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:

about 7,000



Main Article

Gloucestershire, a mixed agricultural, pastoral and industrial county straddling the River Severn, was broadly divided into three areas running parallel from north-east to south-west. To the east lay the Cotswold hills, where sheep farming supplied the raw material for cloth manufacturing in the unfranchised town of Stroud and a cluster of smaller settlements, including Dursley, Minchinhampton, Nailsworth, Painswick, Rodborough, Stonehouse and Wotton-under-Edge. They were beginning to experience structural economic decline in this period, and attempts to introduce factory production and new machinery and impose wage cuts led to a series of industrial disputes. Between the Cotswolds and the Severn ran the Vales of Berkeley, Gloucester and Evesham, which were noted for their corn growing, livestock fattening, dairy farming and fruit orchards. On the west bank of the river was the Forest of Dean, where rich deposits of coal and iron ore were found; in the summer of 1831 rioting by the free miners, against the alleged usurpation of their rights by outsiders, was put down using military force. The Severn provided a natural outlet for the county’s agricultural and mineral produce and was ‘considered the second commercial river in England’. Cheltenham, which had grown rapidly since the 1780s into a fashionable spa resort, was the largest unfranchised town.1

County politics had traditionally been dominated by the two largest landowners, the Whig earls of Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle, and the Tory dukes of Beaufort, of Badminton House. However, at a by-election in 1811 the electoral pact between the families, which had operated for a generation, was broken by the intervention of Sir Berkeley William Guise of Highnam Court, who championed the cause of the ‘independent’ freeholders. Thereafter, Guise was returned unopposed as the Whig representative with the 6th duke of Beaufort’s brother, Lord Edward Somerset, whose supporters included the 3rd Earl Bathurst of Oakley Park, the 1st Baron Redesdale of Batsford, Sir William Blathwayt of Dyrham and, by the end of the period, Sir Christopher Bethell Codrington† of Dodington. The Berkeley influence remained formidable, but Colonel William Fitzhardinge Berkeley†, the eldest illegitimate son of the 5th earl, who succeeded to the main family estates in 1810, was prevented by a House of Lords’ judgment the following year from assuming the title. Described as a ‘very dissipated ... man’ and an ‘arrant blackguard’, Berkeley set about building up his local power base in support of his claim to a peerage.2 He became president of the Gloucestershire Constitutional Whig Association on its formation in 1816, but there were signs of tension in his relations with other leading figures, such as Guise, the 4th Baron Ducie of Tortworth Court and Colonel Robert Kingscote of Kingscote, and talk of those he had ‘disgusted’ forming a separate organization.3

The customary county address of condolence and congratulation was voted in Gloucester, 22 Feb. 1820.4 Reports were meantime circulating that certain freeholders had invited David Ricardo* of Gatcombe Park, the eminent political economist, to offer in opposition to Somerset at the general election. One anonymous ‘elector’ expressed the hope that by returning two independent Members the county might avoid sinking into the ‘same state of humiliating dependence upon a few great families’ that had existed before 1811. In fact, there was no foundation for these reports and the election proceedings passed off quietly.5 Somerset appeared on the hustings wearing his military decorations and was introduced by Sir Henry Lippincott of Over Court and Chandos Leigh of Adlestrop. He condemned the attempts by ‘evil disposed persons’ to ‘disseminate disaffection and treason’ among the ‘lower orders’, and observed that the ‘distresses of the people’ of Gloucestershire had been ‘borne with a patience and resignation that did honour to the county’. Guise, whose sponsors were Kingscote and Joseph Pyrke of Littledean, declared his opposition to all measures that eroded the ‘rights and liberties of the people’ and called for action to ‘lighten the burthen’ of taxation. They were declared elected, chaired, and gave dinners for ‘large parties of their respective friends’ at the Bell and King’s Head Inns; ‘reciprocal visits of congratulation’ were paid during the evening.6

