of the 1827 Malt Act, 17, 26, 31 Mar., and the continued circulation of small bank notes, 6 May 1828, were initiated by the statesmen, and they were also instrumental in securing the appointment of Blamire, the developer of the Solway cattle trade and a highly acclaimed land letting scheme, to succeed Thomas Parker of Warwick Hall (d. Apr. 1828) as sheriff.52 Complaints at the economic downturn and pleas for protection also dominated petitions to both Houses in 1827 and 1828 from the county’s ship owners, and all engaged in lead mining and the manufacture of woollens, whose hardship was acute and corroborated in petitions to the Commons concerning settlements, parish boundaries and the obligations of incorporated parishes.53 The Dissenters’ numerous petitions for repeal of the Test Acts were received by the Commons in June 1827 and both Houses in February 1828.54

Speculation concerning Curwen’s successor was rife after he suffered a stroke in September 1827. Lord Lowther, who advocated ‘a firm and steadfast neutrality’, considered Graham and Lawson, a casualty of the recent Carlisle by-election, the likeliest contenders; but he warned his father that the Howards might yet offer Lord Morpeth*, whose father had succeeded as 6th earl of Carlisle in 1825:

None of them have the sinews of war to contest it and probably the one who held out and blustered the most would carry the day. The weakest in point of influence, but the most active in intrigue, would be the Howards. The duke of Devonshire refused to pay for or contribute for Yorkshire and I should think, next to Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Cumberland would be almost as expensive as any county in England. The Allerdale wards are the best half of the county in wealth, population, and in 1768 had more freeholders than the other three wards; therefore Lawson being returned would be more likely to keep things quiet in that neighbourhood, and the Howards and Graham would come into the field at a disadvantage of 50 per cent. I regard your seat as safe as Gibraltar, but any other fighting the county would be quite a chance. It is a maiden county and there could be no calculating which side would produce the most efficient canvas and manager. As a certain number of real working men in different departments will turn a county election, until one has actually seen it, it is hardly to be believed the little influence a county squire possesses; very few (except their property is intensive like Wilson of Dallam Tower) controlling above four or five votes, and there are generally as many in the parish who would go the other side, whatever it may be from the squire. What is termed the law interest is much less trouble (and very often as effective, except in very large properties) and much less expensive to fight than the other, as the gentlemen command expenses and interfere as if the result of the election depended on them alone. I mention this looking upon Cumberland as a perfect chaos, as there is no judging what persons a conflict might turn up, or the extent of expenditure it might cause. Attempting two would not be worth the trouble and expense for the present even to get or to preserve hereafter. The Howards would be the weakest among the yeomen. They have the most pretensions and I believe [would be] the weakest in an actual conflict of any of the candidates. I would let them settle it amongst themselves, though you would be appealed to and supplicated to decide for one, and then the whole Blue party would turn round against you for nominating two.55

Graham promoted himself by taking over Curwen’s county business and projecting the causes of currency reform and retrenchment as his own, and he resigned to contest the county directly Curwen’s death was announced, 11 Dec. 1828.56 He mollified the Howards, canvassed assiduously, engaged the London attorney Vizard as counsel, and, with the co-operation of Blamire, ensured that the by-election took place during the recess and well before that for Carlisle.57 The Lowthers adhered to their policy of non-intervention, notwithstanding reports that Muncaster, who had come of age, would be proposed. However, they created a diversion by celebrating Lonsdale’s birthday on 29 Dec. countywide and circulating reports of Graham’s unpopularity in West Cumberland and requests for treasury funds.58 Responding to Graham’s declaration of personal support for the duke of Wellington and emancipation, the Ultra Cumberland Pacquet venomously predicted that ‘in good time the Whig baronet will make a very decent Tory’.59 ‘No violent party spirit’ was shown at his unopposed return, 16 Jan. 1829, when, as subsequently, he was proposed by Lawson and the quarter sessions chairman Francis Aglionby. About 390 dined at the Globe.60

The concession of Catholic emancipation in 1829 was opposed by the Lowther ‘ninepins’ and in petitions from Eskdale ward, Keswick and parishes where the Yellows held sway, 26 Feb.-6 Apr.,61 but welcomed in petitions from the county’s Roman Catholics and Unitarians, who had also petitioned favourably in May 1828.62 Neither Member would endorse the radical distress petition of the cotton weavers of Wigton, whose Cobbettite demands included retrenchment, tax reductions, abolition of all sinecures, the appropriation of crown lands to liquidate the national debt and parliamentary investigation of church revenues and their own low wages, 12 June 1829.63 Distress affected all sectors of the economy, but especially shipping, lead mining and cloth production when a requisition for a county meeting was circulated in October 1829. Its promoter was Graham, who wished to ‘make a splash’ and try out his intended palliative motions for currency reform and reductions in public salaries to their 1797 levels.64 Sir John Lowther refused to sign, but over 200 did so, including Henry Brougham, the poet laureate Robert Southey*, magistrates from both parties and Lonsdale’s agent John Benn. Acquiescing, the sheriff Edward Williams Hassell of Dalemain convened the county on 26 Jan. 1830. With opinion still divided over the involvement of Yellows and what remedies, if any, to propose, the requisitionists met at the Queen’s Head, Wigton, immediately beforehand to try to resolve their differences.65 Graham, backed by Blamire, Browne and Christopher Wannop of Holme Gate, prevailed, and Blamire and Browne proposed their petition for retrenchment, repeal of the duties on malt and commodities affecting the poor, and restoration of the paper currency. James’s counter-petition linking distress and parliamentary reform was rejected. The original (received, with 250 signatures, by the Commons, 8 Feb., and the Lords the next day) was rushed through and the meeting was closed before a vote could be taken on an amendment to exclude the currency clause, proposed by the cotton manufacturer Peter Dixon and Henry Howard of Corby Castle.66 Noting Blamire’s contribution, the editor of The Times commented:

If the gentry of Cumberland will petition let it be to unshackle the industry of the nation, to abolish monopolies, to economize the finances, to soften the hearts of the landed proprietors, to relax the game laws, revise the poor laws and restore the gardened cottage to the unhappy English peasant, now a moping prisoner with his children between the walls of their dreary sty, a half-starved frequenter of the gin shop, or a daring poacher and preliminary felon. This would have been to give us real wealth. To cry out for Bank notes is in no degree more reasonable, by way of relieving the ‘public distress’ than it would be to paper the walls with Cobbett’s Register or advertisements of Warren’s blacking.67

Protection remained the preferred remedy proposed in distress petitions received 9 Mar. 1829-26 May 1830 from Leath ward and the Cumberland lead, shipping and wool trades.68 Harrington also petitioned against renewing the East India Company’s charter and to end their trading monopoly with China, 29 Mar. 1830.69 The lead mine proprietors hoped the projected Newcastle-Carlisle railway would boost their trade.70

Before the July 1830 dissolution Lonsdale, represented by the Swillington Lowthers and his son-in-law, the judge advocate John Beckett*, negotiated a pact with the Broughams and Thanet which assured ‘the peace of the northern counties’, a Downton seat for James Brougham and one-and-one representation in Carlisle.71 Henry Brougham came in with Morpeth for Yorkshire.72 Graham, who canvassed through party dinners at Cockermouth, Dalston and Whitehaven, profited from his well-publicized parliamentary campaign for retrenchment, but his ‘trimming between the parties’ was unpopular and he faced demands from the statesmen to stand jointly with a second Blue.73 He called for an end to all monopolies, retrenchment, tax cuts and ‘moderate’ reform, praised Wellington for conceding emancipation and welcomed the revolution in France.74 Lowther announced that his health would withstand ‘one more term’ and the Yellows rallied in his honour at the Black Lion, Cockermouth, 9 Aug. He was proposed next day before a hostile crowd by the West India planter Herbert Senhouse of Nether Hall and Stanley of Ponsonby. Challenged by Crackenthorpe, Lowther, unlike Graham, refused to speak on reform, retrenchment and monopolies and defended his anti-Catholic votes. Lawson, Stanley of Plumbland and Browne denounced him as a family Member and condoner of slavery who cared nothing for his constituents’ views and the cry went up for Philip Henry Howard, the new Catholic Member for Carlisle.75 Lord Lowther expressed relief that the opposition amounted to ‘nothing beyond talking’ and Brougham his annoyance that Graham had made no attempt to answer Stanley’s criticism of the compromise with Lonsdale. Indeed, Graham privately denounced the ‘Westmorland treaty’ and informed Brougham that had he stood for Cumberland, ‘I should have defended my single seat, equally refusing to coalesce or to compromise’.76

Two-hundred special constables were sworn, a curfew imposed and local associations for the protection of property formed when arson was rife during the ‘Swing’ riots of November 1830.77 Now in outright opposition, Graham contributed to the ministry’s defeat on the civil list (in Lowther’s absence), 15 Nov., and became first lord of the admiralty in Lord Grey’s administration. The ensuing by-election was a deliberately low key affair from which the Yellows stayed away. The Cockermouth radicals reportedly ‘paraded in the town with a tri-coloured flag; but they were by some means ... induced not to interfere with the business’. Speeches were devoted to the ballot, the forthcoming ministerial reform bill and Graham’s role as one of the committee of four entrusted with its preparation.78 Lord Lowther had urged Lonsdale ‘not to be more civil than necessary’ to Graham and the Lowther newspapers duly vented their spleen against him and the lord chancellor Brougham as ‘placemen’, and gave extensive coverage to Lonsdale birthday celebrations.79 Party divisions prevailed at the January 1831 quarter sessions, when James’s proposals for massive reductions in county expenditure were rejected, Southey, a vehement anti-reformer, qualified as a magistrate, and the Rev. Edward Fawcett of Cockermouth and Sir Harry Vane failed to carry a resolution making Cockermouth the sole assizes town. A similar attempt by Carlisle at the 1831 Easter sessions also failed.80 Support for the campaign to abolish colonial slavery was evident in petitions to both Houses, 4 Nov. 1830-21 Apr. 1831, from Wesleyan Methodists congregations countywide and the Dissenters and inhabitants of Alston, Aspatria, Brampton, Harrington, Keswick, Maryport, Penrith, Whitehaven and Wigton.81 Reflecting commercial concerns, the lead miners of Alston, whose market was undermined by imported lead, petitioned for repeal of the 1825 Act lowering protective tariffs, 9 Nov. 1830, Brampton against taxing carts, 11 Feb., and Whitehaven against the proposed alterations in the timber duties, 17 Mar. The Harrington manufacturing chemist Joseph Dutton petitioned the Lords personally, cautioning that a reduction in the tariff on barilla imports was detrimental to British alkali manufacture, 26 Feb. 1831.82

Carlisle and Cockermouth petitioned early for reform, but the county meeting and attendant dinner at Wigton, 15 Mar., when Blamire, Crackenthorpe, James, Lawson, Ponsonby Johnson and Stanley of Plumbland were the main speakers, was a hurriedly convened affair. Their unanimous petition in support of the ministerial bill, by which Cockermouth was to be deprived of a seat, Whitehaven enfranchised and the county representation doubled by dividing it in two, belied the resentment of the yeomanry at the creation of £10 voters, controversy over the ballot and the unease expressed by the leading Blues in correspondence with Graham over its provisions for customary and copyhold tenants and the proposed county division.83 The natural divide was East-West: the two Allerdale wards, comprising the coal and iron fields and Solway plain, in the west; and the rural Cumberland, Eskdale and Leath wards to the east. This was deemed favourable to Lonsdale in the west of the county and the Howards in the east. There, the yeomanry disliked Howard of Corby Castle as a Catholic and Howard of Greystoke was engaged in a tithe dispute with his tenants, so that the likely beneficiaries would be Lord Carlisle and Graham himself.84 Sir John Lowther published a letter declining to support the petition, which Graham presented to the Commons, where it was received in the name of the sheriff John Taylor with others from Cockermouth and the bankers, merchants, ship owners and inhabitants of Whitehaven, 19 Mar. The Lords received them on the 21st and 22nd and a similar favourable petition from Harrington, 21 Apr.85 Lowther agents created ‘large numbers’ of leaseholders among their tenants and encouraged opposition to ‘splitting’ the county, to Cockermouth’s ‘demotion’ and to the exclusion of Preston Quarter, ‘one third of the inhabitants’, from the proposed Whitehaven constituency. This they maintained was a ‘piece of legerdemain’ calculated to safeguard the influence of Whig Harrington and Workington in the new constituency, which they protested ‘received only one Member’.86