The cloth workers petitioned the Commons against the introduction of new machinery, 5 May 1820, 6 Mar. 1821, while their employers pressed for repeal of the wool tax, 16 May 1820, 19 Mar. 1821, 16 Feb., 25 Mar. 1824, and revision of the corn laws, 22, 25 Apr. 1825.7 The agriculturists sent petitions to both Houses for relief from distress and higher protective duties in 1820, 1821 and 1822, and to the Commons for maintenance of the corn laws, 28 Apr. 1825.8 In November 1820 the news of the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline prompted ‘extensive ... public rejoicing’, and at Stroud, Painswick, Stow-on-the-Wold and other places a green bag, ‘the symbol of ministerial abasement’, was ceremonially burned.9 Ducie, Berkeley, Kingscote and other leading Whigs organized a requisition to the sheriff, Sir Edwin Bayntun Sandys of Miserden Park, for a county meeting to condemn the ‘illegal and unconstitutional measures’ of ministers, but this was rejected. The meeting was summoned instead by a group of magistrates and held in Gloucester, 30 Dec. 1820, when the 2nd Baron Sherborne of Sherborne Park presided. Guise moved an address to the king calling for the dismissal of ministers, whom he blamed for the ‘present ... distress’ in the country, and was seconded by Maynard Colchester, vice-president of the Constitutional Whig Club. Ricardo, the other main speaker, ‘heartily approved’ of the address but regretted that it made no mention of parliamentary reform. It was agreed unanimously and a motion expressing ‘strong reprobation’ of the sheriff’s conduct was carried with ‘one dissentient voice’; similar addresses were forwarded from Stroud, bearing 2,450 signatures, and Cheltenham, with 3,150. Beaufort, Redesdale and other Tories promoted a loyal address to the king, which received nearly 2,000 signatures; another from Clifton had 500 names attached to it, ‘including ... almost every freeholder’. Petitions to the Commons calling for the restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy were sent from Stroud, with 3,433 signatures, and Chipping Sodbury, and presented by Guise, 24 Jan. 1821.10 Anti-Catholic petitions, mostly from clergymen in all parts of the county, were presented to Parliament in 1821 and 1825, though the inhabitants of Stroud petitioned for relief, 13, 17 May, 2 June 1825.11 Cheltenham, Stonehouse and Stroud sent anti-slavery petitions to Parliament in May 1823, and several other towns petitioned for this in the spring of 1824, when Cheltenham and Stroud also demanded inquiry into the prosecution of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara.12 Early in 1826 Kingscote tried to promote a requisition for a county meeting on the slavery question, but whereas Berkeley was sympathetic, Ducie and Sherborne saw no purpose to be served and the plan was dropped after Berkeley warned that ‘if we have not a great many respectable names, we shall only be laughed at’. Further petitions were, nevertheless, forwarded to the Commons from several towns that session.13 The inhabitants of Cheltenham and Clifton petitioned the Commons for repeal of the house and window taxes, 22 Feb., 24 Mar. 1825.14 There was no opposition to the sitting Members at the general election of 1826. Somerset, who was proposed by Thomas Bucknall Estcourt* and John Browne of Salperton, asserted that the nation had enjoyed ‘unexampled prosperity’ since the last election and, while lamenting the recent ‘calamitous depression’, remained confident that ‘the energies and resources of [the] country’ were ‘unimpaired’. Guise, nominated by Ducie’s son, Henry Reynolds Moreton, and Pyrke, pledged to help ‘enforce a system of economy and retrenchment’ so that the ‘heavy taxation which presses so severely on the people’ might be reduced. They were declared elected and chaired and the usual dinners were given.15

In late 1826 and 1827 the manufacturers of Chalford, Stroud and other textile centres petitioned Parliament for repeal of the corn laws, but these were countered by agriculturists’ petitions for the maintenance of protection.16 The woollen manufacturers sent petitions against an additional tax on imported wool, 28, 29 Apr. 1828, and renewal of the East India Company’s charter, 17, 22 Feb. 1830.17 Numerous petitions for repeal of the Test Acts were forwarded to the Commons in 1827 and both Houses in 1828.18 Anti-Catholic petitions, lay and clerical, were presented to Parliament in 1827 and 1828, and in 1829 there was a widespread campaign against emancipation, although both Members supported the Wellington ministry’s bill; Cheltenham, Moreton-in-Marsh, Nailsworth and Stroud sent petitions in its favour.19 Agriculturists and tradesmen in the vicinity of Stow-in-the-Wold petitioned Parliament for relief from distress, 11, 18 Feb., and the inhabitants of Dursley did the same, advocating tax cuts, 16, 18 Mar. 1830.20 Stroud, Wotton-under-Edge and other manufacturing centres presented petitions for abolition of the truck system in Mar. and Apr. and, following a meeting at Rodborough, 31 Mar., the manufacturers followed suit, 28 Apr., 10 May.21 The inhabitants and bankers of Cheltenham, Minchinhampton, Stroud and other towns petitioned for abolition of the death penalty for forgery in May and June 1830.22 About this time William Cobbett† delivered several political lectures in Gloucestershire, but the attendances were apparently modest and he had hostile receptions at Cheltenham, which he had insulted in his Political Register, and Stroud.23 At the dissolution that summer Somerset and Guise offered again, but there were reports of ‘a gentleman of the most splendid talents in the House of Commons’, who would be ‘cordially approved by a large majority of the independent freeholders’, planning to come forward. William Gent Wood, Beaufort’s agent, informed the duke that many believed the mystery candidate to be Henry Brougham*. While doubting the likelihood of such an intervention, he added that ‘I do not like oversecurity and therefore have requested several of my best Forest [of Dean] friends to attend and Mr. Davis [Beaufort’s attorney in Gloucester] will take care of the city, so as to have at a little or no expense a numerous show of hands in the cause of True Blue’. Beaufort, who had given instructions to avoid ‘extravagance’, was anxious to ensure that no dinners were given to freeholders until after the election, ‘for ... there is evidently some person who means mischief [and] Lord Edward and his friends must be very careful that nothing occurs that may be called treating ... even one dinner ... might enable them to present a petition and invalidate an election’. In the event, no third candidate appeared and Somerset and Guise enjoyed another unopposed return. Somerset was sponsored by Browne and Blathwayt and rested on his past conduct. Guise, who was again nominated by Moreton and Pyrke, affirmed his commitment to retrenchment and reform, hoped that Britain would not interfere in France’s internal affairs and predicted that slavery and the East India Company’s charter would be the main issues in the next session. They were declared elected and their supporters exchanged three cheers. Beaufort’s bill for his brother’s expenses amounted to £495, compared with £548 in 1826, and included £191 14s. for 192 freeholders’ dinners and wine for 23 non-diners, and £72 18s. for 729 gallons of beer.24

There was an extensive petitioning campaign for the abolition of slavery between November 1830 and March 1831.25 The manufacturers, tradesmen, magistrates and clergy of the clothing districts petitioned the Commons for abolition of the truck system, 18 Nov., 13, 14 Dec. 1830.26 Towards the end of November 1830 outbreaks of rioting and machine breaking occurred at Fairford, Lechlade, Eastleach, Bibury, Tetbury and other locations in a concentrated area in the south-east of the county close to the Wiltshire border; several arson attacks later took place in the north, around Moreton-in-Marsh and Winchcombe, but these were apparently unrelated. Beaufort, Blathwayt, Codrington and other landowners organized their tenants into a ‘squadron of yeomanry cavalry ... to render assistance whenever it may be necessary’, and Sherborne, acting on behalf of the magistrates, issued a notice to ‘the peasantry’ urging them to return to work. Beaufort’s private advice was that the farmers should ‘take down their threshing machines ... put them quietly away and perhaps set some men to thresh ... immediately, merely to take away any excuse from these vagabonds to do any mischief’. Precautionary measures were taken in the larger towns, including Cheltenham, where an ‘armed mounted association of upwards of 100 men’ was formed, ‘nearly 800 special constables’ enrolled and a subscription of £600 raised to pay for them. The arrested labourers were tried at the quarter sessions in January 1831, when 27 were sentenced to transportation and 25 to imprisonment.27 Public meetings were held at Almondsbury, Berkeley, Frampton Cotterell, Old Sodbury, Winterbourne and Yate, which petitioned the Commons for reform or abolition of tithes, 9, 16 Feb., 2, 16 Mar. 1831.28