Lonsdale was ‘attacked everywhere’ at the general election of 1831 precipitated by the reform bill’s defeat. Finding Senhouse ‘unwilling’, Muncaster unreliable and ‘lacking in ballast’, Stanley ‘too poor’ and Hassell ‘unavailable’, he put forward Lord Lowther, who, having been denied a Cumberland requisition, had started for Westmorland, where his professions of support for ‘a moderate reform’ were held up to ridicule.87 Advising him, Lonsdale stated:

It appears clearly both to Beckett and me that it were best to attend in Cumberland. The want of a proper candidate must be known by all, and I think the interest will be best preserved by bending to the storm under all the fury that at present directs it than to offer an ineffectual resistance, and ineffective it certainly would be in our present destitute condition.88

Lord Lowther mounted a strong personal canvass through local committees organized by Joseph Atkinson of Staingills, Captain Buchanan of Caldbeck and Robert Hodgson of Melmerby, with gentry support from his proposers Stanley of Ponsonby and T.H. Graham, assisted by Fawcett, the West India merchant Joseph Gillbanks, Robert Jefferson of Whitehaven, Muncaster, Sir Hew Dalrymple Ross of Stonehouse and Vane of Hutton.89 At their request, John Henry Lowther, who was requisitioned, stifled an attempt by disaffected Yellows to put him in nomination and canvassed with his cousins.90 Early manoeuvring by the Blue statesmen led by Blamire, whose popularity ‘beggared belief’, made Graham’s proposal to ‘stand alone’ untenable and put paid to Lawson’s hopes, hinted at afresh in speeches at the by-election dinner in December 1830, the county reform meeting and a reform dinner chaired by his brother William Wybergh, 23 Apr. 1831.91 Henry Curwen, who declined a requisition to stand with Graham, was reputedly ‘held in check’ by the Lowthers, but he had little to spend and lacked his cousin Blamire’s oratorical skills.92 The 3,500 signatories to the Graham-Blamire requisition were mainly of the ‘yeoman class’ and subscriptions to bring them in ‘free of charge’ were channelled through D. Carrick, Sons and Starbuck, Messrs. Connell of Carlisle and the Union Cumberland Bank, Whitehaven.93 Obliged to ‘brave the fury of the aristocracy’ of both parties by standing jointly on a reform platform with Blamire, Graham was vulnerable to the ploys of the Lowther agents, who threatened to dish him by directing their men to cast second votes for Blamire.94 The Netherby agents countered by seeking plumpers, so placing the coalition in jeopardy and increasing Graham’s dependence on Blamire, who at a private meeting agreed to take steps to ensure that he polled behind Graham.95 Assessing their prospects on the eve of the election, James Brougham informed his brother:

My only fear is that Lord Lowther, finding the feeling so very strong against him tomorrow, will say he won’t disturb the peace of the county and retire at once and return again to Westmorland. In Penrith, a Lowther stronghold, about one tenth go for him, about a tenth stay away, four fifths for Graham and Blamire. In Shelton, Hutton and all Vane’s neighbourhood, only Vane and one servant. ... Sir C. Musgrave’s canvass very little better. Lowther’s standing is incomprehensible; he must have fancied Blamire would not, as he had refused several requisitions. I got him to stand ... by promise of money.96

Tents for 8-9,000 were erected in anticipation of a heavy poll, and 300 horsemen and 40 carriages escorted the reformers to Cockermouth, where Blamire was proposed by Henry Curwen with Saul seconding, 5 May. The usual reform speeches attacking aristocratic government were delivered, and Lord Lowther was ridiculed for failing to back reform and reserving a Cockermouth seat for the Whig renegade Sir James Scarlett, whom Graham criticized so severely that a duel was only narrowly averted.97 Taunted as a ‘beast jobber’, Blamire abandoned the Blues’ agreed strategy of putting party first and reform second and defined the contest as ‘not Blue against Yellow, but reform against anti-reform, "the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill"’.98 Disputed freeholds slowed down the poll, which Graham topped from the outset. The reformers established a commanding lead (942-917-453) over Lord Lowther in the three days before the Sunday break.99 During it Lowther, who set out to seek support from Carlisle, decided to retire, ostensibly after seeing a vast Blue cavalcade mustered by Dr. Fletcher Wells crossing Uldale Moor, while his own canvass returns were poor and transport problems mounting.100 Hitherto 1,396 had voted and a further 357 tendered (356 for Graham, 353 for Blamire and one for Lowther) before the result was declared. According to Lonsdale, property had bowed to ‘popular clamour’.101 Plumping among the reformers (Graham ten, Blamire two) and cross-party splitting (Graham-Lowther 18, Blamire-Lowther two) was minimal, but sufficient to keep Graham ahead.102 Eleanor Carlyle informed her fellow Yellow Lord Wallace, 9 May, that

there was a question whether Lord Lowther did wisely in resigning. Some think not, but as there is much reason to think his agents betrayed him, I do not see that it would have done well to go on, unless indeed, as he was certain of a great number of votes today, whether it might not have been advisable by making a push, to force a second compromise for Westmorland. ... I find both Sir H. Ross and Mr. Vane think if by better management Lord Lowther had been pushed to the head of the poll the first day, Mr. Blamire would have resigned, as there were no funds.103