Early in 1831 the feeling in favour of parliamentary reform was ‘most unequivocally displayed’ in Gloucestershire. The inhabitants of Chipping Sodbury and Dursley petitioned the Commons for the ballot, 9, 26 Feb., a Cheltenham reform petition with over 1,000 signatures was presented that day and a ‘Central Association for the promotion of reform and purity of election’ was formed at Stroud. The Grey ministry’s bill, which proposed to leave the county’s existing borough representation intact and give one seat to Cheltenham, prompted numerous petitions of support, notably from Dursley, Stroud and other cloth manufacturing towns, which were forwarded to the Commons in March.29 Following a requisition to the sheriff, Thomas Boevey of Flaxley Abbey, a county meeting to consider a loyal address and petition in support of the bill was summoned for 17 Mar., although Boevey himself declined to attend. Another absentee was Thomas Lloyd Baker of Hardwicke Court, who approved of the redistribution of seats but not of the £10 household franchise, as he feared the new voters would have ‘no stake in the country and may all go to the Swan River in a week after they have given such votes as may saddle us who remain with Members who will do us an infinity of mischief’. The ‘numerous and respectable’ meeting was chaired by Berkeley, who welcomed the ‘restoration of the rights and privileges ... of the people’, hoped the Whigs might act as ‘mediators’, uniting reformers and Tories in ‘one common purpose for the public safety’, and claimed that only a ‘small body’ remained opposed to the bill. Reynolds Moreton dismissed the alarmist language employed by anti-reformers and maintained that the Whigs supported the royal prerogative and believed ‘the British constitution should ... continue to be the dread of tyrants, and the envy and ... wonder of the civilized world’. William Hyett of Painswick, a leading figure in the Stroud Central Assocation, was convinced that ‘nine-tenths of the population’ approved of the bill and warned those Members intending to oppose it to ‘ponder well before they give their votes, if they valued their seats’ - a clear hint to Somerset. Edward Sheppard of Wotton-under-Edge, a veteran reformer, said he personally favoured the ballot and triennial parliaments, but thought ‘no trifling difference should prevent that unanimity of sentiment which should meet a measure fraught with so much good’. In a particularly significant contribution, Purnell Bransby Purnell of Dursley, the son of Robert Bransby Cooper*, former Tory Member for Gloucester, congratulated ministers on producing a ‘fair ... full ... efficient and comprehensive reform in the Commons’ which ‘avoids all extremes’. James Byles of Gloucester tried to move a hostile amendment, but the ‘hissing and uproar was tremendous’ and in the ‘deafening confusion’ he could not be heard. The address and petition were agreed, the latter being presented to the Commons by Guise, 24 Mar., and the former by Ducie, Sherborne, Berkeley, Guise and Hyett at a levee, 13 Apr. 1831. An enthusiastic Gloucester Journal was impressed with how ‘men of all political creeds and grades in society appeared anxious to unite their energies in support of the great measure’ and concluded that this ‘placed beyond ... reach of doubt the bent of public opinion’.30