Grey, who on 7 May complained to the Irish lord lieutenant Lord Anglesey that a troublesome and expensive contest in Cumberland should have been avoided as it ‘would have been better to have contented ourselves with returning one each’, congratulated Graham on the 10th on ‘one of the most important [victories] that we have gained’.104 According to the Tory whip Holmes, who was present, ‘Lowther had not a chance’.105 Pollbooks confirm reports of defections and dwindling support for the Lowthers, who were defeated everywhere except in their stronghold of Allerdale above Derwent, and even there their lead diminished daily.106 Lowther hospitality was rationed and strictly regulated. No out-county voters were paid for and ‘total’ expenditure on the Carlisle, Cumberland, Westmorland and Appleby elections amounted to only £6,500.107 Reform dinners chaired by Aglionby, Blamire and Brougham’s brothers James and William were held at Brampton, Carlisle, Penrith and Whitehaven, where, coinciding with a rival Lowther celebration in honour of the king’s birthday, a riot ensued, which the radical Carlisle Journal later claimed had been planned by the ‘under stewards of Lord Lonsdale’.108

Graham upheld the right of the aristocracy to influence representation in the county divisions and no alterations affecting Cumberland were incorporated into the reintroduced reform bill.109 On 28 July 1831 both Members defended its provisions for Cockermouth, whose claims, like those of Appleby and Whitehaven, were taken up by the Tory opposition, briefed by Lonsdale’s agents, with a view to defeating the bill.110 The omission of Preston Quarter and inclusion of the Whig districts of Harrington and Workington in the Whitehaven constituency was petitioned against, 14 July, and rightly perceived as a ministerial ‘fudge’ to counter Lowther influence. Directly the opposition amendment to remove them was defeated by 104-60, 6 Aug., another adding the parish of Moresby (in which Preston Quarter was situated) was slipped through for the government by Lord John Russell.111 Blamire’s vote against the division of counties, 11 Aug., perceived locally as conducive to ‘the coalition of one or two families, or the frequent conventions between them’, proved popular and was echoed in the prayer of the Leath Ward petition he presented, 27 Aug., which called additionally for the enfranchisement of £50 tenants-at-will.112 Petitions urging the bill’s passage were received by the Lords from Keswick, 30 Sept., the inhabitants of Brampton, the town, harbour and parish of Harrington, 3 Oct., and from Whitehaven, 4 Oct. 1831.113

Vane of Armathwaite, Sir Wastel Brisco of Crofton Hall and Lawson (a coronation baronet) headed the magistrates’ requisition for a county meeting to protest at the Lords’ rejection of the bill, 15 Nov. 1831. Lawson and Howard of Corby Castle proposed the address and James and Stanley of Plumbland a petition endorsing the bill and the Grey ministry’s conduct. Both were carried unanimously, together with declarations of support for the Members and other named reformers ‘connected with Cumberland’: James and William Brougham, Sir Sandford Graham, John Hudson, Howard of Greystoke, William Howard, William Marshall and Morpeth. Blamire, the Howards and James were asked to explain their views on the corn laws, the registry of deeds bill, tithes and the ballot. Philip Howard’s defence of the bishops and Wellington’s decision to concede Catholic emancipation was deliberately misreported, prompting Graham and the newly established Whitehaven Herald, which he sponsored to intervene.114 The anti-reformers responded with a 1,200-signature declaration, of which the prospective Conservative candidates for Cumberland West, Stanley of Ponsonby and Samuel Irton of Ravenglass, the son-in-law of Joseph Senhouse of Calder Abbey, were the ‘reputed godfathers’, and which circulated privately in January 1832 after Lonsdale’s birthday dinners.115 The Whitehaven Herald hailed it as a ‘mere election stratagem, a covert way of ascertaining Lord Lonsdale’s political strength’, and warned that ‘bribes have been taken for votes at an ensuing election and the signature of the address taken as earnest of the contract’.116 Both sides welcomed Cockermouth’s reprieve under the revised reform bill, but the exclusion of Preston Quarter from Whitehaven produced a furore and allegations of collusion between the boundary commissioners and Lonsdale’s agents.117 A public meeting at the workhouse, 30 Mar., called for the boundaries to be adjusted to counter Lowther influence, and the Commons were petitioned accordingly, 7, 22 June 1832.118 The commissioners confirmed the county division: the Eastern wards polling at Alston, Brampton, Longtown, Penrith and the election town of Carlisle; the Western wards at Bootle, Egremont, Keswick, Workington and the election town of Cockermouth.119 Petitioning revived when the Lords threatened the passage of the bill in May and a ministry headed by Wellington was contemplated.120 Anticipating imminent dissolution, committees were established and canvassing commenced on behalf of Graham and Blamire, who agreed to stand jointly and to seek concessions on Whitehaven.121 Brigham, Greysouthern and Eaglesfield petitioned for a wholesale reduction in children’s working hours and in favour of the factory bill, 13 Mar.;122 the Great Broughton-Workington road bill received royal assent, 3 Apr., and the parish of Stapleton joined in the petitioning to end capital punishment for property offences, 25 June.123 The anti-slavery campaign revived amid the celebrations to mark the Grey ministry’s reinstatement and the reform bill’s passage, and Blamire’s minority vote with Fowell Buxton for the immediate appointment of a select committee was welcomed.124 On 22 June 1832 he and James, taking Ashton-under-Lyne and Rochdale as precedents, failed by 82-23 to amend the boundary bill to make the boundaries outlined in the 1816 Whitehaven Improvement Act (which encompassed Preston Quarter) those of the new constituency; Preston Quarter became part of the incorporated town under the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act.125 The Commons received petitions from Whitehaven, Harrington and Maryport for repeal of the stamp duty on marine insurance policies, 3 Sept. 1831.126 As elsewhere in the North, the Grey ministry’s registry of deeds bill was petitioned against, and especially disliked by small landowners because it did not grant customary tenants equal status with copyholders. Blamire espoused their cause in his maiden speech, 30 June, and at the 15 Nov. 1831 meeting launched a countywide petitioning campaign against it and anomalies in the dower bill. In Commons speeches of 3, 8 Feb., 8 June 1832, he demonstrated a mastery of tenurial law and put paid to the notion that he could be unseated as a nonentity at the first post-reform election.127