Within days of the division on the bill’s second reading, which Guise supported and Somerset opposed, 22 Mar. 1831, Hyett chaired a meeting of freeholders at Stroud, where a committee was formed to assist in returning Guise at the next general election and to seek a second reform candidate. Similar district committees were set up at Berkeley, Eastington and Tewkesbury. In early April a requisition was circulated pledging support for Guise and inviting Reynolds Moreton to stand with him: the names of 2,100 signatories were published in the local press and another 1,600 were reportedly sent in later. In accepting, Reynolds Moreton pledged support for ‘that great act of national justice, the want of which has plunged our country into its present state of distress’, and Guise signified that he too would offer at the dissolution. When Somerset helped to defeat the bill by supporting Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, Nathaniel Partridge, chairman of the Stroud Central Association, wrote a public letter denouncing him as ‘utterly unfit to represent the free and independent electors of this ... county’. Guise, in a published address, trusted that ‘this great and opulent county will elect for its representatives men whose votes ... upon all great and important questions, shall not in future be rendered nugatory and inefficient’.31 However, the forces of Toryism were not to be overcome easily. Beaufort, disgusted by the ‘great attempt at mischief amongst the political vagabonds at Stroud’, had already instructed his agent that ‘you may give a hint amongst my tenants that I shall not understand their flirting with anybody’, and his brother issued an address, 7 Apr., announcing his intention of standing again. A declaration of support for Somerset was organized, and in his election address he welcomed this ‘willing testimony to the purity of my motives’ and complained that his opponents ‘entirely misrepresent both my views and intentions’, as he was willing to consider a moderate measure of reform. His supporters met at the Bell in Gloucester, 3 May, when the chairman, Browne, urged the freeholders ‘not to submit to the dictation of two Members for the county by the same party, and by the same individuals, who have dictated also two Members for the city’ - an allusion to the candidacy of Berkeley’s brother, Frederick, with Edward Webb*, Guise’s brother-in-law. It was resolved to form a committee, open a subscription to cover Somerset’s expenses (to which ‘several thousand pounds were immediately given ... since much increased)’, arrange for the conveyance of voters and express gratitude for ‘the valuable professional services ... gratuitously offered’. Prior to this meeting, Frederick Berkeley had privately feared that ‘the reform question will not carry Moreton through. I do hope and trust he will not ruin himself’.32 In fact, Beaufort’s assessment that ‘the reform mania is much too general and may be fatal to us’ proved to be more accurate. There was said to be widespread support for Guise and Reynolds Moreton in the hill district and the Vales, the Dissenters had ‘taken up the cause of the reformers very warmly’, and ‘the Foresters ... received these candidates by drawing their carriages into the several towns ... and exhibiting a fervour of attachment unheard of in former contests’. A central committee was formed at Gloucester, with a fund that would reportedly ‘be made up to £10,000’ if necessary, which co-ordinated the arrangements by district committees for conveying voters and offered assistance with carriages. One of the district committees met daily at Bristol, where a banquet was given to the candidates. At Cheltenham, a ‘loyal patriotic fund’ was raised to ensure the election was conducted ‘free of expense ... so far as the hundred of Cheltenham extends’, and at Stroud a similar subscription was started by ‘working artisans and manufacturers ... who are not freeholders’. Guise, in his address, confidently predicted that ‘by a strong pull, a short pull and a pull altogether, you will realise the wishes of our good and gracious monarch’, and Reynolds Moreton found abundant proof that ‘the agriculturists ... manufacturers [and] commercial men’ were all committed to ‘genuine reform’.33 The day before polling, Gloucester was prepared for ‘a contest of two or three day’s duration’, but at eight p.m., apparently after ‘a doubtful discussion of six hours’, Somerset accepted his friends’ advice to retire. The decision was taken too late to prevent many freeholders from travelling to the city, and next morning it was ‘crowded from one end to the other. No colours were to be seen but those of orange and green (Guise’s) and purple and crimson (Moreton’s) ... in very many instances all blended together’. Guise was nominated by Charles Hanbury Tracy* of Toddington and Pyrke, while Reynolds Moreton was sponsored by Berkeley’s brother, Grantley, and Purnell. After a ‘unanimous’ show of hands they were declared elected and the chairing, due to have been held a week later, was hurriedly brought forward; it proved to be an ‘imposing spectacle’. Guise asserted that ‘the triumph of public opinion has been accomplished’, thanks to the support of ‘men (of both political parties) of high rank ... and enlightened education, and also ... [of] the honest thinking peasant’. According to the Cheltenham Journal, Somerset’s withdrawal had been influenced by a number of considerations, including

the non-arrival of sufficient returns ... especially of the Bristol return; the decisive ill-success of the Forest canvass, which has been denied; the unfavourable impression made upon Bristol by Mr. Hart Davis’s defeat, which, it was supposed, if events had not taken that turn, would have co-operated very powerfully with the Blue party. A respectable authority on that side has stated that their own forces were computed at 2,000, in opposition to 5,000, which left to the reform candidates the enormous majority of 3,000 ... Certain it is that the committees of the reform candidates could never find where lay the adversary’s strength. The towns, which are strongholds almost without an exception, went one way. Bristol had returned 880 freeholders; the Stroud district almost an equal number ... Success had been secured to the reformers by the timely, systematic and well-conducted operations commenced in anticipation of a dissolution, whilst their opponents, except producing a declaration, awaited that event before they took the field.

Beaufort was satisfied that his brother had ‘decided perfectly’, although it was ‘certainly a great mortification, after having had so much weight in the county for so many years’. The total expenditure by the reform committee in Gloucester was ‘about £3,000’.34

On 6 Aug. 1831, while the reintroduced reform bill was in committee, Bucknall Estcourt, who had estates in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, criticized the inadequate representation given to the western cloth-manufacturing districts. At the report stage, 13 Sept., ministers announced that one seat would be given to Stroud and Minchinhampton. Frederick Berkeley, irritated that a Whig deputation on this matter had earlier been rebuffed, observed to Hyett that Estcourt evidently thought ‘your radicals of Stroud are better fighting for their own particular representative than interfering in the county’: ‘no doubt he thinks that much is gained for his master, i.e. the Beaufort family ... that it secures them a county Member - and I believe him’.35 Later that month, when Boevey rejected a requisition for a county meeting to petition the Lords for the bill’s speedy passage, it was summoned for the 28th by a group of magistrates. The attendance was described by the Liberal press as ‘very numerous and highly respectable’, but a local Tory claimed that only 5-600 were present, many from Stroud. Pyrke, as senior magistrate, presided, and the meeting was addressed by Reynolds Moreton, who doubted that the Lords would reject the bill, cautioned against any acts of violence and recommended that time be given for constitutional remedies to work. Frederick Berkeley believed that the peerage consisted of the ‘highest minded men’ and Guise, who arrived late, spoke briefly to confirm that public opinion was still enthusiastically in favour of reform. The petition was agreed and sent to Lords Segrave (formerly Berkeley), Ducie and Sherborne for presentation, 4 Nov., along with many others from Gloucestershire towns, including one from Cheltenham ‘signed by more than four-sixths of the male inhabitants’.36 The violence manifested at Bristol after the bill’s rejection did not extend to the rest of the county. When the revised bill was introduced, 12 Dec. 1831, Stroud was given a second Member, much to the displeasure of the more populous Cheltenham, which unavailingly sent a memorial to ministers; the new constituency covered a group of parishes where cloth manufacturing was prevalent, including Horsley, Minchinhampton, Painswick, Rodborough and Stonehouse.37 A loyal address against the creation of peers was signed by ‘a large body of the nobility, gentry, clergy and freeholders’ and presented at a levee by Beaufort, 22 Feb. 1832. In a further sign that the forces of Toryism were being reassembled, True Blue Clubs were formed in Cheltenham and Gloucester (for the county) in April, under the auspices of the 1st earl of Ellenborough, who resided near Cheltenham.38 Early in May, the reformers countered with a Cheltenham Loyal and Patriotic Association, which promised to ‘become ... the most extensive club ever formed in this county’. During the ministerial crisis later that month public meetings at Cheltenham, Dursley, Nailsworth, Stroud and Wotton-under-Edge agreed addresses to the king for the reinstatement of Grey’s ministry; 3,787 Cheltenham inhabitants also petitioned the Commons to withhold supplies, 22 May.39 In June Beaufort scored a minor victory by securing a discreet amendment to the boundaries bill making Thornbury rather than the manufacturing town of Wotton-under-Edge the nomination place for West Gloucestershire, which as the duke observed was ‘naturally the division that any of my family would be most likely to represent’.40 The reform bill’s passage was marked by celebrations all over the county, some of which were held on 19 June 1832, the anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta.41