The registration of 4,935 voters in Cumberland East (population 91,974) and 3,848 in Cumberland West (population 77,707) before the 1832 general election was closely scrutinized by both parties.128 A poll was narrowly avoided in Cumberland East, which returned Graham and Blamire. Cumberland West, Cockermouth and Whitehaven were all contested.129 Mismanagement, Lawson’s late retirement and Browne’s defection contributed to the defeat of the Liberal Henry Curwen by the Conservatives Lord Lowther and Stanley of Ponsonby in Cumberland West, which Lowther, preferring to sit for Westmorland, vacated.130 The Liberal Francis Aglionby lost to the Conservative Irton at the ensuing by-election and again in 1835, and Conservatives held both seats until the constituency (which was contested again in 1874 and 1880) was abolished under the 1884 Act, so confirming Blamire’s January 1833 prediction that ‘a second defeat would ... make the West into a close borough for ever’.131 In Cumberland East, which was contested six times, 1832-84, Aglionby and Blamire’s successor James defeated Graham in 1837, following his defection to the Conservatives, and the Liberals retained both seats until 1868, when joint representation resumed.

Author: Margaret Escott


  • 1. Sir James Graham mss (IHR microfilm XR 80), 29, Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Browne to Graham, 4 Apr. The Times, 10 May 1831 specified 5,000. The Whitehaven Herald, 4 Sept. 1832, that ‘it was always reckoned to be 8-10,000’.
  • 2. Cumb. Pollbook ed. T. Bailey (1831).
  • 3. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 16-18 Mar. 1820. For variations in totals see Add. 51571, Thanet to Lady Holland [18 Mar. 1820].
  • 4. Parl. Gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), i. 539-41l; J.D. Marshall, ‘Statesmen in Cumbria’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. (ser. 2), lxxii (1972), 248-73; N. Gregson, ‘Tawney revisited: custom and the emergence of capitalist class relations in north-east Cumbria’, EcHR (n.s.), xlii (1989), 30, 40; PP (1821), ix. 62-68.
  • 5. R.S. Dilley, ‘Enclosure Awards of Cumb.: A Statistical List’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. (ser. 2), c (2000), 225-31; T. Cockerill, ‘Duddon Hall and its Owners, 1740-1860’, ibid. (ser. 3), ii (2002), 253-60; D. Uttley, ‘The decline of the Cumbrian Yeoman. Fact or Fiction’, ibid. (ser. 3), vii (2007), 121-33.
  • 6. J.D. Marshall and J.K. Walton, Lake Counties (1981), 1-16; A. Aspinall, Politics and the Press, 254-68.
  • 7. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 88-91; The Times, 18, 19 Oct. 1819; Ibid., Graham to Brougham, 7 Feb. 1822; Fitzwilliam mss F49/59.
  • 8. Carlisle Jnl. 5, 12 Feb. 1820.
  • 9. Castle Howard mss, Carlisle to Morpeth, 19, 27 Nov. 1819, Abercromby to same, 5 Feb., Morpeth to wife, 2, 9, 10 Feb.; Brougham mss, Pearson to Brougham, 7 Feb., J. Brougham to same [11 Feb.] 1820.
  • 10. Lonsdale mss, Hodgson to Lonsdale, 6, 10 Feb.; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 10 Feb.; Brougham mss, Saul to Brougham, 15 Feb. 1820; Northumb. RO, Middleton mss ZM1/S76/35/2, 3.
  • 11. Hants RO, Tierney mss 31M70/31; Castle Howard mss, Lady Carlisle to [?], 13 Feb.; Brougham mss, Saul to Brougham, 15 Feb. 1820.
  • 12. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 9 Feb.; Cumb. Pacquet, 29 Feb.; Lonsdale mss, Hodgson to Lonsdale, 1 Mar.; Cumbria RO (Carlisle) D/BD/12/12/1; Middleton mss S76/35/1, 4-7; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 7 Mar. 1820.
  • 13. Brougham mss, Crackenthorpe to Brougham, 9 Feb.; Lonsdale mss, Hodgson to Lowther, 23, 28 Feb.; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 9, 11, 13, 14 Mar.; Reading Univ. Archives Printing coll. (Folio 324.4285 SQU), Carlisle Elections, f. 7; Cumb. Pacquet, 25 Feb., 14 Mar. 1820.
  • 14. Clwyd RO, Lowther mss DD/L/178, J. Lowther to Lonsdale and replies, 26 Jan.-24 Mar.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 8 Feb., J. Lowther to same, 12 Feb. 1820.
  • 15. Lonsdale mss, Hodgson to Lonsdale, 6, 10, 18 Feb. 1820; Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth ed. M. Moorman and A.G. Hill (1970), ii. 573-6.
  • 16. Lowther mss 178, W.P. Johnston to J. Lowther, 27 Feb., Stanley of Ponsonby to same, 6 Mar., Sir J. Graham to same, 16 Mar. 1820.
  • 17. Add. 51571, Thanet to Holland, 17 Mar. 1820.
  • 18. Whitehaven Gazette, 20 Mar.; The Times, 21 Mar.; Castle Howard mss, Brougham to Carlisle [1820].