By the Reform Act Gloucestershire was divided into East and West and the county’s overall representation increased from 10 to 15 seats. Guise and Reynolds Moreton were returned for East Gloucestershire in 1832, where they remained until Guise’s death in 1834 and Reynolds Moreton’s retirement later that year, but from 1841 it was a Conservative stronghold. In West Gloucestershire, Grantley Berkeley and Reynolds Moreton’s brother, Augustus, were returned ahead of Somerset in 1832, but thereafter the representation was usually divided. The Beaufort interest had limited success in the post-reform era, with Somerset representing Cirencester, 1834-7, and successive marquesses of Worcester the Western division, 1835-6, and the Eastern, 1846-54. Berkeley, on the other hand, who had already been awarded a barony by Whig ministers in 1831, could boast that four members of his family held Gloucestershire seats in 1841, when he was promoted to become Earl Fitzhardinge.42

Author: Terry Jenkins


  • 1. Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1822-3), 46; (1830), 304; Robson’s Glos. Dir. (1839), 2-3; VCH Glos. ii. 127-286; A. Urdank, ‘Custom, conflict and traditional authority in the Gloucester weaver strike of 1825’, JBS, xxv. (1986), 193-226.
  • 2. Farington Diary, xi. 3870-1; Greville Mems. iii. 264-5; G.F. Berkeley, My Life and Recollections, i. 341-50, 370-1.
  • 3. Glos. RO, Kingscote mss D471/C7, Kingscote to Guise, 2 Dec. 1825; Hyett mss D6/F32/1.
  • 4. Gloucester Jnl. 14, 28 Feb. 1820.
  • 5. Bristol Mercury, 14 Feb.; The Times, 18 Feb.; Gloucester Jnl. 28 Feb. 1820; Ricardo Works ed. P. Sraffa, viii. 156, 162.
  • 6. Cheltenham Chron. 16 Mar.; Gloucester Jnl. 20 Mar. 1820.
  • 7. CJ, lxxv. 151, 216; lxxvi. 143, 179; lxxix. 38, 210; lxxx. 331; LJ, lvii. 624.
  • 8. CJ, lxxv. 226, 242, 251; lxxvi. 51, 90-91, 125; lxxvii. 16, 33, 59, 207, 213, 235, 240; lxxx. 350; LJ, liii. 83, 93; liv. 182; lv. 55, 125.
  • 9. Gloucester Jnl. 20, 27 Nov., 4 Dec. 1820.
  • 10. Ibid. 18, 25 Dec. 1820, 1, 8, 22, 29 Jan.; Bristol Mirror, 27 Jan. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 5.
  • 11. CJ, lxxvi. 172, 196, 224; lxxx. 309, 314-15, 369, 481; LJ, liv. 347; lvii. 469, 487, 536, 566, 575, 580, 626, 628, 797, 838.
  • 12. CJ, lxxviii. 308; lxxix. 161, 167, 430, 481, 526; LJ, lv. 671, 690; lvi. 57, 62, 94, 124, 416.
  • 13. Kingscote mss D471/C6, Berkeley to Kingscote, 23, 24 Feb., reply, 24 Feb. 1826, Ducie to Berkeley, n.d.; CJ, lxxxi. 49, 81, 139, 230, 263.
  • 14. CJ, lxxx. 111, 258.
  • 15. Gloucester Jnl. 5, 19 June 1826.
  • 16. CJ, lxxxii. 31, 206, 215, 216, 230, 575; LJ, lix. 33, 51, 86, 89, 90, 103, 105, 114, 313.
  • 17. CJ, lxxxiii. 282; lxxxv. 54; LJ, lx. 251; lxii. 33.