  • 19. Add. 51571, Thanet to Holland, 17 Mar.; Castle Howard mss, Brougham to Carlisle [n.d.]; The Times, 21 Mar.; Newcastle Chron. 25 Mar. 1820; PP (1831), xvi. 180. The Whitehaven Gazette gave Curwen’s first day total as 148.
  • 20. The Times, 25 Mar.; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 16-18 Mar.; Add. 51571, Thanet to Holland, 17, 18 Mar.; Lonsdale mss, abstract accts. Cumb. election, 17-18 Mar. 1820.
  • 21. Add. 51578, Morpeth’s address, 20 Mar. 1820.
  • 22. Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 22 Mar., 5 Apr., Grey to Brougham, 15 Apr.; NLS mss 5319, f. 195; Middleton mss S76/29/13; Bessborough mss, Grey to Duncannon, 9 Apr.; Castle Howard mss, Brougham to Carlisle [1820].
  • 23. Add. 51562, Brougham to Holland, 20, 23 Mar.; 51571, Thanet to Holland, 18, 22, 24, 27 Mar., to Lady Holland, 23 Mar. 1820.
  • 24. Add. 52444, f. 99.
  • 25. Castle Howard mss, memo. re. Cumb. election, Mar. 1820.
  • 26. Add. 51571, Morpeth to Holland, 27 Mar.; NLS mss 5319, f. 195; Lonsdale mss, abstract accts. Cumb. election, 17-18 Mar.; Lowther mss 178, bdle. of election corresp. May 1820.
  • 27. Cumbria RO (Workington), Curwen mss D/Cu/3/14; Whitehaven Gazette, 3 Apr. 1820.
  • 28. CJ, lxxv. 131, 209, 236.
  • 29. Ibid. lxxv. 270, 280, 286; lxxvi. 60; lxxviii. 84.
  • 30. The Times, 10 Aug. 1820.
  • 31. Whitehaven Gazette, 18 Nov.; Westmld. Advertiser, 18 Nov. 1820.
  • 32. Whitehaven Gazette, 24, 31 July, 6, 13, 20 Nov. 1820; The Times, 3 Mar. 1821; E. Hughes, North Country Life, ii. 371-2; Curwen mss 3/44/75; 5/109; CJ, lxxviii. 190; lxxxii. 74; D. Mawson, ‘Coal mining at Reagill, Sleagill and Newby, 1683-1837’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. (ser. 3), iv (2004), 175.
  • 33. Diaries and Corresp. of James Losh ed. E. Hughes (Surtees Soc. cclxxiv) [hereafter Losh Diaries, ii], 162; Carlisle Patriot, 3, 10, 17, 31 Mar.; Carlisle Jnl. 24 Mar.; Leeds Intelligencer, 2 Apr. 1821.
  • 34. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 2, 6, 15 Mar.; Add. 51564, Brougham to Lady Holland, 8 Mar.; Carlisle Jnl. 17, 24 Mar. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 179.
  • 35. The Times, 10, 18 Apr.; Morning Chron. 10 Apr. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 275, 279.
  • 36. Add. 37949, f. 103; CJ, lxxvii. 37, 63, 91, 96; Whitehaven Gazette, 11 Feb.; Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 3 Mar. 1822.
  • 37. The Times, 31 Dec. 1822, 14 Jan.; Carlisle Jnl. 11, 18 Jan., 1, 22 Feb., 19, 26 Apr. 1823; CJ, lxxviii. 371.
  • 38. CJ, lxxviii. 7, 84, 371.
  • 39. Ibid. lxxvi. 394; lxxix. 161, 253, 288, 297; lxxx. 337, 350; LJ, lvii, 657.
  • 40. CJ, lxxix. 162, 187, 253, 404.
  • 41. Ibid. 21, 32, 30, 35, 43, 51, 124, 163, 278; lxxx. 74, 175, 271, 307, 312.
  • 42. Carlisle Jnl. 11 Aug. 1821, 9, 14 May 1825; Hughes, North Country Life, ii. 283, 468, and Studs. in Administration of Finance, 491, 494, 592; CJ, lxxviii. 84; lxxix. 90, 97, 111, 131; Curwen mss 3/75; B. Hilton, Corn, Cash, Commerce, 271.
  • 43. CJ, lxxviii. 415; lxxix. 203, 210, 229, 297, 417, 422; lxxxi. 91, 211, 263; Carlisle Jnl. 29 Apr. 1826.
  • 44. The Times, 11 May 1825.
  • 45. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 25 July, 22 Aug. 1825; R.S. Ferguson, Cumb. and Westmld. MPs, 245.
  • 46. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 23 Mar. 1825, Hodgson to same, 1 June, P. Musgrave to same, 14 June, R. Porter to Lowther, 14 Apr. 1826; Carlisle Jnl. 17 Sept. 1825; Brougham mss, W. to J. Brougham [16 Feb.]; Lowther mss 179, Lonsdale to J. Lowther, 10 Mar. 1826.
  • 47. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 13 June; Carlisle Patriot, 17 June 1826.
  • 48. Carlisle Jnl. 10 June 1826; Carlisle Elections, f. 44.
  • 49. Carlisle Jnl. 17 June; Carlisle Patriot, 17 June; The Times, 20 June; Cumb. Pacquet, 20 June 1826.
  • 50. Carlisle Patriot, 24 June, Cumb. Pacquet, 27 June; Brougham mss, Curwen to J. Brougham, 8 Aug. 1826.
  • 51. Carlisle Jnl. 29 Sept. 1826, 11 Aug. 1827; Hughes, North Country Life, ii. 286-7.
  • 52. CJ, lxxxii. 191; lxxxiii. 176, 203, 216; Carlisle Patriot, 12, 19, 26 Apr. 1828.
  • 53. CJ, lxxxii. 191, 350; lxxxiii. 221, 288; LJ, lx. 260.
  • 54. CJ, lxxxii. 594; lxxxiii. 73, 105.; LJ, lx. 65, 69, 74, 79.
  • 55. Losh Diaries, ii. 182; Add. 69366, Greville to Fortescue, 15 Sept.; Castle Howard mss, Abercromby to Carlisle [Oct.]; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 10 Sept. 1827.
  • 56. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 10 Dec. 1828; Carlisle elections ff. 113-14, 119.
  • 57. Castle Howard mss, Abercromby to Carlisle, 14 Dec., Lady Carlisle to same, 19 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet, 23 Dec. 1828, 6 Jan. 1829.
  • 58. Lowther to Lonsdale, 15, 22 Dec. 1828, Hodgson to same, 24 Jan. Cumb. Pacquet, 6 Jan. 1829.
  • 59. Cumb. Pacquet, 30 Dec. 1828.
  • 60. Lonsdale mss, W. Wood to Lonsdale, 17 Jan., Benn to same, 24 Jan.; Cumb. Pacquet, 20 Jan. 1829.
  • 61. Cumb. Pacquet, 17 Feb.-14 Apr. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 76, 103, 120; LJ, lxi. 114, 115, 118, 119, 210, 250, 352, 357.
  • 62. LJ, lx. 244, 292, 511; lxi. 352.
  • 63. CJ, lxxxiv. 393.
  • 64. Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 6 Oct. 1829.
  • 65. Brougham mss, J. Lowther to Brougham, 3 Oct. 1829, Crackenthorpe to same, 9 Feb. 1830; H. Lonsdale, Cumb. Worthies, iv (1873), 287; Carlisle Jnl. 16, 23 Jan.; Cumb. Pacquet, 19, 26 Jan.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 11, 20 Jan., bdle. on 1830 Cumb. meeting; Lansdowne mss, Lansdowne to Rice, 22 Jan.; Manchester Guardian, 23 Jan. 1830.
  • 66. Carlisle Jnl. 30 Jan.; Cumb. Pacquet, 2 Feb.; Lonsdale mss, bdle. re. 1830 Cumb. meeting; LJ, lxii. 13; The Times, 9, 10 Feb. 1830.
  • 67. The Times, 30 Jan. 1830.
  • 68. CJ, lxxxiv. 113, 150, 283; lxxxv. 47, 139, 474; LJ, lxii. 145, 547.
  • 69. CJ, lxxxv. 235.
  • 70. T.M. Bell and R.W. Rennison, ‘The Alston Branch of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. (ser. 3), i (2001), 175-87.
  • 71. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 18 July, bdles. re. 1830 election; Wilts. RO, Radnor mss 490/1374, Radnor’s memo. 9 July; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Newcastle mss Ne2 F3/1/248; Lowther mss 179, J.H. to J. Lowther, 31 July 1830.
  • 72. Cumb. Pacquet, 20, 27 July, 3 Aug. 1830.
  • 73. ‘Carlisle Elections’, ff. 158-68, 173, 202-4; Cumb. Pacquet, 13, 20, 27 July; Castle Howard mss, Graham to Morpeth, 31 July; Carlisle Jnl. 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 74. Hants RO, Carnarvon mss 75M91/L3, Howard to Lady Porchester, 9 Aug.; Cumb. Pacquet, 27 July, 3, 10 Aug. 1830.
  • 75. Carlisle Jnl. 14 Aug.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 16 Aug.; Cumb. Pacquet, 10, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 76. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 12 Aug.; Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 16, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 77. Carlisle Jnl. 20 Nov., 4 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet. 23 Nov.; Sir James Graham mss 25, Graham to Blamire, 7 Dec. 1830.
  • 78. Carlisle Jnl. 20 Nov., 4 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet, 23, 30 Nov., 7 Dec.; Chatsworth mss, Brougham to Devonshire, 5 Dec.; Sir James Graham mss 25, Blamire to Graham, 7 Dec. Carlisle Patriot, 10 Dec.; Carlisle Jnl. 11, 18 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet, 14 Dec. 1830, 4 Jan. 1831.
  • 79. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 22 Nov.; Carlisle Patriot, 11, 18 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet, 21 Dec. 1830.
  • 80. Carlisle Jnl. 8 Jan., 12 Feb.; Cumb. Pacquet, 12 Apr. 1831.
  • 81. CJ, lxxxvi. 35, 52, 53, 105, 454-5; LJ, lxiii. 29, 31, 39, 108-9, 130, 133, 144, 152, 503-4.
  • 82. LJ, lxiii. 34, 228; CJ, lxxxvi. 240, 395.
  • 83. Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Howard mss D/HC/1/21, J. Steel to P.H. Howard, 5 Mar., Dobinson to same, 8 Mar.; Sir James Graham mss 25, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Blamire, Browne of Tallantire, P.H. Howard and Rev. E. Stanley to Graham and replies, Mar.-May; Carlisle Jnl. 12, 19 Mar.; Carlisle Patriot, 19 Mar. 1831.
  • 84. Sir James Graham mss 25, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Blamire to Graham [Apr. 1831].
  • 85. Cumb. Pacquet, 8, 22 Mar.; CJ, lxxxvi. 407; LJ, lxiii. 346, 353, 498.
  • 86. Sir James Graham mss 1, bdle. 5. Browne to Graham, 8 Apr., Blamire to same [Apr. 1831].
  • 87. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 22 Nov., 28 Dec. 1830, 13, 24 Jan., 5 Apr.; Sir James Graham mss 25, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, W. Perry to Graham, 28 Apr.; The Times, 28, 29 Apr.; Westmld. Advertiser, 30 Apr.; New Letters of Robert Southey ed. K. Curry, 365; Carnarvon mss L3, Howard to Lady Porchester, 4 May 1831.
  • 88. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 28 Apr. 1831.