  • 18. CJ, lxxxii. 449, 461, 490, 505, 520, 521, 545, 567, 600; lxxxiii. 73, 75, 83, 87, 90, 95, 129; LJ, lx. 51, 54, 65, 67, 71, 73, 74, 75, 99, 176.
  • 19. CJ, lxxxii. 143, 259, 272; lxxxiii. 159, 181, 265, 282; lxxxiv. 72, 84, 89, 92, 94, 98, 103, 105-6, 115, 120, 133, 141-2, 148; LJ, lix. 101, 106, 134; lx. 109, 117, 134, 258, 508; lxi. 31, 66, 74, 91, 92, 96, 104, 118, 128, 186, 191, 202, 255, 269, 298, 300, 320, 354, 365, 381.
  • 20. CJ, lxxxv. 67, 182; LJ, lxii. 16, 131; Gloucester Jnl. 6 Mar. 1830.
  • 21. CJ, lxxxv. 183, 200, 214, 232, 395; LJ, lxii. 117, 135, 186, 216, 253; Gloucester Jnl. 3 Apr. 1830.
  • 22. CJ, lxxxv. 360, 463; LJ, lxii. 752, 758.
  • 23. Gloucester Jnl. 12, 19, 26 June 1830.
  • 24. Ibid. 10, 31 July, 7 Aug. 1830; Glos. RO, Beaufort mss D2700/QB4/1/4/6/4, 9; Badminton mss FmM 3/6/4-5.
  • 25. CJ, lxxxvi. 20, 52, 56, 61, 105, 126, 144, 157, 175, 202, 216, 361, 423, 428, 443-44, 455.
  • 26. Ibid. lxxxvi. 109, 170, 172.
  • 27. Gloucester Jnl. 27 Nov., 4, 11 Dec. 1830, 8, 15 Jan. 1831; E. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 100-1; Beaufort mss D2700/QB4/1/4/14.
  • 28. Gloucester Jnl. 24 Dec. 1830, 1, 8, 22 Jan. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 226, 256, 334, 389.
  • 29. Gloucester Jnl. 12, 19 Feb., 5, 12, 19 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 226, 309, 310, 405, 415, 423, 456.
  • 30. Glos. RO, Clifford mss D149/F52, Baker to Clifford [Mar.]; Gloucester Jnl. 12, 19 Mar., 16 Apr. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 428.
  • 31. Gloucester Jnl. 26 Mar., 2-30 Apr. 1831.
  • 32. Beaufort mss D2700/QB4/1/4/7/4, 6, 7; Hyett mss D6/F32/6; Gloucester Jnl. 9-30 Apr., 7 May; Bristol Mirror, 30 Apr. 1831; Three Diaries, 90-91.
  • 33. Beaufort mss D2700/QB4/1/4/7/8; Bristol Mirror, 30 Apr.; Cheltenham Jnl. 2 May; Gloucester Jnl. 7 May; The Times, 7 May 1831; Gloucester Pub. Lib. Glos. Coll. JF 5.26, election songs.
  • 34. Gloucester Jnl. 14 May; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 16 May; Cheltenham Jnl. 16 May 1831; Beaufort mss D2700/ QB4/1/4/7/9; Hyett mss D6/F31.
  • 35. J. Cannon, Parliamentary Reform, 223; Hyett mss, D6/F32/25.
  • 36. Gloucester Jnl. 24 Sept., 1, 8 Oct.; Cheltenham Jnl. 3, 10 Oct. 1831; Wellington mss WP1/1198/27; LJ, lxiii. 1045, 1047, 1051.
  • 37. Cannon, 228; Gloucester Jnl. 11 Feb., 10 Mar. 1832.
  • 38. Gloucester Jnl. 7 Jan., 25 Feb., 28 Apr., 5 May 1832; Three Diaries, 174, 234.
  • 39. Cheltenham Chron. 10, 17 May; Gloucester Jnl. 19, 26 May 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 328.
  • 40. Beaufort mss D2700/QB4/1/4/9/17; Gloucester Jnl. 9 June 1832.
  • 41. Gloucester Jnl. 16, 23, 30 June, 14 July 1832.
  • 42. N. Gash, Politics in Age of Peel, 211-13.