  • 89. Ibid. canvassing lists, Cumb. 1831; Westmld. Advertiser, 14 May 1831.
  • 90. Lowther mss 167, Stanley of Ponsonby to Sir J. Lowther, 28 Apr., J.H. Lowther to same, 29 Apr.; Lonsdale mss, Lonsdale to Lowther, 29 Apr. 1831; Southey Letters, ii. 366.
  • 91. Carlisle Jnl. 16, 23, 30 Apr., 7 May; Sir James Graham mss 25, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Mounsey to Graham, 27 Apr., 1 May, Perry to same, 28 Apr.; Brougham mss, Brougham to Graham, n.d.; Carlisle elections, f. 208; Northumb. RO, Hope Wallace mss ZHW/2/14.
  • 92. Carlisle Jnl. 30 Apr., 7 May; Losh Diaries ii. 138; Sir James Graham mss 29, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Browne to Graham, 4 Apr. 1831.
  • 93. Brougham mss, Blamire to J. Brougham [Apr.]; Carlisle Jnl. 30 Apr. 1831.
  • 94. Sir James Graham mss 29, bdle. Cumb. election pprs. 1831, Browne to Graham, 8 Apr., Graham to Blamire, 25 Apr., 1 May 1831.
  • 95. Ibid. Graham to Blamire, 1 May 1831; Lonsdale, Cumb. Worthies, ii (1868), 248-9.
  • 96. Brougham mss, J. to Lord Brougham, 4 May 1831.
  • 97. Carlisle Jnl. 7 May-4 June; The Times, 10, 11, 30, 31 May, 2 June 1831; Greville Mems. ii. 147.
  • 98. Carlisle Patriot, 7 May; The Times, 10 May 1831.
  • 99. Sir James Graham mss 1, bdle. 5, Blamire to Graham [Apr.], Graham to Grey [draft], 5 May; The Times, 10, 11 May; Cumb. Pollbook (1831) ed. T. Bailey, pp. xi-xlvii.
  • 100. Lonsdale, ii. 244-5; Lonsdale mss, canvassing lists, Cumb.; Brougham mss, Howard to Brougham, 12 May; The Times, 12 May 1831.
  • 101. PP (1831), xvi. 180; Cumb. Pollbook, 1-65; Lonsdale mss, Lonsdale to Lowther, 16 May 1831.
  • 102. Figures for first three days only.
  • 103. Hope-Wallace mss 2/14.
  • 104. PRO NI, Anglesey mss D619/28A-B/55, Grey to Anglesey, 7 May; Sir James Graham mss 1, bdle. 6, Grey to Graham, 10 May 1831.
  • 105. Greville Mems. ii. 147.
  • 106. Cumbria RO (Carlisle) QRP3, ms pollbooks; Carnarvon mss L3, Howard of Greystoke to Lady Porchester, 12 May 1831.
  • 107. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 2 Aug., box of election accts. 1831.
  • 108. The Times, 2 June; Carlisle Jnl. 4 June, 30 July 1831, 3 Mar. 1832; Brougham mss, W. to J. Brougham, 14 June 1831.
  • 109. Sir James Graham mss 1, Graham to Grey, 17 June 1831.
  • 110. CJ, lxxxvi. 655, 678; Lonsdale mss, bdles. Whitehaven, etc. 1831-2; PP (1831), xvi. 70-71, 153, 353; Carlisle Jnl. 16, 23, 30 July 1831.
  • 111. Brougham mss, W. to J. Brougham, 14 June 1831; M. Brock, Great Reform Act, 222; CJ, lxxxvi. 655, 733.
  • 112. Howard mss D/HC/1/21, P.H. Howard to Graham, 18 May; PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 89; CJ, lxxxvi. 788; Carlisle Jnl. 16 July, 20 Aug., 3 Sept. 1831.
  • 113. LJ, lxiii. 1022, 1033, 1035, 1046.
  • 114. Carlisle Jnl. 15, 22, 29 Oct., 5, 19, 26 Nov.; The Times, 18 Nov.; Whitehaven Herald, 26 Nov. 1831.
  • 115. Carlisle Patriot, 31 Dec. 1831, 21 Jan.; Cumb. Pacquet, 3 Jan.; Carlisle Jnl. 21 Jan., 4 Feb. 1832.
  • 116. Whitehaven Herald, 24 Jan. 1832.
  • 117. Carlisle Jnl. 17 Dec.; Carlisle Patriot, 17 Dec.; Cumb. Pacquet, 20 Dec.; Whitehaven Herald, 20 Dec. 1831; Losh Diary, ii. 209.
  • 118. Cumb. Pacquet, 3 Apr. 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 386, 426.
  • 119. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 89.
  • 120. CJ, lxxxvii. 364, 371; Cumb. Pacquet, 8, 15, 22 May; Carlisle Jnl. 14 May 1832.
  • 121. CJ, lxxxvii. 364, 371; Sir James Graham mss 2, bdle. 13, Graham to Browne, Curwen, Lawson, R. Mounsey, Perry and Saul, 11 May, and replies, 13-17 May, to Perry, 19 May. 1832.
  • 122. LJ, lxiv. 96.
  • 123. Ibid. lxiv. 162, 322.
  • 124. Carlisle Jnl. 16, 23, 30 June 1832.
  • 125. Brock, 222; N. Gash, Politics in Age of Peel, 67.
  • 126. CJ, lxxxvi. 815.
  • 127. Ibid. lxxxvi. 470; lxxxvii. 54, 69, 74, 82; Carlisle Patriot, 26 Nov., 3, 10, Dec.; Carlisle Jnl. 31 Dec. 1831; Whitehaven Herald, 3, 10 Jan. 1832.
  • 128. Sir James Graham mss 2, bdle. 2, Graham to Ellice, 21 Aug.; Whitehaven Herald, 4, 11, 18 Sept.; Cumb. Pacquet, 23, 30 Oct. 1832; PP (1833), xxvii. 33.
  • 129. Sir James Graham mss 2, bdle. 2, Graham to Rev. E. Stanley, 7 July, to Ellice, 21 Aug., to Althorp, 13 Dec.; Brougham mss, Howard of Corby Castle to J. Brougham, 17 Dec.; Blamire to same [1832].
  • 130. Brougham mss, Howard of Corby Castle to J. Brougham, 18, 30 Dec., Graham to same, 18 Dec.; Carlisle Jnl. 22, 29 Dec. 1832.
  • 131. Brougham mss, Blamire to J. Brougham [Jan. 1833].